RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01010
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be changed to allow his reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) or to allow him to compete for Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT) or Air Battle Management Training (ABMT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In November 2001 he was eliminated from pilot training with only four days and three sorties remaining until graduation for using an advance copy of a T-38 standardization quiz.  While he cannot erase the damage caused, he does believe his sense of integrity has grown and matured.  The Air Force has invested a significant amount of money and resources to train him to this point and it would be a waste to neglect that training in the face of a mistake that has taught him so much about the officer he needs to be.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Due to the time lapse since the applicant’s elimination from pilot training, his training and elimination record have been destroyed.  To reconstruct details AETC/DOF retrieved available computer archived records.

The applicant is serving on extended active duty in the grade of first lieutenant effective and with a date of rank of 31 May 2002.

The applicant entered SUPT in February 2001 with class 02-06 at Vance AFB, OK.

On 4 June 2002, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:  

		He did at or near Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma, from on or between 28 September 2001 to 5 April 2002, on divers occasions, while preparing for weekly standardization evaluation exams, wrongfully and dishonorably receive unauthorized aid by improperly obtaining an advance copy of the examination for use in preparation for the test to gain an unfair advantage of his classmates.

		He did at or near Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma, from on or between 28 September 2001 to 5 April 2002, on divers occasions, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit:  Air Force Instruction 33-129, Communications and Information, dated 4 April 2001, paragraph 6.1 by wrongfully using a government computer to access and view another user’s password protected files containing the standardization evaluation phase tests without authorization or permission.

On 7 June 2002, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 18 June 2002, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: A forfeiture of $1,048.00 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.  

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF), Officer Selection Record, and Officer Command Selection Record.

The AETC Form 126 A, dated 1 July 2002 indicates the applicant of class 02-08 was recommended for elimination from training because of lack of adaptability.  The reviewing authority believed the applicant’s deficiency was sufficient for elimination and recommended he be disenrolled from training, he not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date, and not be considered for undergraduate navigator training or battle management training.  The wing commander approved the elimination on 15 July 2002.  The wing commander also directed the applicant remain under his personal supervision.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommended denial.  They indicated the AF Form 3070, provided shows the applicant on “diverse occasions between 28 September 2001 and 5 April 2002 gained unauthorized access to testing computer files.”  This six-month period covers the entire T-38 phase.  It was a repeated effort at unauthorized access to sensitive computer material, and the applicant also gained undue advantage over his classmates.  The applicant chose to use every advantage he could find, ethical or not, to enhance his performance standing.  An officer enjoys a position of trust, assumes a continuing responsibility for leadership, and exemplary conduct at all times.  The applicant did not meet his basic obligations while performing in a benign training environment.  Can he be trusted to perform as an aircrew member in an operational setting, where others must trust their lives on his skills and judgment?  We cannot view this “habit” as “one mistake,” which the applicant asserts.  Every student who has been eliminated for any variety of reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend pilot training.  They cannot ‘recycle’ those eliminated for cause simply because individuals feel they are deserving of the second chance--it is unfair to those who succeeded by their own hard work and perseverance.  The applicant’s success in other endeavors is commendable, but a return to training is not a just reward.  There is no evidence of error or injustice substantiating reinstatement.  

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO concurred with the recommendation of AETC/DOF.  They do not see evidence of an error, injustice, or unusual circumstances that support an exception to policy in this case.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates a copy of the test that was obtained was used during a group study session with the majority of his T-38 classmates present.  As was offered by their testimony, although some did not know where the information came from they did acknowledge they had received it.  If his intentions were to advance his placement relative to his class, it would have been to his benefit to keep this information to himself, and he did not.  The test was part of the weekly standardization process.  The overall value of these tests combined throughout the program was only five percent of the total score.  The difference when figured into the mass calculation would have very little impact on his overall standing in the class and makes cheating on them to gain an advantage pointless.  Gaining an unfair advantage was not involved in his thought process at any point, nor would it have benefited him.  The final aspect he needs to address is the question of an aircrew’s ability to trust him with their lives based on his skills and judgment.  The squadron commander’s recommendation was to retain and offer further technical training.  His comments were “the applicant displayed the qualities of a competent Air Force Officer.  His motivation and attitude are commendable.”  As his commander, he (squadron commander) was in a position to make this recommendation based on his overall opinion of him (applicant) in spite of his (applicant) actions.  The commander’s statement would lead him (applicant) to believe the commander felt he would be able to succeed if given the chance to learn from his mistake.  If the Board feels the Air Force would benefit from the training and education already invested, then he ask to be reinstated into JSUPT or be allowed to compete for a Navigator or Air Battle Manager position.

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 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment for gaining unauthorized access to testing computer files.  It was a repeated effort at unauthorized access to sensitive computer material, and he gained an undue advantage over his classmates.  He was ultimately eliminated from T-38 (bomber/fighter) advanced training.  The Board finds the applicant’s actions improper, especially with him being ranked number two out of seven in his class.  We note the applicant’s achievements, accomplishments, and letters of support; however, we do not find his actions warrant reinstatement into SUPT or that he be allowed to compete for UPT or ABMT.  We also note, it would not be fair to other students, who were eliminated for lesser offenses, to allow the applicant that privilege.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01010 in Executive Session on 29 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 19 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 30 April 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 2004.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 May 2004, w/atchs.