RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03781
            INDEX CODE: 134.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His elimination  from  Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator  Training
(SUNT) be permanently  removed  from  his  military  record,  rendering  him
eligible to compete for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT).

2.    He be granted an age waiver so that he may be eligible for future  UFT
boards.

3.    His  Training  Report  (TR)  for  the  period  1  March  1995  through
26 January 1996 be removed from his record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His training at Traron 10 (VT-10), Pensacola Naval  Air  Station  (NAS)  was
unjust, and his elimination from SUNT warrants additional review.  He  feels
that his elimination from training was unwarranted based upon violations  of
(a) SUNT (VT-10) Course  Syllabus  in  the  following  areas:  Violation  of
Course Scheduling Policy; Course Briefing  Requirements;  Visual  Navigation
(VNAV) Route Entry Procedures, and Warm-up flight  policy.   (b)  Air  Force
Regulations: Air Force Crew Rest Requirements; Air  Force  Cockpit  Resource
Management Principles, and Adherence to Federal  Aviation  Regulations.   At
the time of his training he accepted the decision of his  chain  of  command
to recommend elimination because of  apprehensions  in  bringing  the  above
noted discrepancies to their attention.   However,  his  aircrew  experience
and training since his reassignment  to  Kelly  AFB  has  led  him  to  take
another look at the circumstances under which he  was  eliminated.   Current
regulations disqualify him from future rated service.  His  aviation  skills
have grown strong, and he has used these skills to  support  the  Air  Force
mission.  His chain of command has flown with him,  evaluated  his  aviation
skills first hand, and supports him in this endeavor.   He  has  an  undying
love for flying, wearing the uniform, and serving  his  country.   He  is  a
competitive officer and will serve his country in whatever capacity he  can.
However, he wants  to  be  a  combat  aviator  in  the  USAF,  and  requests
reconsideration to compete on future flying training boards.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his narrative and  justification
with  attachments,  Resume/Biography,  Certificates   of   Training,   Other
Commendations, Letters of Recommendation, Elimination Package,

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
captain.  He is currently a Flight Test Engineer at Kelly AFB, TX.

Upon graduation from the Air Force Academy, the applicant  was  commissioned
a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force and entered active  duty  on  2
June 1993.

On 18 October 1995, upon completion of navigation training, he was  assigned
to VT-10, Pensacola NAS.

On 13 December 1995, the applicant was scheduled for a AVX flight.

On 14 December 1995, the applicant flew the  AVX  checkride  and  earned  an
unsatisfactory.  On 15 December 1995 he was awarded one training flight  and
AVX recheck.

On 5 January 1996, the applicant flew the  AVX  checkride  and  received  an
unsatisfactory rating and was referred to a Progress Review Board (PRB)  for
disposition.

On 17 January 1996, the PRB convened at VT-10  and  recommended  to  attrite
the applicant for unsatisfactory completion of special progress check.

On 26 January 1996, the applicant was disenrolled from JUNT  Course  N-V6A-D
for flying deficiency, NAS Pensacola, Fl.

OPR profile since 1994, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       04 Mar 94             Meets Standards
                       21 Jan 95             Meets Standards
                      *      26 Jan 96       Education/Training Report
                       22 Jul 96             Meets Standards
                       28 Feb 97             Meets Standards
                       20 Feb 98        Education/Training Report
                       28 Feb 98             Meets Standards

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Chief of Staff for  Training  and  Operations,  reviewed  this
application and states the applicant’s scheduling was not  optimum  for  his
14 December 1995 Airways and Visual Navigation Check (AVX) flight.   He  was
not able to obtain the required flight  planning  information  in  a  timely
manner to allow  him  to  obtain  sufficient  crew  rest  the  night  of  13
December.  His crew day on 14 December was excessive, but since  his  flight
took place in the middle of the crew day, it should not  have  affected  his
performance on his AVX.  Although his AFX brief  was  rushed,  the  required
items were briefed to him the day of his flight.  His  entry  into  the  low
level navigation portion of the route was non-standard, required by  a  late
identification of the entry point by applicant.   This  non-standard  entry,
although apparently not intended  by  the  instructor  and;  therefore,  not
briefed, was within the capabilities of  the  student.   Applicant  was  not
scheduled for a warm-up flight prior to  his  AVX  recheck  flight  nor  his
Specialized Progress (SPROG), consistent with Chief of  Naval  Air  Training
(CNATRA) policy.  He encountered several crew  coordination  and  instrument
approach concerns on his AVX flight,  none  of  which  degraded  his  flight
evaluation.  The applicant was assigned to a PRB on  9  January  1996  after
his AVX Recheck.  During a personal advisor interview on 15  December  1995,
the PRB on 9 January 1996 and again on 17 January 1996  after  he  completed
his SPROG, he had the opportunity to  voice  any  complaints  or  criticisms
concerning his treatment and/or training.  Each time he answered in  writing
to the negative.  He displayed a trend of knowing his  procedures  prior  to
flight,  but  difficulty  in  applying  them  airborne  as  he   progressed,
especially regarding communications, fix-to-fix navigation,  and  low  level
navigation procedures.   During  a  counseling  session  with  his  personal
advisor on 5 January 1996, the applicant acknowledged that  he  “feels  like
his procedural knowledge is solid but tends to blank when airborne.”   There
is evidence of error regarding crew day and  crew  rest  in  scheduling  the
applicant for his 14 December
1995 AVX flight.  However, there is not  sufficient  evidence  of  error  to
indicate his elimination from flight training at VT-10 was invalid.  He  was
given ample opportunity and  extra  training  to  correct  his  deficiencies
following his unsatisfactory AVX.  The  do  not  recommend  the  applicant’s
elimination from SUNT be removed from his record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  states  although  the
CNATRA acknowledges violation of training  regulations,  violations  of  Air
Force policy on equal  opportunity  during  his  training  period  were  not
addressed.  Furthermore, his CNATRA training  report,  submitted  two  years
after  he  was  eliminated  from  training  is  inaccurate.   Finally,   his
performance since his elimination clearly shows that this  is  an  extremely
unique case, worthy of additional review.  His training record certifies  he
met all academic and flight standards up to his final checkride at  Training
Squadron Ten.  In fact, only two other students (out  of  9)  in  his  class
were able to achieve this.  In the  following  month  of  training,  he  was
expected to perform under conditions that violated crew  duty  day,  Federal
Aviation Administration, and DOD Crew Rest Requirements.   CNATRA  certifies
in their advisory letter that these violations occurred.   Additionally,  he
was not allowed to regain flight proficiency, because he was not  allowed  a
warm-up flight after a long holiday and medical down time.   He  submits  to
the board that these training violations contributed  significantly  to  his
elimination  from  training.   Although  CNATRA  acknowledges  the  training
violations noted in paragraph two, issues concerning Department  of  Defense
policy on equal opportunity in the training environment were  not  addressed
in their advisory letter.  During his  training,  his  Indian  heritage  was
repeatedly slandered by his evaluator (who was also his  flight  commander).
His progress review board was completed with vulgar threats,  expecting  him
to perform because his commander was “laying his ---- on the table for  me.”
 Although CNATRA does not  address  these  issues,  his  classmates  certify
these events took place.  These situations describe the  adverse  conditions
under which he had to perform  before  his  elimination  from  SUNT.   Since
submitting his request to the AFBCMR, CNATRA  submitted  a  training  report
(TR), two years after his elimination from  training,  that  is  inaccurate.
First of all, no mention of his completion of phases one or two of  SUNT  at
Randolph AFB,  which  made  up  nine  months  of  his  total  training,  was
documented in this report.  Additionally, the training  report  states  that
he chose not to continue in the demanding training program  required  during
Student  Navigator  Training.”   This  is  an  untrue  statement.   He   was
eliminated from training because he did
not pass his SPROG checkride.  Had he been allowed  additional  training  by
his chain of command, he would have definitely accepted the  opportunity  to
complete SUNT.  Further, the TR, which commented on his personal conduct  as
“satisfactory,” was completed by an individual whom  he  has  never  met  or
known in the training environment.  Finally, the date of submission for  his
BCMR package is 15 December 1997, while the date of his SUNT  report  is  17
February 1998.  Two years passed since his elimination from training and  no
TR was submitted to his  records.   As  a  result,  an  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) was  submitted  by  his  supervisor  to  cover  the  unreported
period.  The VT-10 TR was added to his records on 17 February 1998,  shortly
after his BCMR package was delivered.  Had he not  requested  correction  of
his record, no training report would have  been  submitted  that  documented
his training in SUNT.  He realizes that requests of this nature  are  rarely
granted.  However, evidence surrounding  the  uniqueness  of  this  case  is
extensive, and supported by facts.  He has flown over 50 sorties in T-37, T-
38 and C-5 aircraft, demonstrating strong  potential  for  flying  training.
During his final three weeks of training in SUNT, violation  of  regulations
set forth  by  CNATRA  and  the  Department  of  Defense  strongly  supports
correction of his military records.  He respectfully requests the  board  to
consider correction of his records  so  he  may  compete  in  future  flying
training boards.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Chief, Operations and Readiness, HQ  19AF/ADO,  reviewed  this
application  and  states  the  conduct  of  Joint  Undergraduate   Navigator
Training is spelled out in a Memorandum of Agreement between  Air  Education
and Training Command (AETC)  and  US  Navy  Chief  of  Naval  Education  and
Training (DNATRA),  dated  12  March  1998.   According  to  para  5.f.(11),
Attrition/elimination, “Student...elimination procedures shall be  conducted
in accordance  with  host  service  directives.”   Additionally,  para  5.o.
Inspector General (IG) issues, “...the service with  jurisdiction  over  the
issues   and   accountability...will...conduct   reviews,    inquiries    or
investigations.”  They recommend the applicant forward his complaint  to  HQ
AETC/IG for coordination and review by CNATRA/IG.

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

The Acting Assistant Chief of Staff for  Training  and  Operations  reviewed
this application and  states  that  the  applicant  was  not  attrited  from
training due to discrimination, but rather his inability to keep  pace  with
a demanding training program.  The investigation findings were  reviewed  by
their Inspector General
and did not reveal discrimination or  violation  of  any  Equal  Opportunity
factors.  As noted in CNATRA’s Original Advisory of  25  February  1998,  on
three occasions, 15 December 1995, 9 January  1996,  and  17  January  1996,
applicant was given opportunities to  voice  any  complaints  or  criticisms
concerning his treatment and/or training.  On each  occasion,  he  responded
in  writing  to  the  negative.   There  is  some  validity  to  applicant’s
assertion that his TR was inaccurate.  In particular, he  takes  issue  with
the statement “However, he chose not to continue in the  demanding  training
program required during Student Navigator Training and  on  26  Jan  96  was
attrited from the program.”  It was not his choice to leave the program.   A
more accurate statement would  read  “However,  he  was  attrited  from  the
program on 26 January 1996 for his failure  to  make  satisfactory  progress
through the Airways and Visual Navigation stage of  training.”   The  report
would be just as accurate, if not more so, if that statement was  taken  off
of the report.  It is also factual that the report was  generated  over  two
years after the attrition took place.   Given  all  the  unusual  conditions
surrounding this report and given the fact that this period of time is  also
covered by an OPR, the best course of action may be  to  remove  the  report
from the applicant’s record.  The signing official  for  the  report  is  in
agreement with their position.  As was  mentioned  in  the  original  CNATRA
advisory,  there  were  some  irregularities  in  the  applicant’s  training
program.  However, there is not sufficient evidence of error  to  invalidate
his elimination from flight training.  He was  given  ample  opportunity  to
correct his deficiencies and was unable to do so.

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

The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, Directorate of  Personnel  Program
Management, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this application and states the  applicant
is correct that the TR does not contain comments  regarding  his  completion
of training while at Randolph AFB.  However, this  information  should  have
been reflected in a TR prepared by the training squadron  at  Randolph  AFB,
not in the TR from CNATRA.  Further, while the CNATRA TR does not  list  the
applicant’s  accomplishments  while  at   Pensacola,   it   does   note   he
successfully completed the first phase of training.  It appears  that  since
the officer had been eliminated from the  program,  the  author  of  the  TR
chose to primarily address the reasons for elimination.  While there  is  an
obvious absence of positive accomplishments, there was  no  requirement  for
the author to include them.   Training  squadrons  routinely  designate  one
officer to prepare the TRs  on  all  students  in  a  course.   The  officer
designated  to  write  the  reports  prepares  them  from  input  from   the
instructors and after reviewing training records.  That  the  applicant  did
not know or have any contact with the author of the TR in no way  diminishes
its validity.  CNATRA confirms the TR  was  prepared  “late”  but  does  not
address the reason for its delay.  Clearly, the report was submitted  rather
late, and may
have been generated  as  a  result  of  the  applicant’s  BCMR  application.
However, a TR was required and should have been prepared  when  the  officer
was eliminated  from  the  program.   They  believe  CNATRA  personnel  were
probably not aware of this oversight, which  they  discovered  in  reviewing
their files on the applicant’s case and  prepared  the  TR  to  correct  the
oversight.  It is apparent that CNATRA made some  mistakes  with  regard  to
the TR.  First, they  neglected  to  prepare  a  TR  when  the  officer  was
originally eliminated from the training program; an error they attempted  to
correct by preparing a TR once they were aware of the  oversight.   Further,
they admit to an inaccurate statement in the TR and have suggested how  this
statement  could  be  corrected.   In  addition  to  the  mistakes   already
identified, the delayed completion of this TR has also  created  some  other
problems with the officer’s record.  The TR  in  record  reflects  inclusive
dates of 1 March 1995 through 26 January 1996 and  a  course  length  of  20
weeks.  For courses lasting 20 weeks or longer, the inclusive  dates  listed
in Section I of the AF Form 475 are supposed to start with  the  date  after
the close date of the officer’s last OPR or TR (of 20 weeks or  longer)  and
end with the completion (or elimination) date of the course.  The  officer’s
last OPR before the TR closed out 21 January  1995;  therefore,  the  “FROM”
date on the TR should reflect “22 Jan 95.”  Further, the officer’s next  OPR
or TR (of 20 weeks or longer) should begin the day after the “THRU” date  of
the TR (27 Jan 96).  However, the next OPR in the  officer’s  record  begins
22 Jan 95 and runs through 22 Jul 96 as a 120-day annual  report.   Had  the
TR been completed when originally required, the next OPR  would  have  begun
27 Jan 96 and would not have been required until 26 Jan 97.   Since  the  TR
was not completed, the officer’s unit at that time  assumed  a  TR  was  not
going to be completed and correctly prepared an annual  report  as  soon  as
the officer’s rater obtained  120  days  supervision.   This  OPR  currently
reflects inclusive dates of 22 Jan 95 through 22 Jul 96.  When  the  TR  was
received at HQ AFPC for file, because of the OPRs already in  the  file,  it
was apparently treated as an  “imbedded”  report  (which  is  done  for  TRs
covering periods of less than 20 weeks) and filed between the 21 Jan 95  and
22  Jul  96  reports  in  the  officer’s  record.   Imbedded   reports   are
independent of other reports in the record in  that  their  inclusive  dates
are based on the course start and stop dates, not the start and  stop  dates
of other reports in the record.  Though prepared late, the TR  was  required
and should have been prepared to document  the  officer’s  elimination  from
the training program.  Further, despite the administrative  problems  noted,
the officer’s record can be fixed.  There is  no  evidence  to  support  the
officer’s claims that he was eliminated for reasons other than those  stated
by CNATRA personnel.  They note that while the officer may have met  all  of
the academic flight standards up to his final check ride, the comments  made
by  the  instructors  in  their  flight  reports  suggest  the  officer  had
difficulty applying classroom  knowledge  during  numerous  flying  sessions
leading up to the failed check ride.  There is no evidence  to  support  his
contention regarding discriminatory treatment that would justify removal  of
the TR.  While the officers, who were classmates of the applicant,  provided
statements of support, they note that these statements  suggested  they  all
encountered difficulty with the training program.  Not one  statement  cited
any  examples  of  how  the  applicant  was  singled  out  or  treated   any
differently than  the  rest  of  the  students,  nor  did  any  suggest  the
applicant was in any way discriminated against.   Since  the  applicant  did
not request any specific relief regarding the TR, they  believe  any  action
taken on the TR should be based on the Board’s decision with regard  to  the
rest of the application.  Should the Board rule in favor  of  the  applicant
and  overturn  his  elimination  from  the  flight  training  program,  they
recommend the TR be removed from the officer’s record.  However, should  the
Board find insufficient  evidence  to  overturn  his  elimination  from  the
