RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00863

            INDEX NUMBER:  102.04; 100.07


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated in Joint  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
(JSUPT).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given the proper amount of training to prepare  him  as  an
Air  Force  pilot.   He  did  not  have  a  reasonable  and   unbiased
opportunity to succeed at ????? AFB because there was already  a  bias
against Navy students.  Because he was never briefed or given  a  copy
of the regulations that govern checkrides, the rules of engagement for
a “hook” item were not clear.  He was unable to obtain the Commander’s
Review board transcripts to rebut statements made about him.  The  Air
Force is verging on a standard of fraud, waste, and abuse by  “washing
out” pilots who have completed more than half of the UPT program.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
copies  of  his  performance  reports,  supporting   statements,   and
documentation pertaining  to  his  JSUPT,  which  includes  counseling
forms, his solo flight forms, memoranda for record (MFRs), the board’s
Signicant Facts and Specific Rationale, his  grades,  and  the  Senior
Ranking Officer Information Guide (Exhibit A).

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve  of  the
Air Force, on 4 Sep 91.  He was voluntarily ordered to extended active
duty on 15 Feb 92.  He is currently serving  on  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain, having been promoted to that grade, effective 24 Nov
95.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      23 Jun 92  Training Report
      14 Feb 93  Meets Standards
       1 Nov 93  Meets Standards
       1 Nov 94  Meets Standards
       1 Nov 95  Meets Standards
      19 Dec 96  Training Report
       7 Oct 97  Training Report
      24 Apr 98  Training Report
       7 Oct 98  Meets Standards

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Undergraduate Flying  Operations,  XXX/XXX,  reviewed  this
application  and  recommended  denial.   A  complete  review  of   the
applicant’s training records revealed all training  was  conducted  in
accordance  with  established  procedures  and  directives.   He   was
eliminated from the T-38 phase of the JSUPT program at ?????  AFB,  in
Sep 97, for failure to  meet  course  training  standards  within  the
constraints of the syllabus.  Specifically, he seemed to  suffer  from
an inability to perform required tasks  to  standards  on  checkrides.
His nervousness  on  checkrides  was  manifested  by  low  situational
awareness, task saturation, and channelized attention.

Regarding the difficulty in flying the T-38,  some  follow-on  fighter
aircraft are marginally easier to fly than  the  T-38;  however,  they
have more complicated systems  and  are  harder  to  employ.   Because
fighter missions place great demands on the pilot, the  combat  stress
level is significantly higher than the stress involved in flying the T-
38.  Failure to successfully deal with stressful situations  indicates
a lack of adaptability to follow-on training.

The  applicant’s  claim  that  he  should  have  been  authorized  two
additional training sorties is without merit.  These sorties are  only
authorized at the beginning of training and for students  experiencing
difficulty.   When  the  applicant  was  experiencing  difficulty   in
training, he was given every benefit of doubt because he received good
daily flying grades.  He  was  entered  into  the  Commander’s  Review
process and was reinstated twice.  Normally, this  review  results  in
elimination from training if the  training  was  conducted  correctly.
However, the applicant was reinstated because  his  daily  performance
indicated a potential  to  complete  training.   He  was  given  every
opportunity to  succeed  but  his  continued  failures  on  checkrides
resulted in his elimination from JSUPT.

Air Force students who are  trained  by  the  Navy  have  demonstrated
greater  difficulty  in  T-38   JSUPT   compared   with   their   T-37
counterparts.   The  Navy  has  continued  to  improve  its  training;
however, since the Air  Force  uses  different  aircraft  for  primary
training, the training students receive will never be  exactly  equal.
Joint training is a Department of Defense (DoD) mandated  requirement,
and the Navy and Air Force are committed to carrying out this  tasking
in a fair and professional manner.

The Chief concluded that the applicant should not be returned to  T-38
training under any circumstances.  However, if the  Board  grants  his
request, AETC Form 126A should be removed from his record to allow him
to resume JSUPT.  He should be enrolled at the beginning of Phase  III
and should fly the  T-1A  at  either  Laughlin  or  Columbus  AFB.   A
complete copy of the XXXX/XXX evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the failures noted in the XX  XX/XXX  evaluation
can in most cases be trained through.  In his opinion, there can be no
comparison between the stress of  UPT  and  a  combat  situation.   He
vehemently disagrees with the opinion that he did not need  additional
rides and reiterates his contention that not giving  a  student  every
opportunity to succeed when there are already inherent problems in the
program verges  on  fraud,  waste  and  abuse.   His  answer  for  the
difficulty Navy-trained students have in the T-38 program is to  allow
more flights or allow students to opt for crew aircraft.   Applicant’s
complete response is at Exhibit E.

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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record and the documentation submitted with  this  appeal,
we note that other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided
no evidence indicating he was treated differently from other Air Force
members in the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training Program.
 In fact, it appears that the applicant was given every opportunity to
succeed in pilot training, having been entered  into  the  Commander’s
Review process twice and reinstated both  times.   Unfortunately,  his
record of failing on checkrides eliminated any program flexibility the
commander  could  reasonably  allow.   In  the  final   analysis   and
considering the potential for loss of life,  the  commander  concluded
that  the  applicant’s  checkride  performance  in  Joint  Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training was a predictor of his future performance
and removed him from training.  We reviewed the  applicant’s  complete
submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the   case;   however,   the
documentation submitted does not convince us  that  his  training  was
conducted incorrectly, or that the actions taken against him  were  in
violation of applicable regulations.  In view of  the  above  findings
and 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 probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 January 2000, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ 19 AF/DOU, dated 21 Apr 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 May 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 May 99.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair