RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02248
		INDEX CODE:  100.07

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), or he receive an age waiver so the he can reapply and either compete for either Active or Guard/Reserve Flying Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The 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. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF reviewed the application and states that the applicant has not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations that he was not given the opportunity to use stress management counseling to aid him in overcoming external factors that were contributing to his being stressed.

The applicant submitted with his application a letter from the Chief of Counseling Services at Columbus AFB, MS, discussing the stress management and performance enhancement services available to student pilots.  The letters speaks of the high visibility that these services receive through in-processing briefs and of 
the support from training personnel, individual Instructor Pilots, Flight Commanders, Squadron Commanders, and Wing Commanders.

Training records are destroyed after one year and without a complete training record they can not verify the sequence of events that transpired in the applicant's case.  However, based on the applicable Air Force and AETC instructions, syllabus guidance and conduct of flying training, they can reconstruct a typical sequence of events of a student who may encounter training difficulties that could lead to elimination.

In the flying training environment the students are closely monitored and instructors and supervisors are vigilant in trying to ensure that there are no outside factors that could affect their performance.  However, if the student is not forthcoming with information the supervisor cannot help them resolve the situation.

Based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant's request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 January 2002, for review and response.

The applicant, in a letter dated 12 February 2002, requested his application be temporarily withdrawn.  The applicant's case was withdrawn on 14 February 2002.

On 2 May 2002, the applicant submitted a request to have his case reopened for processing.  

The applicant states the stress management program offered by Behavioral Services was not advertised when he was in SUPT.  A few months after he was terminated from SUPT, Capt  arrived and the program became more visible to the students and wing leadership.  

He further states that the OPR did not paint a complete picture of the sequence of events.  Although they were at a disadvantage due to lack of records regarding his performance, there is no evidence that his medical records were reviewed or that testimony sought from instructors, the flight commander, or anyone along the CAP chain for their observations.  He recalls that his 
struggle with performance began before it could be ascertained by the tracking of his grades.

If he had been offered the opportunity to take advantage of the stress management before his problems appeared in his performance, maybe his progression in the program would not have suffered.  If he had known about the program he would have self-referred.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that his elimination from SUPT was in error or unjust.  The applicant failed to notify his instructor or supervisor of the fact that he was experiencing stress from outside factors and that this was affecting his performance in SUPT.  Stress Management counseling was in place and available to aid the members who were having performance problems in SUPT.  The applicant had the option of informing his instructor and supervisor and request a referral for stress management counseling or he could have self-referred himself.  He apparently chose to do nothing.  Therefore, while his contentions are duly noted, 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 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 01-02248 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
                   Panel Chair
                   Member
                   Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 5 Nov 01.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 02
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s response, dated 2 May 02.