RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00938
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Education & Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Section III, Recommendation, be changed to read “The student should be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After beginning Specialized Unit Pilot Training (SUPT) he allowed outside stresses to affect his performance to the extent that, when combined with the stress of SUPT, he lost his motivation and questioned the path he was following.  He takes responsibility for his action and states that his application should not be misconstrued as making excuses.  He requests a second chance at SUPT to enable him to serve his country as an officer and pilot.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a narrative, a letter of support from his previous commander, and copies of flight training records. 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered SUPT at Vance Air Force Base, OK, as an Air National Guard (ANG) student assigned to the 181st Fighter Wing, Indiana ANG (IN ANG).  He began SUPT on 1 May 2001 and submitted request for drop on request (DOR), otherwise known as a self-initiated elimination and consequently entered the Commander’s Review process and was duly eliminated from SUPT on 29 June 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They note that the AETC Form 126A indicates the applicant should not be considered for reinstatement in the course (SUPT) at a later date.  DOF notes the applicant’s many problems with T-37 primary training to include being sick for the first four of his five sorties, failing two emergency procedures ‘stand-ups’ (spontaneous oral testing), and an over all Unsatisfactory grade on his seventh training flight.  DOF notes that AETC Instruction 36-2205 is clear on it’s guidance concerning the Commander’s Review process and drop-on-request self-eliminations.  Not only may the student not reapply for SUPT at a later date, he also is no longer eligible to apply for any other type of flying training.  DOF concludes that students cannot be allowed to enter or terminate training at a whim - both from the perspective of training costs passed on to taxpayers and the safety of both students and instructors in the flight environment.

DOF states that there is no evidence of error or injustice that substantiates a reinstatement of eligibility for any further flight training for the applicant.  DOF maintains that the applicant’s AETC Form 126A stand as written.

DOF’s 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 16 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  The evidence of record supports the comments of AETC/DOF, Aircrew Training and Standardization Division.  While we sympathize with the applicant’s situation, as revealed by his personal statement, and do not question his motive for requesting a self elimination, we can find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2003-00938 in Executive Session on 5 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 5 May 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair