RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02248
            INDEX CODE:  100.07

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated  to  the  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
(SUPT), or he receive an age waiver so the he can reapply  and  either
compete for either Active or Guard/Reserve Flying Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the  records  to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support  of  the  appeal  are  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF reviewed the application and states that the applicant has
not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations that  he  was
not given the opportunity to use stress management counseling  to  aid
him in overcoming external factors that were contributing to his being
stressed.

The applicant submitted with his application a letter from  the  Chief
of Counseling Services at Columbus  AFB,  MS,  discussing  the  stress
management and performance enhancement services available  to  student
pilots.  The letters speaks of the high visibility that these services
receive through in-processing briefs and of
the support from training  personnel,  individual  Instructor  Pilots,
Flight Commanders, Squadron Commanders, and Wing Commanders.

Training records are destroyed after one year and without  a  complete
training record they can  not  verify  the  sequence  of  events  that
transpired in the applicant's case.  However, based on the  applicable
Air Force and AETC instructions,  syllabus  guidance  and  conduct  of
flying training, they can reconstruct a typical sequence of events  of
a student who may encounter training difficulties that could  lead  to
elimination.

In the flying training environment the students are closely  monitored
and instructors and supervisors are vigilant in trying to ensure  that
there are no outside factors  that  could  affect  their  performance.
However, if the  student  is  not  forthcoming  with  information  the
supervisor cannot help them resolve the situation.

Based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the  applicant's
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 January 2002, for review and response.

The applicant, in a letter  dated  12  February  2002,  requested  his
application  be  temporarily  withdrawn.   The  applicant's  case  was
withdrawn on 14 February 2002.

On 2 May 2002, the applicant submitted a  request  to  have  his  case
reopened for processing.

The  applicant  states  the  stress  management  program  offered   by
Behavioral Services was not advertised when he was  in  SUPT.   A  few
months after he was terminated from SUPT,  Capt  G.  arrived  and  the
program became more visible to the students and wing leadership.

He further states that the OPR did not paint a complete picture of the
sequence of events.  Although they were at a disadvantage due to  lack
of records regarding his performance, there is no  evidence  that  his
medical  records  were  reviewed  or  that   testimony   sought   from
instructors, the flight commander, or anyone along the CAP  chain  for
their observations.  He recalls that his
struggle with performance began before it could be ascertained by  the
tracking of his grades.

If he had been offered the opportunity to take advantage of the stress
management before his problems appeared in his performance, maybe  his
progression in the program would not have suffered.  If he  had  known
about the program he would have self-referred.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After careful  consideration  of
the circumstances of this  case  and  the  evidence  provided  by  the
applicant, we are not persuaded that his elimination from SUPT was  in
error or unjust.  The applicant failed to  notify  his  instructor  or
supervisor of the fact that he was experiencing  stress  from  outside
factors and that this was affecting his performance in  SUPT.   Stress
Management counseling was in place and available to  aid  the  members
who were having performance problems in SUPT.  The applicant  had  the
option of informing  his  instructor  and  supervisor  and  request  a
referral for stress management  counseling  or  he  could  have  self-
referred himself.  He apparently  chose  to  do  nothing.   Therefore,
while his contentions are duly noted, we agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
02248 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                   Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                   Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                   Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 5 Nov 01.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 02
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s response, dated 2 May 02.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair