RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01979
		INDEX CODE:  
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to show restitution of lost flight incentive pay due to his unjust elimination from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 10 January 2007, the AFBCMR concluded he was unjustly removed from JSUPT in the final week of the course.  The Deputy Operations Group Commander at the time supported a transfer to a different aircraft track that was not pursued since he was an Air National Guard (ANG) student.  Had a different aircraft track been pursued and approved he would have continued to serve as a rated pilot and receive flight incentive pay.  Therefore, he requests his flight pay be retroactively implemented from 23 April 2001 through 10 January 2007, the period during which the AFBCMR concluded an injustice occurred.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement with attachments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while a member of the Wisconsin Air National Guard (WIANG), was selected for SUPT and began training on 21 March 2000.  During T-37 primary training, he failed four Contact Category aircraft training sorties and one Instrument Category simulator training sortie.  He failed the Instrument Category check ride on his first attempt and was subsequently ranked 24th in his class of 31 students.  After discussions with his home unit commander, the student flight commander recommended the applicant continue training and he was entered into the T-38 advance track.  

While in T-38 advanced track training, the applicant graded below standard on 11 aircraft sorties and 5 simulator events.  He successfully passed rechecks on the Contact and Formation Check’s.  However, he failed the second retake on the Instrument/Navigation Check.  As a result, he was entered into the Commander’s Review process where he was eventually eliminated from training by the final approval authority (Wing Commander).  

On 20 May 2003, the Board considered and denied his request to be reinstated to JSUPT.  On 3 February 2004, he applied through counsel for reconsideration.  Counsel’s request was not for reinstatement but to change his AETC Form 126A, Record of Commanders Review Action, dated 16 April 2001, to reflect “BE CONSIDERED FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.”  Changing the AETC Form 126A would make it possible for the applicant to compete for a training slot instead of reinstating him to JSUPT.  On 22 April 2005, the Board again denied his request.  On 7 May 2006, he applied for reconsideration a second time and provided a letter from his former Deputy Commander at JSUPT recommending the applicant be given a chance to compete for JSUPT.  The applicant also supplied an earlier AFBCMR case where the Board had granted similar relief.  On 10 January 2007, the Board considered the new evidence presented by the applicant and a Board majority granted his request to change his AETC Form 126A to reflect “BE CONSIDERED FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.”  The Board majority did not reinstate him to JSUPT but made it possible for him to compete for a pilot’s slot in JSUPT.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/A30-AT recommends denying the applicant’s request for restitution of lost Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) as they believe that granting his request would violate the provision of Title 37, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 301a which requires officers to be in training leading to award of an aeronautical rating for entitlement to ACIP.  A30-AT states the Boards decision in his prior case enables him to compete for entry in another JSUPT class, and in no way implies he should not have been eliminated from his initial JSUPT class.  A30-AT states should the applicant be reinstated to JSUPT, his ACIP will be reinstated and his aviation service dates will be adjusted for the period he was not in training leading to award of an aeronautical rating.

A30-AT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the AFBCMR’s decision does, in fact, imply he should not have been eliminated and was in fact eliminated in error.  Therefore, if eliminated in error, the flight incentive pay between the dates of elimination and the means to return to JSUPT was also lost in error.  He reiterates that had this error never taken place, his ACIP would have stayed in effect.  He only asks for restitution of pay lost as a result of an error and for only during the period of that error.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01979 in Executive Session on 27 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01979:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAF/A30-AT, undated 
    Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 August 2007.
    Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 September 2007.
    Exhibit E. Examiner’s Atch, Second Addendum to ROP, dated 
               10 January 2007.