RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01286
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  ANTHONY W. WALLUK

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  returned  to  pilot  training  at  the   earliest   possible
opportunity.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He ran into the typical road blocks at Vance AFB, Oklahoma.  He  was
rotated around to different instructors.  The instructors with  whom
he had success were transferred to different jobs and he  then  went
to trainers with whom he could not or did not connect.  He underwent
his training with  an  old  and  obsolete  training  syllabus.   The
syllabus was changed for all pilot training, allowing  more  chances
to have deficiencies identified and corrected.  It is clear the  Air
Force considered the old training procedures to  be  inadequate  and
unfair, that is why they  were  changed.   The  Air  Force  promptly
implemented the new  syllabus  for  other  airplanes;  however,  the
implementation of the new syllabus for  the  airplane  that  he  was
training in was delayed until after he had started training.

After six months of training, he was unjustly eliminated from  Joint
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT).   The  Commander’s
Review Board (CRB) process was unfairly applied to  him  during  the
process of his elimination from JSUPT.  While he was  notified  that
he could identify witnesses on his  behalf,  he  did  not  have  the
authority to actually call  any  witnesses.   The  board  determined
whether or not to call witnesses.  In his case, the  board  did  not
interview any witnesses which would have supported his retention.

His medical condition was the primary reason  for  his  “substandard
performance” and this has now been corrected.  Since  the  beginning
of the flying phases of  his  pilot  training,  he  had  an  ongoing
problem  with  sinus  infections  that  were  treated  as   isolated
incidents.  It has been determined that he may have  been  suffering
from chronic sinusitis, which is  a  sinus  condition  that  usually
follows repeated attacks of acute sinusitis.   It  can  persist  for
months, as it did  in  his  case,  if  not  recognized  and  treated
properly.  As a rule, it responds slowly to therapy.  This condition
significantly and  adversely  affected  his  flying  performance  by
preventing his sinus cavities from fully draining  and  healing  and
therefore causing recurring sinus infections.   This  was  a  factor
that was addressed in his first CRB but was  completely  ignored  by
the second CRB.  Since his elimination from pilot training,  he  was
diagnosed as having a deviated septum 5 degrees to  the  left  which
was discovered  on  19 Jun  98.   This  deviation  can  lead  to  or
contribute to further illness, such as chronic sinusitis.  According
to the AFI  48-123,  a  deviated  septum  is  also  a  disqualifying
condition for a Flying Class I physical.  A medical doctor  informed
him that this is because having a “pre-existing condition like  that
could lead to future  problems  (i.e.,  nasal  obstruction,  chronic
sinusitis, etc.).”  This is exactly what happened to him; the reason
why his  sinus  infection  developed  into  chronic  sinusitis  that
plagued him throughout JSUPT.  The condition is correctable  and  he
had an operation on 23 Nov 98 to solve the medical problem.  He  was
cleared on 13 Jan 99 to return to flight status.   As  his  military
medical records show, he has been given a new Flight Physical  which
shows that he is now completely healthy and ready  to  resume  pilot
training.   He  feels  that  he  deserves  the  opportunity  to   be
reinstated into a new training class to continue JSUPT.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this  application,  extracted  from
the applicant’s military and medical 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 Chief,  Physical  Standards  Branch,  AETC/SGPS,  reviewed  this
application and their findings concerning  the  medical  aspects  of
this case are noted below:

     A. On applicant’s medical examinations on 21 Mar 96 and  10 Jul
        97, there is no indication that he ever  had  a  history  of
        chronic allergic rhinitis or treatment for  this  condition.
        This condition is disqualifying for all flying training  and
        if the condition had occurred or  been  diagnosed  prior  to
        training, he would have been medically disqualified.

     B. This potentially medical  disqualifying  condition  was  not
        brought to AETC/SGPS’s attention and  was  not  reviewed  by
        their office during training or as part of the review  board
        process.  There was no medical disqualification of applicant
        at any time by their headquarters.

     C. As documented in the applicant’s  application,  his  chronic
        sinus condition could very well have been a  factor  in  his
        inability to perform tasks  effectively  and  the  prolonged
        treatment/Duties Not to Include  Flying  (DNIF)  time  would
        also contribute to his ineffectiveness.

SGPS further states that the applicant, since his  elimination,  has
undergone treatment to  correct  his  deviated  septum  and  chronic
sinusitis.  If he has remained symptom free for at least  one  year,
he may be considered for a waiver  and,  if  approved,  he  will  be
certified medically qualified for all flying duties  with  a  waiver
for chronic  rhinitis  surgically  treated  and  resolved.   From  a
medical standpoint, SGPS has no problem recommending the applicant’s
record be corrected and he be afforded the  opportunity  to  reapply
for UPT.

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

The Chief, Undergraduate Flying Operations,  Headquarters  19th  Air
Force/DOU, also reviewed the applicant’s records  and  provides  the
following comments:

     A. According to the  applicant’s  medical  history,  he  had  a
        history of chronic sinus infections during  JSUPT.   It  was
        later found that  he  had  a  deviated  septum,  though  not
        previously diagnosed, which may have  contributed  to  these
        infections.  Since his elimination from JSUPT,  he  has  had
        surgery to correct the problem.  In  the  opinions  of  USAF
        Medical Corps, and the  Chief,  Physical  Standards  Branch,
        this condition may have contributed  to  applicant’s  flying
        problems.  Based on several reviews of applicant’s  training
        records prior to this request, it is the belief of the  19th
        Air   Force/DOU   that   his   flying    skills    warranted
        disenrollment.

     B. The applicant was trained under a syllabus that was in place
        from approximately 1994 to 1997.   Countless  students  were
        trained under and successfully completed this syllabus prior
        to the implementation of the  new  one.   Additionally,  the
        applicant was reinstated after a previous CRB, in  effect  a
        second chance.  Since he was afforded the  same  opportunity
        to succeed as all the other students in his class, under the
        same syllabus, 19th Air Force/DOU does not lend credence  to
        this issue.

     C. Applicant was eliminated for  flying  training  deficiencies
        (FTD).   Accordingly  to  19th  Air   Force   figures,   the
        elimination rate of unscreened applicants in JSUPT  for  FTD
        is  approximately  3.3%  compared  to  1.3%   for   screened
        applicants.  A difference of 2% does not constitute a  large
        enough incongruity to determine if applicant would have made
        it through JSUPT given the full EFSP.  The biggest attrition
        disparity  was  due  to  Self-Initiated  Elimination  (SIE).
        Unscreened student attrition  due  to  SIE  was  4.9%  while
        screened was only 0.8%.  The program was designed to  screen
        students at the lowest and least expensive level for the Air
        Force, not to provide a platform  from  which  to  base  all
        future training.

     D. Finally, the applicant, after reading the transcripts to his
        CRB, provided several comments as to the  testimony  of  his
        instructors.  All of the instructors were  highly  qualified
        and in a  position  to  render  an  accurate  assessment  of
        applicant’s flying potential.  In the  professional  opinion
        of these instructors, his potential to become a pilot in the
        Air Force was poor.  His inability to fly the aircraft while
        recognizing, planning for, and coping with, future  inflight
        events was the primary reason for his elimination.  Based on
        the informed evaluations of  his  instructors,  19th  AF/DOU
        supports the 71st OG/CC decision to eliminate applicant from
        JSUPT.

In this case, the Squadron Commander’s recommendation and  the  Wing
Commander’s  ultimate  decision  to  eliminate  the  applicant  were
appropriately  based  on  poor  performance.   Applicant’s   medical
condition was an unknown at the time  of  the  CRB.   It  cannot  be
authoritatively determined if the medical condition was the  primary
cause for poor inflight performance.  As such, 19th AF/DOU  supports
the decision to eliminate applicant from JSUPT  and  recommends  his
request for reinstatement be denied.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided  a  two-page
response, including a three-page statement from the applicant,  with
attachments.

Counsel’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and  indicated
that, the only medical records found that refer to applicant’s post-
surgical status are the initial follow-up visits  in  the  immediate
post-op period.  A clear picture of his  current  condition  is  not
available for review  with  these  records.   It  appears  that  the
applicant  has  several  problems  that  make   return   to   flying
problematic.  First, while a deviated nasal septum may contribute to
chronic sinus problems, this was not found significant enough on his
commissioning or initial flying physicals to draw comment.   Second,
it is well recognized that  pilots  are  subject  to  chronic  sinus
problems occasioned by the constantly changing barometric  pressures
associated  with  flying  duties,  and  even  if  the  applicant  is
currently doing well in regard to this condition, returning  him  to
flying  would  again  subject  him  to  the  potential  for  renewed
problems…in spite of his having had  repair  of  his  nasal  septum.
Thirdly, he appears to have  a  long-standing  problem  with  weight
control and was  placed  on  the  Weight  Management  Program  (WMP)
sometime in late 1997.  There is no current information  as  to  his
present weight/body fat determinations  to  see  if  he  would  even
qualify for pilot training.  If he is still being monitored for this
problem, its ready resolution would not seem imminent.  Finally, the
applicant was washed-out of pilot training for deficiencies relating
to  his  skills,  admittedly  perhaps  affected  by  his   down-time
associated with his repeated sinus problems.  He had, however,  been
given a “second chance” after initial presentation to  a  CRB  which
had  returned  him  to  training  and  a  second   CRB   found   him
significantly deficient in flying abilities, his  medical  condition
being an “unknown” at that time.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is  of
the opinion that, while it may be appropriate  to  consider  waiving
yet a third disqualifying defect to bring  this  applicant  back  to
pilot training, the Medical  Consultant  has  considerable  concerns
about the eventual outcome.  Prior to any such waiver, very thorough
medical and psychological  review  and  examination  would,  in  the
Medical Consultant’s opinion, be necessary before such action should
be taken.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel for the  applicant  provided  a  two-page  response  to  the
additional Air Force evaluation.

A complete copy of counsel’s response, with attachments, 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.     Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.   After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of   record   and   applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that he should be returned to pilot
training.  In this respect, we note that  the  Chief,  Undergraduate
Flying Operations, indicates that applicant’s inability to  fly  the
aircraft while recognizing, planning for, and  coping  with,  future
inflight events was the primary reason for his  elimination.   While
the applicant’s medical condition may have affected his  ability  to
complete flying training, we note he was given  another  chance  and
again he was removed for deficiency in his  flying  abilities.   The
evidence before this Board is not sufficient for us to conclude that
his elimination was in error or unjust.  We note that  the  advisory
from the Chief, Physical Standards, dated 24 Jun 99, states that  if
he has remained symptom free for  at  least  one  year,  he  may  be
considered for a  waiver.   Regardless  of  whether  or  not  he  is
eligible for a waiver, based on the totality of the evidence  before
us, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be reinstated  in
UPT.

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 14 March and 17 July 2000, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Jay Jordan, Member
                  Mr. Roger Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 24 Jun 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ 19 AF/DOU, dated 19 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr counsel, undated, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                   28 Mar 00.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Apr 00.
     Exhibit I.  Letter fr counsel, dated 31 May 00, w/atchs.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair