RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00696
		INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) be voided and he be reinstated to training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive adequate training to help him complete Joint SUPT.

He was not placed in the Commander’s Awareness Program (CAP) to receive extra help in the procedures area of his training as others in the same situation were.

He was required to perform two emergency procedures for which he had not received the initial instruction.

A classmate that received the same training as he and who had greater problems has been reinstated to pilot training.  He has discovered that his classmate was given an automatic review based solely on ethnicity that he was not given.  When he spoke with his Numbered Air Force Headquarters about reinstatement, he was directly asked about his ethnicity.

An Inspector General inquiry into his case confirmed the existence of the policy which created the inequity in treatment between he and some of his classmates.  The policy was revised a year after his elimination.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides training documentation, an affidavit from another student to confirm the inequitable review policy, and a copy of the IG response to his formal complaint.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered SUPT with class 02-14 in Aug 01.  The applicant encountered problems in various phases of his training and was subsequently placed into the Commander’s Review process.  After final review and approval of the Wing Commander, he was eliminated for flying deficiency on 14 Mar 02.  On 22 Jul 03, applicant filed a complaint through the AFPC hotline alleging discrimination, based on the routine review of female/minority eliminations conducted at 19th Air Force and HQ AETC.  Applicant alleged these reviews were not performed for non-minority male students.  The IG investigation confirmed that the practice had existed and was found to be questionable and had been discontinued in Apr 03.

Since student elimination files are destroyed after one year, the IG had to rely on archived computer records, which only provided approximately 80 percent of the applicant’s records.  From this review, the IG concluded that the applicant’s elimination from SUPT was for cause and in accordance with command guidance.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.  They provide individual responses to each of the allegations made by the applicant.  However, they state that they are limited in their ability to fully respond to each allegation since they had to rely on computer-archived records, which do not provide a full picture of the applicant’s performance and training situation. The applicant’s allegations and a synopsis of their findings follows:

	  a. Applicant’s break in training before instrument simulator rides exceeded maximum allowable.  Applicant did have a break in his simulator training continuity during the Christmas-New Year holiday period.  However, they do not agree with applicant’s assertion and based on the amount of training the applicant received conclude that training supervisors were judicious in their use of training resources in accordance with syllabus guidance.  Training continuity leading to the applicant’s instrument check was excellent.

	  b. Aircraft break in training before the check ride was maximum allowable without additional non-syllabus ride.  As indicated in a. above, they conclude that the facts do not support the applicant’s point of view. 

	  c. Applicant was not given emergency procedure training for IMC radio failure or complete electrical failure procedures within three months of check ride.  First exposure to electrical failure in IMC was on the check ride, which he failed.  They find this allegation to be without merit.  The applicant’s instrument check ride was administered on 14 Feb 02.  IMC radio failure topic was documented on 23 Oct 01 and again on the check ride.  Complete electrical failure topic was covered on 12 Oct 01 and again on 16 Oct 01.  Electrical failure in IMC is not a listed topic on the Form 37A, which is the form that provides the list of Emergency Procedure topics.

	  d. Applicant was not afforded XX87 rides (review or break in training sorties) given to other trainees.  Their review of applicant’s training determined that applicant’s training continuity met syllabus and command standards.

	  e. Applicant was not reinstated to training because of ethnicity.  Before the applicant entered training, AETC had established a headquarters-level review of all female and minority eliminations with the intent to provide detailed information on female/minority performance in flying training.  The additional higher headquarters review of female/minority eliminations did not lead to an automatic reinstatement as the applicant insinuates.  There were a limited number of reinstatements for cause as a result of the additional review.  However, given a perception of unfairness, the staff discontinued the process in Apr 03.  HQ AETC staff continues to monitor female/minority performance trends and publishes a quarterly summary along with other attrition data.

	  f. Applicant was not placed on Commander’s Awareness Program (CAP) despite requesting this action to his instructor.  The objective of CAP is to focus supervisory attention on a student’s progress in training, specific deficiencies, and potential to complete training.  CAP is intended as a short-term program with training tailored to address the student’s particular situation within the limits of the syllabus.  Placement in and removal from CAP is the responsibility of the student’s flight commander and normally initiated when substandard performance requires close monitoring of an individual’s progress.  In hindsight, placement of the applicant on procedural CAP may have been a reasonable course of action.  However, based on the available records, the applicant appeared to do fine on Emergency Procedures and general knowledge when graded on daily training sorties, but faltered in check ride situations.  It does not appear that placement in CAP would have prevented the applicant’s failure on the check ride.

	  g. Applicant was not scheduled to fly with the flight commander or Assistant while other students were able to benefit from the experience of the flight commander.  They cannot determine from the records which instructors the applicant flew with.

As stated, not having the applicant’s full training record hampers their ability to provide the best possible responses in this case.  The applicant believes his training was inadequate.  While they have determined that the applicant’s training was not perfect, it was well within command standards.  The applicant was administered adequate training and sufficient opportunity to succeed.

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 16 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting the applicant’s direct reinstatement to SUPT.  Although the applicant’s complete flying training records were not available, the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence that his training was not conducted in accordance with established standards.  We also note HQ AETC/DOF’s comment that the IG concluded after investigation of a complaint filed by the applicant that he was eliminated from SUPT “for cause and in accordance with command guidance.”

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, we further note that the IG concluded that the practice of routine review of female and minority eliminations was questionable and led to the practice being discontinued.  Additionally, HQ AETC/DOF points out that, in hindsight, it appears placing the applicant on procedural Commander’s Awareness Program may have been a reasonable course of action.  Given these two considerations in particular, we believe that in the interest of equity and justice, it would be appropriate to provide the applicant the opportunity to be considered for reinstatement into SUPT.  However, if the applicant applies his application will be considered on its own merit and our recommendation in no way guarantees his acceptance for reinstatement.  If the applicant is accepted for reinstatement, we also recommend he be granted, if required, an age waiver and Total Active Federal Commissioned Service (TAFCS) waiver.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	  a.  The AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III, Reviewing Authority Recommendations, dated  4 Mar 02, be amended to indicate that the applicant should be considered for reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a later date.

	  b. If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and it is required, he be granted an age waiver.

	  c. If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and it is required, he be granted a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service (TAFCS) waiver.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-00696 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 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.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2004-00696

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

		  a.  The AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III, Reviewing Authority Recommendations, dated 4 Mar 02, be amended to indicate that the applicant should be considered for reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a later date.

		  b. If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and it is required, he be granted an age waiver.

		  c. If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and it is required, he be granted a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service (TAFCS) waiver.