ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02568
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, 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).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 December 2002, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that the recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, 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) - Exhibit F.

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

On 11 July 2001, applicant began the Introductory Flight Training (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 ---th 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.

In April 2003 the applicant graduated from Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT).

On 8 July 2003, the Board staff received the applicant’s request for reconsideration.  The applicant is contending the fact that the dominant issue behind his failure at SUPT was his poor proficiency caused by unique events that caused numerous and uncontrollable breaks in training.  Unlike many of his peers, IFT was not his full time job at the ---th FTS.  After the September 11th attacks he was assigned several duties and projects that cut into his IFT training.  Combined with inclement weather, these duties account for the breaks in training, which extended his time in IFT to 208 days before his first check ride attempt (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of the appeal, the majority of the Board remains unpersuaded that the applicant’s recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, 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).  The Board notes the letters of support and the applicant’s accomplishments following his elimination from IFT.  Specifically, the applicant is to be commended on his Distinguished Graduate status upon graduation from Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training.  However, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that he should be given another opportunity to compete for pilot training.  As the Board previously determined, the applicant was given ample opportunity to complete IFT.  The majority recognizes that the applicant had various interruptions during his training, but it would appear that he was given waivers for additional training, and yet was unable to successfully complete the training.  While the majority can understand the applicant’s disappointment in not completing this training, he has not established that he was treated unfairly or inequitably with regard to his training.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 10 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  voted to grant the applicant’s request and did submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2002-02568 was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 19 December 2002,
				  w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 June 2003, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Minority Report.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2002-02568

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of    

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

							

MEMORANDUM FOR	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM:	AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002
SUBJECT:	
In Executive Session on 10 September 2003, we considered the applicant’s request for reconsideration to allow him the opportunity to compete for Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT).  A majority of the Board recommended denial of the requests.  I disagree with their recommendation.
The applicant was twice eliminated from the Introductory Flight Training (IFT) for his failure in the flight evaluation attempts.  His commander recommended disenrollment from IFT, that the applicant not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date, and that he be considered for undergraduate navigator training or undergraduate air battle manager training.
However, I believe that the new evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient evidence to warrant favorable action in his appeal.  In particular, I note the letter submitted by the applicant’s former commander who initially eliminated him from IFT indicating that the applicant’s training was interrupted with breaks in training that significantly affected his IFT completion.  These breaks in training were a result of things out of his control and included changes of civilian flying training instructors, greater than normal bad weather periods, and events and subsequent duties required of him following the September 11th attacks.  The commander states that on the basis of the breaks in the applicant’s training, his demonstrated ability to excel in the USAF flying programs, the completion of a FAA private pilot’s license, and his overall officer qualities, the applicant should be given the opportunity to complete for JSUPT in the future.  In view of the above, I agree with the applicant’s former commander and believe that the recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, Section III, Block 3, should 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).