RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01900
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be  changed  to
read “should be considered for reinstatement in the course at a  later
date.,” in Section III, Reviewing  Authority  Recommendations,  rather
than “should not be considered for reinstatement in the  course  at  a
later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his accomplishments since his elimination from Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) demonstrate that  he  has  a  high
probability of successfully completing SUPT if  he  is  reinstated  to
that course of training.

Since  his  elimination  from  SUPT,  he  has  graduated  from   Joint
Undergraduate Navigator Training (JSUNT), and he has become the holder
of an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate and  accumulated  over  2350
hours of flying time.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the AF Form
126A.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve as  a
navigator in the grade of captain, having been promoted to that  grade
on 29 Sep 00.  He is credited with 7  years  of  satisfactory  federal
service for retirement.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these  facts  in  this
Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant entered
SUPT at Vance Air Force Base (AFB) in Jan 96 with Class  97-04/E.   He
was eliminated for flying deficiency  from  primary  (T-37)  phase  of
training in May 96.  This was a result of repeated Final Contact Check
failures.  The applicant subsequently  entered  JSUNT,  graduating  in
October 97. HQ AETC/DOF indicated that although similar in some areas,
pilot and navigator training programs are  very  different  in  skills
acquired/required to be successful.

According to HQ AETC/DOF, to reinstate the applicant would not be fair
to those students who were able to master the required  skills  during
their initial exposure.  There has been no alleged error or  injustice
committed during his training, and the responsibility for failure lies
with  the  applicant.   Repeated  attempts  to   retrain   individuals
eliminated for cause represents wasteful use of taxpayer’s dollars and
Air  Force  resources.   The  applicant’s  subsequent  success  as   a
navigator and civil pilot is to his credit, but should not be rewarded
with a reinstatement into pilot training.

A complete copy of the HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated  that  he  would  agree  that
JSUNT and JSUPT have significant differences.   He  would  agree  that
military flight training and civilian flight training have significant
differences.  It is his contention,  however,  that  while  alone  his
achievements in neither JSUNT nor civilian flight training justify the
granting of  his  request,  the  combination  of  the  two  provide  a
complimentary synergism which should.  He knows  from  experience  the
rigorousness of JSUPT.  He knows that it is not so  rigorous  that  he
would not be up  to  the  task  either  mentally  or  physically.   He
understands and accepts that attrition is expected. He feels, however,
that  in  the  JSUPT/AETC  environment  a   lack   of   attrition   is
subconsciously deemed unacceptable.  He acknowledges that he had  some
failings in his first enrollment in JSUPT but to this day  it  is  his
belief that they did not justify his attrition  from  the  program  at
that point in time.  The money that was spent on his  training  during
his first enrollment is lost as it stands  now.   If  he  were  to  be
reinstated to JSUPT it would not cost the  American  taxpayer  a  cent
more than an applicant going though for his or  her  first  time.   He
would suggest that if he is reinstated and is successful in completing
the program, the cost of the first attempt could be viewed as at least
partially recouped.  He offers assurance that he  would  not  fail  if
given the chance, and he would expect to be enrolled in  nothing  less
than the entire yearlong course.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not   find   the   applicant’s   assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force office of  primary  responsibility  (OPR).   Therefore,  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence that the information used  as  a  basis
for his elimination  from  SUPT  was  erroneous,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 02-
01900 in Executive Session on 15 Oct 02, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 8 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair