RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01079
                 INDEX CODE:  115.02
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All  documents  pertaining  to  the  events   at   the   Joint   Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT)  at  Pensacola  Naval  Air  Station  be
removed from his records and that he  be  reinstated  into  the  Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) with the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was removed from JSUPT on 18 November  1999  due  to  a  lack  of  proper
training  and  the  failure  of  the  Naval   Aviation   Schools   Command’s
(NAVALSCOLSCOM) to follow prescribed guidelines as set  forth  by  Chief  of
Naval Air Training Instructions (CNATRAINST).

In support of his application, he  submits  a  personal  statement,  several
letters of recommendation, copies of Naval Training Instruction 1500.4f  CH-
1 and AETC Instruction 36-2205 and other documents  related  to  his  flight
training.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of  the  Air  Force
on 17 June 1997 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  24
July 1997.  He has been progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  captain,
effective and with a date of rank of 17 June  2001.   Information  extracted
from the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS)  reveals  that  the  applicant  was
assigned to duties as a student in flying training, effective  30  September
1999 and removed from flying training on 18 November 1999.  He was  assigned
to duties as Chief, Squadron Intelligence, effective 2 April 2001.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Inasmuch as the applicant’s training was conducted under United  Sates  Navy
(USN) policy and guidance, HQ AETC/DOF requested  the  Chief  of  Naval  Air
Training (CNATRA) staff to provide comments on the applicant’s  allegations.
 CNATRA’s comments  indicated  that  the  applicant  was  not  removed  from
training because of a lack of proper training nor because of  a  failure  on
the part of NAVAVSCOLSCOM to follow  proper  procedures.   He  was  attrited
from  training  because  of  his  inability  to  successfully  complete  the
requirements of the Air Navigation phase of training.   After  a  review  by
competent authority under CNATRA procedure (Progress Review Board-PRB),  the
applicant should have been attrited after his  third  failure,  however,  he
was given a fourth opportunity to pass the  Air  Navigation  Exam.   He  was
subsequently eliminated after four successive  academic  test  failures  for
the same course, Air  Navigation  (77%,78%,78%,79%).   The  minimum  passing
score for CNATRA exam is  80%.  After  each  failed  retake,  the  applicant
indicated to the negative, in writing, when asked “Have  you  any  complaint
or criticism to make concerning your treatment or training,  and/or  do  you
have any extenuating  personal  problems  that  should  be  brought  to  the
attention of the board?”

CNATRA’s further indicated that the applicant received  training  above  and
beyond the syllabus requirements.  He had eight additional  days  to  study,
including  two  additional  academic  days,  access  to  a  learning  center
available seven days a week, and met with  his  instructor  for  remediation
following each failure.  In summary, there is  not  sufficient  evidence  of
error to invalidate the applicant’s elimination from  flight  training.   He
was given ample opportunity to correct his deficiencies and  was  unable  to
do so.

As to the applicant's assertion his opportunity to succeed would  have  been
increased had he attended USAF (AETC) SUPT, AETC/DOF states that  the  steps
taken  by  the  Navy  during  the  applicant’s  academic  problems   closely
parallels  those  actions  the  USAF  would  have  undertaken  to   include:
remediation,  dedicated  study  time   and   preparation   time   prior   to
reexamination, counseling, and continuous  review  of  student  performance.
USAF  has  similar  academic  failure  procedures  to  the  USN  to  include
Commander’s Review (CR) for elimination after a  third  cumulative  academic
failure.  The standard minimum passing score for USAF  SUPT  academic  exams
is 85%.  A  fourth  successive  academic  failure  of  the  same  course  is
indicative of poor potential to complete SUPT.

DOF is of the opinion the applicant was given ample opportunity to  complete
pilot training.  He did not meet  performance  standards  and  there  is  no
evidence of  error.   Therefore,  based  on  the  evidence  and  the  review
conducted by the CNATRA staff, DOF recommends the applicant  should  not  be
considered for reinstatement  into  SUPT.   The  AETC/DOF  evaluation,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit C.

After a thorough review of the applicant’s case  and  supporting  documents,
HQ AFPC/DPAO, agrees with the advisory opinion provided by HQ AETC/DOF  that
states  "...recommend  the  applicant   should   not   be   considered   for
reinstatement into SUPT" (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and states that the PRB ruled after his  second  failure
to reenter into the subsequent class.  The  documentation  produced  by  the
PRB reflects, "to retain conditionally" resulting  in  his  entry  into  the
subsequent class and providing him only  2  days  of  instruction  prior  to
testing.  In accordance with CNATRAINST  1500.4F,  a  second  unsatisfactory
event requires "...remediation, schedule  and  conduct  extra  instruction."
Applicant feels that his third failure occurred because he only  received  2
days of additional classroom instruction.  If he had attended  the  complete
5 days of instruction with the subsequent class,  the  third  failure  would
not have occurred.

Applicant reiterates that he may have been treated differently if he was  in
an Air Force program.  Within the AETC Commander’s Awareness  Program  (CAP)
the  intent  is  remediation  and  proper  supervision   for   comprehensive
preparation time prior to reexamination.  With only  one  night  to  prepare
for his exams, there was not sufficient time to  complete  remediation  with
instructors and ample test  preparation.   His  complete  submission  is  at
Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the evidence submitted  that  appropriate  standards
or procedures were not applied, or that he was denied any of the rights  and
privileges he was entitled to.  Therefore, we agree with  the  opinions  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.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
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  Docket  Number  01-01079  in
Executive Session on 13 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 26 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 29 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 02.




                                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Vice Chair