RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01400
					    (CASE #2)

		INDEX CODE: 102.07, 115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be granted an immediate age waiver to apply for a USAF commission and Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) through Officer Training School (OTS) as a UPT candidate.  He requests relief via one of the following options (in order of preference):

	  a.	An age waiver and direct him, at the earliest opportunity, to OTS as an aviation officer candidate and, following successful completion of OTS and subsequent commissioning, to UPT.

	  b.	An age waiver and the opportunity to apply twice for an OTS aviation officer candidate slot.

	  c.	Direct him to OTS (with his current career classification as an air traffic control officer candidate) and provide him with an age waiver, after successful completion of OTS and subsequent commissioning, and the opportunity to apply twice for the first two active duty officer UPT selection board opportunities.

2.  His Date of Rank (DOR) to second lieutenant be adjusted to May 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The problem with the AFBCMR’s original remedy was that, rather than directing him to OTS as an aviation candidate (the avenue he had twice originally pursued), they directed him to OTS in some unnamed career category with an arbitrary 90-day suspense after commissioning in which to meet a UPT selection board.  In essence, the AFBCMR directed him (or the United States Air Force (USAF)) to randomly choose a career field for which he had neither competed nor had any desire to pursue.  In order to accommodate the AFBCMR’s remedy, Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) had to categorize his career path; they have since classified him as an air traffic control officer candidate.  The AFBCMR took pains to highlight that their decision was not to be construed as endorsement of his fitness for pilot training; they did not want to be seen to be bypassing a selection board.  The irony is that in directing him to OTS as they did (which lead to his random classification as an air traffic control officer candidate) the AFBCMR essentially bypassed another selection board.  If the Board can arbitrarily choose a career path for him, he would request they put him on his desired career path (and the career path for which they found he had been denied fair opportunity to apply) without arbitrary obstacles.  This career classification action has been taken to satisfy the AFBCMR’s stipulation that he hold a commission prior to applying for UPT.  He has no problem whatsoever accepting air traffic control as his second career option, but his primary goal remains the same one he has been pursuing since he enlisted in the USAF which is to become a USAF pilot.  To further exacerbate the situation, the Board also established a 90-day window following his completion of OTS within which he must make any single application for UPT.  He feels he is being burdened with an arbitrary deadline:  pilot selection boards for active duty officers only occur once a year.  The Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) selection board, for example, will meet on 3 April 2003, therefore he will have to wait until CY04 for an OTS class that is properly aligned to meet the 90-day criterion, further extending his accession process.  Another reason why he desires to pursue UPT via the OTS aviation candidate route rather than as a commissioned officer is that OTS aviation applicants can meet selection boards throughout the year.  Furthermore, though the Board found that he had been unfairly denied the opportunity to apply for two boards they are only offering one remedial opportunity.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, 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 staff sergeant.

On 9 July 2002, the applicant’s request that he be provided an opportunity to obtain a commission in the United States Air Force (USAF), that he be granted an age waiver to attend pilot training, and that his date of rank be adjusted to April 1998 and that he receive back pay for lost wages and flight pay was considered and partially granted by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  The Board recommended that, provided the applicant is otherwise qualified, he be entered into OTS at the earliest possible date and if he completes OTS and is commissioned, he be allowed to apply, within 90 days from the date of his commissioning, for pilot training and if selected he be granted an age waiver.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appeal, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRS/RSOCL indicated that in the best interest of the Air Force they recommend the original AFBCMR disposition be continued to maintain AFRS precedence.  AFRS currently does not consider waivers for rated age requirements for the simple fact that the supply of qualified applicants exceeds their yearly requirement of only 121 pilots with approximately 500-600 applications per year.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that personnel at AFRS/RSOCL indicated that he is to be classified as 13M1, Air Traffic Controller upon graduation and will have 90 days to apply for a rated position.  They further indicated that the supply of qualified applicants is substantially higher than the yearly requirement of 121 pilot positions; therefore, they do not have to consider applications with waivers.  In essence, this means to him [the applicant] that even though the age waiver will be formalized upon graduation from BOT, the application package for a rated position will not make its way to the rated selection board for the simple fact that it will include an age waiver.  Also, according to the statement, AFRS receives approximately 500 to 600 applications a year that do not require any type of waivers thus they do not see the need to make an exception to the rule.  He finds this misleading.  It seems like AFRS is complying with the disposition of the case knowing that at the end of his future he will be managing the Control Tower rather than as an airplane pilot.

He has a great love for flying and since becoming a military aviator that feeling has grown stronger.  Over ten years of combined civilian commercial and military flying experience has given him the opportunity to improve and sharpen his aeronautical skills.  He would like to continue serving the Air Force and his country in the same honorable fashion he has for the past eight years; and if given the option, he would like to attend Pilot Training after graduating from BOT.  He has made good-faith efforts to meet all Air Force requirements for selection to OTS as an aviation candidate, but the very people who were trained to help him achieve his career goals have hindered such efforts at every step.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s requests, the documentation in support of his appeal, and our original decision, we are not persuaded to grant any further relief to the applicant.  Essentially, the applicant is asking the Board to guarantee him an automatic slot into undergraduate pilot training (UPT) by designating him as an aviation officer candidate in Officer Training School (OTS), giving him a date of rank as though he completed OTS in 1998, or in the alternative, two opportunities to apply for a UPT slot after completing OTS.  As we previously concluded, the applicant may have been provided inaccurate information when he applied for OTS.  As a result, the Board provided the applicant an opportunity to complete officer training and upon commissioning from OTS, be given an age waiver and the opportunity to apply for UPT.  We believe the applicant should recognize that no system is perfect and he should count himself fortunate to be given this opportunity to gain his commission and possible UPT slot.  It is true courts have held that correction boards have an abiding and moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.  However, in the Board’s opinion, the applicant has still not established to our satisfaction that his original nonselections for OTS were in error or unjust.  Further, it was never the intention of the Board to obligate the Air Force to place the applicant into pilot training; rather, the Board believed he should be given an opportunity to compete for UPT on the basis of his qualifications.  This determination was based solely on the possibility that the applicant was provided inaccurate information regarding his UPT applications.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend any further relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01400 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 April 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  ROP, Docket Number BC-2001-03695, 
               dated 9 July 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRS/RSOCL, dated 15 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 June 2003, w/atchs.

				
				Panel Chair