RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01004
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Weapons school Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered  for  the
period 6 July 1998 through 9 October 1998, be  voided  and  removed
from his record.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The training report  contains  several  errors,  misstatements  and
omissions.

1.  Section I, Block 4, lists his Duty  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(DAFSC)  as  W12B3C.   Graduation  from   Weapons   School   is   a
prerequisite for the W prefix.  Since he did not graduate, he never
received or held the W prefix DAFSC.  At the time  of  elimination,
his DAFSC was K12B3C.

2.  Section II, Block 4,  states  he  was  “Eliminated  for  Flying
Deficiency.”  His elimination was due to a family emergency  beyond
his control.  His elimination occurred within one day of  returning
from 10 days of emergency leave.  His former  deputy  commander  of
the B-1 Weapons School Division provided a  letter  that  documents
the circumstances that led to his elimination.

3.  Section II, Block 4, states he “failed to meet course standards
in the Surface Attack (SA) phase”  of  training.   His  elimination
occurred during the Surface Attack Tactics (SAT) phase.  Since  his
elimination occurred during  this  later  phase  of  training,  the
report unjustly documents that he was eliminated during an  earlier
and less difficult phase of training.   (This  contention  actually
refers to Section III, paragraph 3.)

4.  He realizes that a report is not erroneous or unfair because it
is inconsistent with prior or subsequent evaluations.  However,  in
an attempt to prove he has never had a  flying  deficiency  before,
during or after Weapons School, and that his  elimination  actually
occurred because of a family emergency, he includes several flying-
related documents.  He was an outstanding graduate for the  Central
Flight Instructor Course and a distinguished graduate for  the  B-1
Defensive Systems Course.  He received qualified ratings for all of
his checkrides  and  three  exceptionally  qualified  endorsements,
including an exceptionally qualified  endorsement  by  Headquarters
8th Air Force during their most recent inspection of the 28th  Bomb
Wing.

During Operation Allied Force (OAF), he was selected  to  lead  his
squadron in combat by flying the first B-1 combat mission  of  OAF.
He flew the most combat missions of any B-1 Weapon Systems  Officer
during the conflict, and was awarded the General Ira C. Eaker Award
for “Outstanding Feat of Military Airmanship within 8th Air Force.”

The applicant’s complete submission, which includes 7  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data   System   (PDS)
indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in
the grade of major, having been promoted to that  grade,  effective
1 January 2001.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      10 Nov 93  Meets Standards
      12 Dec 94  Meets Standards
      12 Dec 95  Meets Standards
      31 Oct 96  Meets Standards
      13 Dec 96  Training Report
      29 Dec 97  Meets Standards
   *  9 Oct 98   Training Report
      29 Dec 98  Meets Standards
       1 Nov 99  Meets Standards
       1 Sep 00  Meets Standards

*_Contested Report -- Eliminated for Flying Deficiency
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and   Recognition   Division,
AFPC/DPPP, recommended denial of the applicant’s  request  to  void
the training report closing 9 October 1998.  The applicant did  not
provide documentation from the rater that his elimination  occurred
during the Surface Attack Tactics phase of training rather than the
Surface Attack phase.  The  former  deputy  commander  of  the  B-1
Weapons  School  Division  provided  a  statement  documenting  the
circumstances that led to the applicant’s elimination.  He believes
it would be in the best interest of both  the  Air  Force  and  the
applicant to remove the training report; however, he  was  not  the
applicant’s evaluator.  AFPC/DPPP contacted  the  former  rater  to
verify the reason for elimination  on  the  training  report.   The
rater disagreed with the applicant’s contention  that  he  was  not
deficient in flying and stated, “The training report  was  accurate
when written and  remains  a  true  statement  of  the  applicant’s
abilities.  He did not meet the flying proficiency standards of the
USAF  Weapons  School  and  his  training  report  is  an  accurate
reflection of that fact.”

The AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, B-2/B-52 Bomber Assignment, AFPC/DPAOC, stated that  the
DAFSC should be corrected to read Q12B3C on the training report.

Regarding the phase of elimination, while the class had  progressed
to the Surface Attack Tactics (SAT) phase,  the  applicant’s  first
flight after rejoining the class was his Surface Attack (SA)  phase
progress  check.   Since  he  failed  this  evaluation,  he   never
satisfactorily completed the SA phase of training.  Therefore,  the
training report is correct in stating that he failed to meet course
standards in the  Surface  Attack  (SA)  phase  and  no  change  is
warranted.

The AFPC/DPAOC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant maintains that the  Operations  Officer  of  the  B-1
Weapons School Division is a credible  source  in  support  of  his
application  and  was  in  the  best  position  to   describe   the
circumstances that led  to  his  elimination.   He  reiterates  his
contention that he had extenuating  circumstances  in  terms  of  a
family  emergency  that  caused  him  to   fall   behind   syllabus
requirements (Exhibit F-1).

The applicant maintains that he was eliminated during  the  Surface
Attack Tactics (SAT) phase of  training  and  that  the  Operations
Officer of the B-1 Weapons School and the evaluator  who  flew  the
SAT progress check with him is in a much better position to confirm
this fact than the current Assistant Deputy of Operations (ADO)  at
the B-1 Weapons School.  The applicant agrees with AFPC/DPAOC  that
the DAFSC on the training report should be Q12B3C (Exhibit F-2).

___________________________________________________________________

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 a probable injustice warranting partial relief  of
the  applicant’s  request.   On  reaching   this   conclusion,   we
considered the following:

      a.  With respect to the applicant’s request that his DAFSC be
corrected, the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility  stated
that source documentation, which included his OPR  for  the  period
30 December 1997 through  29 December  1998,  and  the  duty  title
history entries  effective  1 October  1997  and  1  October  1998,
indicates that the DAFSC  should  be  Q12B3C.   We  agree  and  the
applicant also agrees.

      b.  Regarding the applicant’s contention that the reason  for
elimination  on  his  Education/Training  Report   is   inaccurate,
although the reason may be partially accurate,  it  fails  to  take
into consideration that the errors took place on the day  following
his return from family emergency leave.  In our view, the applicant
was in no condition to  resume  training  and  was  probably  still
distracted by the circumstances of his emergency leave.   While  we
are not inclined to remove the  report  because  it  documents  the
reason the course was  not  completed,  we  recommend  that  it  be
changed to more accurately reflect the circumstances  that  led  to
his elimination.

4.  Turning now to the applicant’s contention  that  he  failed  to
meet course standards in a  later  phase  of  training;  i.e.,  the
Surface Attack Tactics (SAT) phase rather than  the  earlier,  less
difficult phase of training; i.e., the Surface Attack  (SA)  phase.
We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits
of this  contention;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendation  of  the  office  of  primary   responsibility,   HQ
AFPC/DPAOC,  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the SAT phase of training  was  the  more  accurate
phase of elimination.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action
on the applicant’s request to change the phase of training  on  the
report.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF  Form  475,
Education/Training Report, rendered for  the  period  6  July  1998
through 9 October 1998, be amended as follows:

      a.  Section I, Item 4, DAFSC, be corrected to read “Q12B3C.”

      b.  Section II, Report Data, Item 4, DG Award Criteria/Course
Noncompletion Reason, be amended to read,  “Eliminated  for  Flying
Deficiency (See Comments Section).

       c.  Section  III,  Comments  (Mandatory),  Academic/Training
Accomplishments, be amended by  adding  at  the  beginning  of  the
section the following sentence, “APPLICANT had a  family  emergency
requiring 10 days of emergency  leave.   The  stress  and  loss  of
training time resulted in his elimination.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 30 Apr 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAOC, dated 20 Jun 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May and 29 Jun 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, Applicant, dated 23 May and 6 Jul 2001,
      w/atch.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01004





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 AF Form 475,
Education/Training Report, rendered for the period 6 July 1998 through
9 October 1998, be, and hereby is, amended as follows:

            a.  Section I, Item 4, DAFSC, be corrected to read
“Q12B3C.”

            b.  Section II, Report Data, Item 4, DG Award
Criteria/Course Noncompletion Reason, be amended to read, “Eliminated
for Flying Deficiency (See Comments Section).

            c.  Section III, Comments (Mandatory), Academic/Training
Accomplishments, be amended by adding at the beginning of the section
the following sentence, “APPLICANT had a family emergency requiring 10
days of emergency leave.  The stress and loss of training time
resulted in his elimination.”





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency