RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00085
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot  Training  (SUPT)
and allowed to perform his training at Whiting Field in the T-34 or  at
a location that has T-6 aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The correct course of action has not taken place in his  case.   He  is
not sure why, but poses several rhetorical questions that ask  why;  is
it because he’s black, is it because he is from an F-16 Guard unit,  or
is it because of a speeding ticket he  received  off  base  during  his
first two weeks of training.

The applicant provides a copy of  an  Inspector  General  (IG)  Summary
Report of Investigation that addresses allegations that he made related
to his elimination from SUPT.   The  applicant  provides  a  three-page
review and analysis of the report and points out those areas  where  he
disagrees with the findings.

He believes that his submission shows that his elimination from SUPT is
a direct result of his size (6’6’’ at a weight  of  250  pounds  and  a
sitting height of 36.5’’).  The applicant states that  his  elimination
could have been avoided if he had been sent to fly in T-34s since it is
a tandem seat aircraft with a larger cockpit.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to information contained in the personnel data system  (PDS),
the applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD)  is  31
Dec 96.  On 5 Apr 97, he was appointed as a  second  lieutenant,  Texas
Air National Guard as an  F-16  pilot  trainee.   On  17  Jul  97,  the
applicant’s wing commander requested a waiver from the 19AF/DO for  the
applicant due to his elimination from  flight  screening  due  to  size
limitations of the T-3 cockpit.  The applicant was found  to  meet  the
size standards for entry into  SUPT.   The  waiver  was  approved.   He
entered Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training  (JSUPT)  on  26
Aug 97, Class 98-14.

During his Flying Class II physical on 28 Aug  97,  the  applicant  was
found to be over his maximum allowable weight.  He was, however,  found
to be below his maximum allowable  body  fat  percentage.   During  his
initial JSUPT training, the applicant was again  weighed  and  measured
and found  to  be  both  overweight  and  overfat.   His  training  was
suspended while he underwent  processing  for  entry  into  the  Weight
Management program.  Upon examination  by  medical  personnel,  it  was
determined that with diet counseling and exercise, the applicant  could
easily meet the Air Force requirement for body fat and that it  should,
in no way, interfere with his pilot training or mission safety.   Based
on the recommendation  of  medical  personnel,  the  commander  of  the
applicant’s flying training squadron authorized  a  temporary  (not  to
exceed  six  months)  medical  deferral  for  Phase  I  of  the  Weight
Management Program and the applicant was reentered into training, Class
98-15, on 13 Nov 97.  During this timeframe, 2 Sep  97,  the  applicant
also received a letter of counseling for driving his  personal  vehicle
on Texas highways at an extremely high rate of speed.

On 8 Dec 97, the applicant was notified by his flying training squadron
commander that he was being entered  into  the  commander’s  review  to
evaluate all  circumstances  relating  to  his  training  and  to  make
recommendations regarding his retention or elimination  from  training.
The applicant was notified on the AETC form 126A, Record of Commander’s
Review Action, that  he  was  being  considered  for  elimination  from
training for flying deficiency.  Specifically, the applicant was unable
to maintain the level of proficiency  in  ground  ops,  basic  aircraft
control, straight-in approach (normal), and in-flight checks.  On 9 Dec
97, the applicant provided comments on his Commander’s Review status to
the flying training squadron commander for consideration before a final
decision was made on his case.  On 26  Dec  97,  the  Operations  Group
commander determined that the applicant’s deficiency was sufficient for
elimination.  He recommended that the applicant not be  considered  for
reinstatement in flying training at a later date, that he be considered
for non-rated operations training and, that he not  be  considered  for
specialized  undergraduate  navigator  training.   On  5  Jan  98,  the
applicant was permanently disenrolled from SUPT.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The National Guard  Bureau  Chief,  Personnel  Policy,  evaluated  this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The  applicant’s  elimination  from  training   was   due   to   flying
deficiencies unrelated to his assertion that his physical size affected
his performance.  He failed  to  progress  even  though  he  was  given
several opportunities to re-test in both ground and  flight  phases  of
training.

The applicant’s request to be reinstated into the program and  assigned
to Whiting Field is inconsistent with past or present scheduling of Air
National Guard (ANG) pilot candidates.  ANG pilots are not assigned  to
Whiting Field.  In accordance with AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying and
Astronaut Training Program, officers eliminated from a  flying  program
are ineligible to attend Undergraduate  Flying  Training  (UFT)  unless
specifically recommended by the eliminating or approving authority.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on    23 Mar 01
for review and comment within 30 days.  To date a reply  has  not  been
received.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  We took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force
office of primary responsibility 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 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 7 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SNG/DPFP, dated 16 Feb 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair