RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02282

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered by the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) Selection Board, and if selected, he be granted a waiver of his commissioned service date (i.e., beyond five years) to allow his entry into pilot training.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1998, due to personal and religious problems, he declined Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT); however, based on the events of 11 September 2001, the needs of the Air Force, and given his qualifications, he feels he can better serve his country in a rated position.

The applicant states that while attending the United States Air Force Academy he completed T-3 training, met the board, and was accepted to attend Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  However, in January 1998, his wife, a Serbian citizen of Yugoslavia, was having difficulty getting her residency to the United States and he did not think he could do his best in pilot training and declined UPT.  Prior to 11 September 2001, he had also requested separation; however, after that date, he withdrew his request and remained in the Air Force.  In addition, he is only two months outside the five-year window for commissioned service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.

On 28 May 1997, the applicant graduated from the USAFA, received a Regular Air Force commission, and entered active duty.

In a letter to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), dated 28 January 1998, the applicant indicated his desire to give up his slot for SUPT and acknowledged that he understood the consequences of the action would prevent him from ever entering a rated career field in the Air Force because of his acceptance of the assignment in August of 1997.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that regardless of the world events that led to the applicant’s change of mind, AFI 36-2205 specifically states that officers who decline UPT after being selected are ineligible to apply again.  There exists no error or injustice in his records.  He was properly briefed and understood the consequences of submitting his statement of declination of his selection to pilot training.  Furthermore, if his request is approved, he will require a waiver for commissioned service greater than five years.

The AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 August 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-02282 in Executive Session on 5 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.