RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02104
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Reinstitution of a previously issued UFT slot, or exception to policy to allow her to re-compete for a pilot training slot.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Enhanced Flight Screening Program (EFSP) is no longer a requirement for training.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 31 Dec 96.  She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 22 Dec 00.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF stated that the applicant was eliminated from the Enhanced Flight Screening Program (EFSP) in Apr 97.  The applicant’s detailed flying training records from 97 are no longer available as they were destroyed after one year.  In accordance with AFI 36-2205, individuals who were eliminated from either EFSP, Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP), Flight Instruction Program (FIP) and the current Introductory Flying Training (IFT) are ineligible to reapply for pilot training unless specifically recommended for further training by the eliminating (or approving) authority.  DOF indicated that the applicant was not recommended for further training and is therefore not eligible to reapply or compete for another pilot training slot.  EFSP was replaced by the IFT program.  IFT is conducted at civil airfields by civilian flight instructors and consists of ground school and 50 flying hours.  IFT has replaced EFSP as a prerequisite for entry into undergraduate pilot training.  DOF stated that to reinstate the applicant would not be fair to those students who were able to master required skills during their initial exposure.  The applicant has had ample opportunity to pursue civilian flight ratings, but for unknown reasons, has not done so.  Based on DOF’s examination, there is no evidence of error or injustice and they recommend the applicant not be offered, or allowed to compete for a pilot training slot.  However, if the decision is to grant reinstatement of a slot, the applicant should be required to complete IFT as a prerequisite for pilot training eligibility.  The HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPAO recommends the application be denied.  DPAO stated there is no evidence to support the first counseling error the applicant mentioned.  Nonrated officers are required to payback any incurred active duty service commitment (ADSC) before beginning UFT.  The applicant completed her Intel training in Jul 98.  If she had not been eliminated from EFSP, she would have been eligible to apply for UFT on the Apr 2000 board.  DPAO indicated that the second counseling error mentioned is a mystery.  Elimination from EFSP was, and still is, grounds for prohibiting officers from reapplying to UFT.  Once an individual has been eliminated from a flying training course, he or she is ineligible to apply for UFT.  The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 13 September 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 9 Aug 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 6 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.

                                   Panel Chair