RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02902
		INDEX CODE:  100.07

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendations, be changed from “Not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “Be considered in this course at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the Commander’s Review discussion with his commander, he was told that he would be considered for reinstatement at a later date.  

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of the contested AETC Form 126A and a statement from the acting Operations Group (OG) commander who was the reviewing authority for his Commander’s Review.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of first lieutenant (1st Lt/0-2), with the duty title of ICBM Combat Crew Deputy Commander.

AETC Form 126A, dated 12 Oct 01, reflects that the applicant was eliminated from training for flying deficiencies.  The reviewing authority found that the applicant’s deficiency was sufficient for elimination.  He recommended that applicant be disenrolled from training; not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date; and he be considered for undergraduate navigator training.  The approving authority marked “Eliminate” and noted that the applicant showed the qualities of a competent, professional officer and showed good potential as a valuable officer in the United States Air Force.  He highly recommended that the applicant be retrained into the Space Operations career field.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends denial.  They state in part, that the applicant had entered Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) in May 2001 and failed 13 (thirteen) simulator and aircraft training sorties.  Applicant was subsequently scheduled for an Elimination Check Ride that he also failed.  Failure of this evaluation placed the applicant under the Commander’s Review process.  As a result, he was eliminated from SUPT in October 2001.

DOF states that the reviewing authority makes recommendations to the Wing Commander on student disposition.  Wing Commanders are the final elimination Approval Authority for undergraduate flying training eliminations.  Subsequent uncertainty or misgivings do not carry any weight without the Wing Commander’s endorsement.

In their initial review of the applicant’s request, DOF contacted the applicant’s OG in September 2002 for clarification of this issue and was told that the OG had changed his mind again and provided DOF an email (attached), indicating that the applicant should not be reconsidered for reinstatement to SUPT.  

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 December 2002 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, there has been no response received by this office.  (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.  We took notice of the evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and felt that the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity concerning the initial recommendation of his Operations Group Commander (Reviewing Authority) that he “not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date.”  Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 BC-2002-02902 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 3 Sep 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dtd 6 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 20 Dec 02.