RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00222
		INDEX CODE:  126.03

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 JUL 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 16 August 2004 Training Report be removed from his records and he be reinstated into Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training (JUNT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Chief of Naval Air Training Instruction (CNATRA) 1500.4F, Student Naval Aviator Training and Administration Manual, was not followed during his training.  He also asserts his grade-point average was incorrect on his elimination memorandum, and his flight records do not reflect the correct total flight hours.

In support of his request, applicant provided a Letter of Recommendation from his wing commander.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force on 18 May 2002.  On 16 June 2002, he entered JUNT at Pensacola, Florida.  He was eliminated from JUNT on 18 August 2004 for unsatisfactory performance.

He is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade Captain.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F recommends denial.  A3F states in part if the applicant provides verifiable data, his academic grade point average and total hours should be corrected.  There is no evidence of error or injustice substantiating reinstatement and recommend the applicant not be reinstated into training, and no change to his personnel record be made.  Applicant is of the opinion he failed the sortie and was eliminated from training because he flew Composite-6X with a particular instructor.  The inference embedded throughout his application is the fact that if he had been in an AF Training Program none of this would have occurred.

While it is embarrassing to be eliminated for failing the last ride in a Training Program, the applicant is not the first officer this has happened to, and he will not be the last.  If the applicant had been in an Air Force Undergraduate Program he would not have graduated.  His chronic airsickness would have resulted in removal from training for lack of adaptability.  Every student eliminated from training for any variety of reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend Undergraduate Flight Training.  However, reinstating the applicant is unfair to those students who were able to master the required skills during their initial exposure.  Repeated attempts to retrain individuals eliminated for cause, represents wasteful use of resources and taxpayer dollars.  The applicant’s success in other endeavors is commendable, but a return to training is not a just reward and the arguments presented by the applicant are without merit.

The AETC/A3F evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the 16 August 2004 TR.  DPPPEP states in part the TR documents the applicant’s elimination from training.  There are no procedural errors documented on the TR.  The applicant is simply requesting the removal of the report based on elimination information.  The TR is an accurate document as long as the elimination from training remains apart of the applicant’s record.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The office of primary responsibility (OPR) seems to take umbrage with this makes it difficult to conclude the OPR was 100% objective.  The advisory opinion fails to address the personal statement’s central argument regarding never being placed on Marginal Performance Disposition (MPD) status and the OPR fails to provide an adequate objective review of the Aviation Training Jacket (ATJ) a.k.a. Flight Training Record) vs. Navy regulations.

The 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 error or injustice to warrant granting the relief sought in this application.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had difficulties attaining standards and there is no evidence of procedural error documented in his training records.  The Board notes, the applicant was recommended for a Progress Review Board (PRB), due to flying deficiencies and the PRB voted to reinstate him and provide additional training.  Subsequently, he was recommended to the PRB for a second time after he was graded unsatisfactory for timing control, situational awareness, and safety of flight and the PRB recommended he be eliminated from training.  The Board believes the applicant was given ample opportunity to meet the standards of the joint undergraduate navigator training and failed to do so.  In regards to the applicant’s contention that his flight records do not reflect the correct total flight hours, should he provide verifiable data his total flying hours should be corrected.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice, and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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-2006-00222 in Executive Session on 7 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AETC/A3F, dated 10 Mar 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 31 Mar 06, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 06, w/atchs.