training program, they recommend  the  TR  be  retained  and  the  officer’s
record be corrected as suggested.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that based  upon
the  updated  recommendation  from  the  CNATRA,  he  respectfully  requests
immediate removal of his SUNT elimination  from  his  records,  and  an  age
waiver to participate in future Special Flying  Program  boards.   Certified
testimony from CNATRA, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, his chain of command,  and  his  SUNT
classmates is conclusive in showing the substandard training he received  in
SUNT directly impacted his performance,  denying  him  fair  opportunity  to
complete his training.  Further, the CNATRA  proposal  to  remove  his  SUNT
training  report  is  the  optimum  solution,  since  the   HQ   AFPC/DPPPEP
recommended action is inaccurate, and only  corrects  administrative  errors
within his training report.  CNATRA proposes  to  remove  the  TR  from  his
record.  He agrees with this solution, since an OPR also covers  the  period
of review. Although the recommended HQ AFPC/DPPPEP solution is a  relatively
simple  matter  from  an  administrative  standpoint,  it   will   introduce
inaccurate  and  incomplete  information  into   his   records.    This   is
contradictory to their statement in Facts  and  Comments,  para  c.1,  where
AFPC makes note of the fact that no record exists  concerning  his  training
at Randolph AFB.  Accurately completing his TR would require a full  summary
of all his SUNT milestones (as required by DPPPEP), such  as  completion  of
formal ground school, aerospace physiology, ejection seat  training,  flight
regulations,  instrument  flight,  dead  reckoning,  radar  navigation,  and
system  officer  training  in  order  to  be  true  and  accurate.    Simply
summarizing his last two months of training (out  of  11  total  months)  is
misleading, and will totally misrepresent the  scope  of  the  TR.   Second,
Blocks 9 and 10 would have to be changed  to  reflect  his  entire  training
program.   Finally,  since  CNATRA  concurs  with  inaccurate,   non-optimum
training techniques, and violation of crew rest and duty
day requirements, including these facts in his  TR  is  justified.  All  TRs
assume course requirements and standards are adhered to.  This was  not  the
case for his training in SUNT, and must be documented.   In  light  of  this
information, removing the TR from his records is the best option.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The Air Force states that  it  is
apparent that the Chief of Naval Air Training made some  mistakes  regarding
the Training Report  closing  26 January  1996.   First  they  neglected  to
prepare a TR when the applicant was originally eliminated from the  training
program; an error they attempted to correct by  preparing  a  TR  once  they
were  aware  of  the  oversight.   Further,  they  admit  to  an  inaccurate
statement  in  the  TR  and  has  suggested  how  this  statement  could  be
corrected.  The Board believes that the best course of action regarding  the
TR is to remove it from the applicant’s record since this period of time  is
also covered by an OPR in his record.  In regard to his  request  to  remove
his elimination from Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator  Training,  there
appears to  have  been  some  irregularities  in  the  applicant’s  training
program.  We also note that he had  a  strong  academic  record  before  and
after his disenrollment.  While we in no way suggest that the  applicant  be
enrolled in navigator training through the correction  of  records  process,
we do believe that he should be provided  another  opportunity  to  compete,
and if accepted, be granted an age waiver.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  we
recommend his record be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

1.    The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered for the period  1
March 1995 through 26 January 1996, be declared void and  removed  from  his
record.

2.    His disenrollment from Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator  Training
on 26 January 1996, be declared void and removed from his records.

3.    He be allowed  to  compete  for  Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator
Training at the next available board and, if accepted, he be granted an  age
waiver.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 11 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

          Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
          Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member
          Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, CNATR, dated 25 Feb 98.
   Exhibit D.  Applicant's Response, dated 12 May 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ 19AF/ADO, dated 14 Aug 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, CNATR, dated 16 Sep 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Feb 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 19 Mar 98 and 22 Feb 99.
   Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Apr 99.





                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 97-03781




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.   The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered for
the period 1 March 1995 through 26 January 1996, be and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his record.

            b.   His disenrollment from Specialized Undergraduate Navigator
Training on 26 January 1996, be and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records..

            c.   He be allowed  to  compete  for  Specialized  Undergraduate
Navigator Training at the next available  board  and,  if  accepted,  he  be
granted an age waiver.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency