RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00434
		INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A be changed to show that he be considered for reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a later date and that he be considered for Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT) or Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training at a later date.

In a letter dated 2 Mar 04, applicant amended his DD Form 149 to request the following:

	  a. Change Section I of his AETC Form 126A to read “Failure to Adapt” vice “Flying Deficiencies.”

	  b. Change Section IV (sic) of his AETC Form 126A from “eliminate” to “reinstate”.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was eliminated from phase III of SUPT for flying deficiencies.  However, during his training he lost a sister and grandmother within a two-week period and his wife gave birth.  Due to traveling and time off, he fell behind in his training.  He should have asked to take time off from training, but chose to remain with his class.

All of the issues that affected him before are now under control.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 26 Sep 03, a copy of his Education/Training Report (TR) closing 26 Sep 02, AF Form 215, dated 15 Dec 03, letter, dated 2 Mar 04, and letters of support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of first lieutenant.  He entered active duty on 17 Mar 01 and started SUPT in Oct 01.  The applicant was eliminated from SUPT in Sept 02 for flying deficiencies.  He was not recommended for reinstatement to SUPT or for consideration for Undergraduate Navigation Training or Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training.  He was recommended for continued service in a nonrated position.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  They do not find substantiation of an error or injustice in the evidence submitted by the applicant regarding his elimination from SUPT.  From the counseling documentation in the training record, it is evident that the applicant’s instructors and supervisors were aware of his family situation.  After his last check ride failure and second entry into the Commander’s Review process, the applicant submitted two show cause letters to the Operations Group Commander and Wing Commander in which he could have identified any factors affecting training.  In his two letters, dated 13 and 26 Sep 04, respectively, the applicant did not mention family circumstances as a mitigating circumstance.  

In regards to the applicant’s request to change the reason for his elimination from flying deficiency to failure to adapt, clearly the difficulties he experienced, substandard performance in flying and procedures and lack of potential to complete the course within syllabus constraints, would be categorized as flying deficiency.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant indicates that the Air Force evaluation does not accurately characterize his overall performance in Phase II of SUPT.  He provides a further overview of his Phase II training.  He also provides additional information regarding his Phase III training.  Applicant states that the personal circumstances that affected his training were not well documented.  He provides an explanation of why he did not make known the problems he was experiencing during the counseling sessions he underwent.  He provides a timeline of specific events he experienced.  The applicant also provides details on specific events that impacted his performance in the areas of situational awareness, task management, basic aircraft control, and procedural knowledge.

The applicant indicates that the issues that challenged him in SUPT have been resolved.  He believes that the Air Force will benefit by sending him back to SUPT.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 error or 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant’s personal problems may have impacted his training, he has presented insufficient evidence that his training was not conducted within established guidelines.  Additionally, it appears that the applicant failed to fully make known that he had personal problems that were affecting his training.  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 Docket Number BC-2004-00434 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 12 Apr 04,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 May 04,
                w/atchs.

                                   Panel Chair