RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01065
            INDEX CODE 115.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training  (SUPT)
at a base other than Vance AFB, OK.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He admits his error  but  his  elimination  from  pilot  training  was
excessive punishment for his actions. Taking pictures on solo  flights
was no secret and nobody even hinted at it being  against  the  rules.
His violation of an Air Force instruction was not an  act  of  willful
insubordination but rather a mix  of  misguided  enthusiasm,  youthful
inexperience  and  inadequate  training.   Given   his   above-average
performance in flying  training,  the  dynamic  circumstances  of  the
incident  and  the  ambiguity  of  instruction  with  regard  to   his
infraction, he feels he deserves a second chance to attend SUPT.  He’s
learned a valuable lesson and seeks an opportunity to apply what  he’s
learned.

A pilot who was a student with the applicant at Vance AFB  provides  a
supporting statement,  indicating  that  the  severe  consequences  of
taking photos while  flying  solo  was  not  sufficiently  briefed  or
understood.  The applicant also provides an unsigned copy of a  letter
from his former senior ranking officer (SRO) to  the  flight  training
wing commander.

The applicant’s complete submission, with 5 attachments, is at Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Air Education and Training Command (AETC) supplement  to  AFI  11-
202, Volume 3, General Flight Rules, Section 2.5.1.2.2., prohibits the
use of cameras or video records in single-seat aircraft.  The  use  of
cameras or video records in the cockpit of other AETC or Air  National
Guard  (ANG)  aircraft  must  be  approved  by  the  Operations  Group
Commander (OG/CC).  The individual using the camera or video  recorder
will not actively control the aircraft.

AETCI 36-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and  Management,
Section 5.7.2., states  that  students  will  be  eliminated  if  they
demonstrate improper conduct or attitude  or  lack  of  responsibility
toward assigned duties or obligations.

On 7 May 99, the applicant was commissioned a 2nd  lieutenant  in  the
Air Force Reserves and was ordered on extended active duty  on  1  Aug
99. He entered pilot training at Vance AFB, OK,  on  29  Feb  00,  and
progressed normally.  On 31 May 00, he was scheduled for a  solo  T-37
flight.  Upon completion of the solo sortie, a maintenance crew  chief
found a camera case in the T-37 aircraft flown by the applicant.  When
confronted by his Flight Commander and  Squadron  Assistant  Operation
Officer, the applicant admitted he used a camera on the  solo  sortie.
He relayed to his  supervisors  there  were  other  students  who  had
violated the same rule and provided two names.

On 5 Jun 00, the 33rd Flying Training Squadron  commander  recommended
the  applicant  be  disenrolled  from  SUPT,  not  be  considered  for
reinstatement at a later date, and not be considered for undergraduate
navigator  training.  The  reason  was  the  applicant  had  knowingly
violated governing  directives  by  using  a  camera  aboard  an  AETC
aircraft without OG/CC  approval  and  for  actively  controlling  the
aircraft while  using  the  camera.  The  applicant  was  subsequently
eliminated from training effective 13 Jun 00, as were  the  other  two
individuals.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AETC/DOF  finds  the  applicant’s  arguments  without  merit.  The
applicant willfully violated flying instructions and freely admits  to
this  fact.  At  the  same  time,  he  has   attempted   to   displace
responsibility for his act. They cannot excuse the alleged remarks  of
an instructor or any cavalier  attitude  toward  flying  instructions.
While there may be some time-honored traditions  associated  with  the
initial solo event in an aircraft (such as the ‘dunking’ referenced by
the  applicant),  there   is   not   a   customary,   solo   in-flight
photograph—this would  constitute  a  wholesale  disregard  of  flying
instructions.  The  applicant’s  admitted  inability  to   distinguish
advertising images of pilots flying  aircraft  from  the  reality  and
responsibility of being a professional military aviator is disturbing.
Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts the only instruction he  had  regarding  cameras
was the instructor’s misleading statement on the first day  of  class.
The instructor did  not  indicate  this  was  mandated  by  Air  Force
instruction, which at the time of the incident he had  not  completely
read. He was not informed of his right to remain silent  or  to  legal
counsel until a few days later. He felt forced to self-incriminate. He
believes cameras on  solo  flights  are  a  rite  of  passage  and  he
describes other traditions in the SUPT world that are  not  officially
recognized. He includes some email regarding  photos  taken  from  web
sites. He found nothing to indicate a professional  photographer  took
the photos. He was influenced by such photos, as was their intent, and
he wanted to have a similar photo of himself. He believes he  has  the
qualities to be a responsible and professional military aviator.

In a separate letter, the applicant forwarded two unsigned  copies  of
memos from his former SRO, one of which was provided earlier with  his
DD Form 149 (Exhibit A).

Complete copies of applicant’s responses,  with  attachments,  are  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be  reinstated  into  SUPT.  The  applicant’s
contentions are duly noted, as were the two unsigned  memos  from  his
former SRO. However, we do  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. The AETC supplement  regarding  use  of  cameras  is
clear; the applicant admits he had not read it  at  the  time  of  the
incident. According to the applicant, the instructor said, “Don’t take
cameras on solo flights, and if you do, don’t get caught.”  While  the
instructor’s demeanor may have seemed cavalier to the  applicant,  the
content of the statement was clearly  a  prohibition  and  a  warning,
which the applicant  chose  to  ignore.  His  disenrollment  for  this
violation may appear severe; however, he has not demonstrated that  it
was unfair or in error. One cannot ignore the fact that the  applicant
was  an  inexperienced  pilot  on  his  first  solo  flight  and   the
possibility of a mishap occurring while he was preoccupied with taking
pictures was very real. We therefore adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
conclude this appeal should be denied.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 August 2002 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                                  Mr. James W. Russell, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01065 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC, dated 3 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jun 02, w/atch.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair