RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01900
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be changed to read “should be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date.,” in Section III, Reviewing Authority Recommendations, rather than “should not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date.” 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his accomplishments since his elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) demonstrate that he has a high probability of successfully completing SUPT if he is reinstated to that course of training.

Since his elimination from SUPT, he has graduated from Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training (JSUNT), and he has become the holder of an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate and accumulated over 2350 hours of flying time.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the AF Form 126A.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve as a navigator in the grade of captain, having been promoted to that grade on 29 Sep 00.  He is credited with 7 years of satisfactory federal service for retirement.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant entered SUPT at Vance Air Force Base (AFB) in Jan 96 with Class 97-04/E.  He was eliminated for flying deficiency from primary (T-37) phase of training in May 96.  This was a result of repeated Final Contact Check failures.  The applicant subsequently entered JSUNT, graduating in October 97. HQ AETC/DOF indicated that although similar in some areas, pilot and navigator training programs are very different in skills acquired/required to be successful.

According to HQ AETC/DOF, to reinstate the applicant would not be fair to those students who were able to master the required skills during their initial exposure.  There has been no alleged error or injustice committed during his training, and the responsibility for failure lies with the applicant.  Repeated attempts to retrain individuals eliminated for cause represents wasteful use of taxpayer’s dollars and Air Force resources.  The applicant’s subsequent success as a navigator and civil pilot is to his credit, but should not be rewarded with a reinstatement into pilot training.

A complete copy of the HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that he would agree that JSUNT and JSUPT have significant differences.  He would agree that military flight training and civilian flight training have significant differences.  It is his contention, however, that while alone his achievements in neither JSUNT nor civilian flight training justify the granting of his request, the combination of the two provide a complimentary synergism which should.  He knows from experience the rigorousness of JSUPT.  He knows that it is not so rigorous that he would not be up to the task either mentally or physically.  He understands and accepts that attrition is expected. He feels, however, that in the JSUPT/AETC environment a lack of attrition is subconsciously deemed unacceptable.  He acknowledges that he had some failings in his first enrollment in JSUPT but to this day it is his belief that they did not justify his attrition from the program at that point in time.  The money that was spent on his training during his first enrollment is lost as it stands now.  If he were to be reinstated to JSUPT it would not cost the American taxpayer a cent more than an applicant going though for his or her first time.  He would suggest that if he is reinstated and is successful in completing the program, the cost of the first attempt could be viewed as at least partially recouped.  He offers assurance that he would not fail if given the chance, and he would expect to be enrolled in nothing less than the entire yearlong course.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the information used as a basis for his elimination from SUPT was erroneous, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01900 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 8 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair