RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02568
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE 

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, Section III, Block 3, be changed from “should not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “should be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to allow him to be considered for future Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He experienced extraordinary circumstances that contributed to his failure in Introductory Flight Training (IFT).  The result was his disenrollment from SUPT and subsequently made future reinstatement into SUPT under AETC guidelines, impossible.  Since then, he has obtained his private pilot certificate and now is seeking a decision that will allow him to reapply to SUPT.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, a letter from HQ AFROTC/DO, dated 1 May 2001, a Company Grade Officer Performance Report (CGOPR) for the period 15 June 2002 through  15 June 2002, AETC Form 6 (Waiver Requests), dated 21 February 2002 & 4 April 2002, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of second lieutenant.

On 11 July 2001, applicant began the IFT program at a civilian flight training facility.  He did not make his first attempt to pass the FAA flight evaluation until 3 February 2002.

On 3 February 2002, the applicant failed his first attempt on the flight evaluation.

On 7 February 2002, a waiver for an additional 8.0 hours of training was generated.  On 14 February 2002, the waiver was reviewed by AFROTC/DO and based on the large number of additional hours requested, AETC/DOF disapproved the waiver on 20 February 2002.

On 21 February 2002, a second waiver was submitted for 3.5 hours and approved by AETC/DOF.

On 15 March 2002, the applicant completed the additional training, but failed his second attempt on the Private Pilot check ride on.  At this point the applicant had completed 53.5 flying hours (enrolled in IFT for approximately 240 days).

On 19 March 2002, another waiver was submitted requesting an additional 1.5 hours to complete training.  19AF/DO recommended disapproval on 22 March.  AETC/DOF also disapproved the request on 26 March 2002.

The 559th Flying Training Squadron Commander, personally appealed to AETC/DOF the following week.  On 4 April, AETC/DOF approved an additional 3.0 hours flying time.

The civilian flight school would not approve the applicant to make a third attempt within the allotted hours (total time 56.5 hours).

On 3 May 2002, his commander recommended he be eliminated from IFT using AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action.  Final authority for approving this action (19AF/DO) concurred and signed the AETC Form 126A on 16 May 2002.

Applicant is currently enrolled in Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant was assigned to the 559th Flying Training Squadron at Randolph AFB, TX in June 2001 as a student awaiting pilot training (APT).

Guidance for APT officers is included in the Application for Correction to Military Records.  APT officers should be enrolled in IFT as soon as practical after being assigned to units, and complete IFT within 90 days of enrollment and within a 50 flying hour maximum. 

During this training, students complete the FAA requirements for a Private Pilot Certificate (PPC) to include a check ride by an FAA flight examiner.

Any deviation from these guidelines requires a waiver for approval by this office (HQ AETC Aircrew Training & Standardization).  These waivers are submitted by the assigned unit commander, and coordinated through AFROTC/DO (Maxwell AFB, AL), then 19AF/DO before final review by AETC/DOF.

The applicant failed the flight evaluation on two successive attempts.  Waivers for additional training were granted totaling 56.5 flying hours.  After this added training, the applicant could not be recommended for a third evaluation attempt within allotted flying time. 

Applicant was enrolled in a 90-day program from 11 July 2001 until 3 May 2002, over 280 days.  It is their opinion, the applicant was given an equal opportunity to complete IFT, but failed with 6.5 additional flying hours.  His subsequent attainment of a PPC is to his credit.  However, the intent of the IFT program is to introduce students to flying in simple, single-engine aircraft, screen those students who cannot adapt to the flying environment, and serves as a foundation for military flight training in more complex, high performance aircraft.  Resource allocation and syllabus constraints are set to ensure students can learn at a reasonable rate in preparation for the rigors demanded in SUPT.

Since IFT began in October 1998, over 4100 students have completed with over 500 students currently enrolled in training.  In this 47-month period, there have been 21 students eliminated for flying training deficiencies (less than 0.05% attrition).  Failure in IFT is indicative of little, or no potential to complete SUPT.  

Applicant’s eligibility status for further pilot training should not be changed.  Applicant should not be allowed to re-compete for a pilot training slot.  However, if the decision is to change the applicant’s eligibility status, the applicant’s AETC Form 126A, Review of Commander’s Review Action, should be changed to show applicant “may be considered for reinstatement at a later date.”  As the applicant is currently enrolled in navigator training, he must complete SUNT and awarded the aeronautical rating of navigator before reapplying for a pilot training slot (AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying, Air Battle Manager, and Astronaut Training Programs).

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, with attachments, which is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant failed the flight evaluation after two attempts.  He was granted a waiver for additional training totaling 56.5 flying hours.  After the additional training he could not be recommended for a third evaluation attempt within the allotted flying time.  The Board is of the opinion that the applicant was given a sufficient opportunity to complete IFT, and did not.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02568 in Executive Session on 21 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 7 October 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 October 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 October 2002, w/atchs.