RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01874
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 DEC 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Flying Training (SUPT), an age waiver, or as an alternative, entry into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A failed elimination check-ride was the result of issues beyond his control leading to his elimination from SUPT.  Applicant also blames academic exam failures on unfair tests and changes in testing media (computer-aided exams vice hand-written exams) as contributing factors to his poor SUPT performance.

He states he has made sacrifices that very few others have made.  With his passion of still wanting to fly, he has found that he is too old to apply for the Navy and Marines.  Private aviation is his only option, however, with school loans, he is unable to afford to do so and still be able to pay off loans.  He further states he is willing to go to whatever lengths to be allowed back into UPT.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement and documentation extracted from his military personnel record.

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 first lieutenant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2007.

Applicant entered SUPT with Class 07-11 at Vance AFB, OK on 14 June 2006 and was eliminated from training for flying deficiency in October 2006.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F recommends denial.  AETC/A3F states the applicant tells a compelling story from his perspective.  While ambition is admirable, this alone cannot sustain an individual in a program where standards are high and consistent performance is required.  Primary training is a dynamic, fast-paced training program.  Many students who do not meet standards and lack potential are eliminated.  The training was IAW established command policies and syllabus guidance.  Based on AETC/A3F’s examination, there is no evidence of error or injustice substantiating reinstatement.   

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 July 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are of the opinion that relief is not warranted and the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  His contentions are duly noted; however, the detailed comments provided by the office of primary responsibility (OPR) adequately address these allegations.  Therefore, we are in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.  In view of the above and 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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2007-01874 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 23 Jul 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.