RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02649
            INDEX CODE 134.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Training Command (ATC) Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review
Action, dated 8 September 1993, be removed from his records and he  be
made eligible to apply and be selected for pilot training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A misunderstanding during training on a make-up test date  caused  him
to retake the test before he  was  ready  and  he  failed  again.  The
situation regarding his disenrollment from  the  Pilot  Indoctrination
Program (PIP) was not accurately recorded in  his  commander’s  review
process, nor was his disenrollment fair  due  to  the  information  he
received regarding his second procedural knowledge test (PKT). He  has
subsequently proven  his  ability  to  successfully  compete  for  and
complete Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT). It is unjust
to permanently disallow his competing for such training.  As a  second
class cadet, he did not understand  the  repercussions;  specifically,
that he was barred from seeking any rated position.  Consequently,  he
did not ask for help at the time nor fight his removal from the  class
because of this mistaken impression.  The ATC Form 126A was made known
to him when he applied for an SUPT position.

In support, he provides  statements  from  the  eliminating  official,
flying instructors, squadron commanders, his  commander  at  the  USAF
Academy (USAFA), co-workers while on active duty,  and  the  chain  of
command disenrolling him from the PIP, as well as other documentation.
In his statement, the former 557 FTS commander supports removal of the
ATC Form  126A  so  that  the  applicant  may  compete  for  SUPT  and
Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT). The  former  12OG
commander indicated in his statement that he could only recommend  the
contested ATC Form 126A be amended so the applicant may be  considered
for SUNT.

A copy of applicant’s complete submission is provided at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the ATC Form 126A in  question,  the  557  FTS  commander
recommended the applicant be eliminated from the PIP  for  failure  to
meet syllabus standards  in  academic  testing  and  that  he  not  be
considered for reinstatement at a later date or  for  SUNT.  The  12th
Operations Group (12OG) commander approved the recommendations.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained  in  the  letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Chief, Operations & Readiness, HQ 19th AF/ADO, indicates
that, although the applicant’s desire to attend  SUPT  and  supporting
recommendations are impressive, he finds the applicant’s ineligibility
to be in accordance with  governing  directives  and  program  intent.
AFCAT 36-2223 states  that  without  specific  prior  military  flying
experience, successful completion of the PIP or the  Flight  Screening
Program  is  a  prerequisite  for   SUPT.   The   applicant’s   formal
disenrollment from PIP disqualifies him from consideration for further
USAF pilot training. However, for stated reasons, the Assistant  Chief
concurs with [the former 12OG commander’s]  recommendation  to  permit
the applicant to compete for SUNT.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

The Chief, Pipeline  &  Trainer  Assignments  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPAOT,
indicates that the applicant claims, and is  corroborated  by  another
cadet who was present, that after he had failed a test,  he  was  told
his make-up date would be a week later. During the  next  session,  he
was forced to take the test early and had not started studying for the
retake. He  failed  the  test  a  second  time  and  was  academically
eliminated. Although he signed the ATC Form 126A, he claims he did not
understand it would prevent him from applying at  a  later  date.  The
Chief recommends the form be removed  and  the  applicant  allowed  to
compete for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT).

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Pipeline  &  Trainer  Assignments  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPAOT,
provided an addendum to his original advisory [Exhibit C],  which  was
made on inadequate and  incomplete  information.  DPAOT  received  new
information from HQ 19th AF indicating the applicant’s assertions  are
incorrect. ATC Form 803A, Student Activity  Record,  dated  31  August
1993, indicated the applicant did indeed know when the makeup test was
going to be given. He initialed the grade book sheet to  that  effect.
The test was administered on the agreed upon day,  2  September  1993.
After the second failure, he agreed to the counseling  statement  that
he, “. . . does not have a strong desire to be a pilot. He  stated  he
did not put enough effort into the second academic test  and  was  not
prepared to take  it.  He  is  considering  other  career  goals.  All
questions were answered.” In lieu of this new information,  the  Chief
recommends the applicant’s ATC Form  126A  not  be  removed  from  his
records and he not be allowed to compete for UFT at a future date.  If
the Board  decides  the  grant  the  applicant’s  request,  the  Chief
strongly recommends the applicant only be allowed to compete for  SUNT
and not SUPT.

A copy of the complete addendum, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided three lengthy electronic mailgrams (Emails) and
a memo with attachment in rebuttal. He refutes paragraph 3 of  DPAOT’s
addendum, indicating that to the best of his knowledge  the  ATC  Form
803A dated 31 August 1993 was written on that date but  was  initialed
after the second test was administered.  His  initials  do  not  imply
that he agreed with his flight  commander’s  comments.  In  additional
comments, the applicant explains why he concludes that neither he  nor
his flight commander wrote in the re-testing date on the form. He  was
not briefed ahead of time regarding when he would  take  the  re-test.
The information contained in the 31 August 1993 ATC Form 803A does not
specifically show that he initialed the completed 2 September 1993 ATC
Form 803A before the  scheduled  test.  His  initials  are  after  the
statement “Date Re-test accomplished [on the 31 August 1993  ATC  Form
803A]. He believes this form was initialed by him after the retest was
done. He was not prepared to take the make-up examination  because  he
was under the impression he would  be  taking  it  at  a  later  date.
Regardless of any perception from the 31 August 1993 ATC Form 803A, he
and the other cadet were both acting on the  information  provided  by
their flight commander. He is committed to becoming a USAF  pilot  and
has done everything in his power to accomplish that goal. He hopes the
Board will follow the recommendation of the original  DPOAT  advisory.
He hopes to be able to submit his package to  the  next  Undergraduate
Flying Training Selection Board on 5 March 1999.

He  provides  a  supporting  statement  from  his   flight   commander
documenting  his  performance  through  [USAF  Air   Traffic   Control
Officer’s Course], his dedication and academic ability.

Copies of applicant’s complete responses are 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  granting
partial relief.  After a  careful  and  thorough  examination  of  the
documentation pertaining to this case, we are reluctant to  amend  the
applicant’s records to the extent that he would be eligible  to  apply
for SUPT. First, the evidence supplied by the applicant did not  fully
persuade us that he did not know the make-up test date as he  alleges.
Even if we  assumed  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  there  was  a
misunderstanding regarding the test  date,  we  believe  it  would  be
inappropriate on our part to  supersede  the  former  12th  Operations
Group commander’s judgment and expertise with our own. In this regard,
we note the former commander, who was the final authority for the  ATC
Form 126A, did not support the applicant’s request to remove the form.
Instead, after  again  reviewing  the  applicant’s  records,  he  only
recommended that the form be amended to allow consideration for  SUNT.
We believe the former  commander  was,  and  still  is,  in  the  best
position to evaluate the applicant’s capabilities. Therefore,  in  the
best interests of both the Air Force and the applicant,  we  recommend
his records be corrected only to allow him to compete for SUNT.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not  have  materially
added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a hearing  is
not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  the  Air  Training
Command  (ATC)  Form,  Record  of  Commander’s  Review  Action,  dated
8 September 1993, be amended to reflect that he may be eligible to  be
considered for Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 16 March 1999, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ 19th AF/ADO, dated 29 Oct 98.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAOT, dated 3 Dec 98.
   Exhibit D.  Addendum, HQ AFPC/DPAOT, dated 20 Jan 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jan 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, dated 23 Jan 99, w/atch; and EMails (3),
                  dated 27 & 28 Jan and 15 Feb 99.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 98-02649




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to     , be corrected to show that the Air Training
Command (ATC) Form, Record of Commander’s Review Action, dated 8
September 1993, be amended to reflect that he may be eligible to be
considered for Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency