RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02617
            INDEX CODE:  100.07

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His T-41 flight training record be  expunged  to  reestablish  his
eligibility for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT).

2.  He be reinstated to the Undergraduate Flight Training (UFT).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his elimination process from Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP)
T-41,  numerous  administrative  errors   were   committed:    Medical
evaluation was not correct, disclosure of the long term  repercussions
from elimination were not explained  in  detail  to  him  nor  to  his
commander; his records reflected viable UFT candidate at  the  academy
and at Randolph; counseling by legal,  Air  Officer  Commander,  group
commander was not offered.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement  and
supporting documentation associated with  the  issues  raised  in  his
contentions.  Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is
attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was a cadet at the United Stated Air Force  Academy  (USAFA)
from 1990-1994.  As part of the Academy curriculum, the applicant  was
enrolled in the T-41 Pilot Indoctrination  Program  (PIP)  in  January
1993.  Applicant was eliminated from PIP  in  April  1993  for  flying
training deficiencies (failure to solo within syllabus constraints).

On 1 June 1994, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the
Regular Air Force at the age of 25 (DOB: 1 January 1969).  He  entered
active duty on that same date.  Since his entry on active duty, he has
been progressively promoted to the grade  of  captain,  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 June  1998.   He  has  received  six  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) in which he was rated “Meets Standards.”

The remaining 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 at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF summarized the applicant’s flying training  and  stated  that
records provided  by  applicant  show  he  received  prescription  for
aviation spectacles.  Further record review  revealed  just  prior  to
starting T-41 flight training in January 1993, the applicant was  seen
by the USAFA Chief of Optometry  Services.   This  preflight  training
review included the stamped notation,  “GLASSES  WILL  BE  WORN  WHILE
PERFORMING THOSE DUTIES REQUIRING CORRECTIVE VISUAL ACUITY TO  INCLUDE
FLYING."  It was not until the applicant experienced  flying  problems
that the issue of eyewear surfaced.  From the operations and  training
perspective, it is incumbent on aircrew members  to  ensure  they  fly
with proper equipment, to include prescription  eyewear.   DOF  agrees
that the applicant should have been wearing glasses during any  flying
training program.  However, for unknown reasons, the applicant elected
to fly without prescribed glasses until late in his T-41 training.

In reference to  the  applicant  stating  that  the  captain  was  not
experienced enough to perform as his instructor,  DOF  indicated  that
each year AETC retains  120  graduates  of  Specialized  Undergraduate
Pilot  Training  (SUPT)   as   First-Assignment   Instructor   Pilots.
Following graduation from pilot training, these young pilots  complete
Pilot Instructor Training and arrive back at SUPT bases  to  fly  with
students with less than two years of flying experience.  These  first-
assignment instructors make up more than 1/3 of the  instructor  force
and are highly regarded for  their  flight  skills,  instruction,  and
ability to relate to student pilots.  They further  state  that  every
effort is made to limit the number of instructors a student flies with
early in training.  This is done to ensure students receive consistent
instruction and feedback to reinforce learning.   At  the  same  time,
continuity in regards to training events is also a  priority.   Skills
learned by student pilots are  fragile  and  perishable.   Supervisors
must weigh the benefits of instructor continuity vice student training
continuity when managing daily schedules and  instructor  assignments.
The applicant’s instructor was  current  and  qualified  in  the  T-41
aircraft.  Therefore, DOF indicated that, other than  the  applicant’s
assertion, there is  no  evidence  to  show  the  instructor  was  not
experienced enough to help  the  applicant  overcome  his  performance
deficiencies.

As to the applicant’s assertion he was experiencing personal  problems
affecting his performance during T-41 PIP, DOF indicated that a review
of his records reveals on six (6) separate occasions he  was  formerly
counseled for his continued flying  deficiencies.   This  is  standard
practice in all USAF undergraduate flying training  programs.   It  is
also  standard  practice  to  ensure  there  are  no  outside  factors
affecting performance.  This is included  as  an  item  on  the  USAFA
Student Activity Record  (USAFA  Form  0-1028).   The  six  counseling
sessions reflect  the  applicant  did  not  tell  supervisors  he  was
experiencing outside factors affecting his performance.  As  a  result
of continued  poor  performance,  the  applicant  was  placed  in  the
Commander’s review process  to  determine  whether  cadets  should  be
eliminated or reinstated in training.  It is standard USAFA (and AETC)
practice  to  allow  the  student  to  write  a  “show  cause  letter”
identifying any factors affecting  training.   According  to  existing
records, the applicant did not submit a letter identifying any issues.
 If such conditions existed, for unknown reasons the applicant elected
not  to  tell  supervisors  about  outside   factors   affecting   his
performance.

In reference to the applicant stating that long-term repercussions  of
elimination from a formal flying course were not explained, they state
from the record, there was a one-hour,  Cadet  Wing  Operations  Brief
(Unit P0101), which covers course objectives and policies  to  include
procedures for removal from  training  and  ramifications  for  future
Undergraduate Flying Training.  The applicant’s record shows P0101 was
completed on 5 January 1993.  On the  applicant’s  Commander’s  Review
Record it clearly  states  the  student  should  be  disenrolled  from
training and should not be considered for  reinstatement  at  a  later
date.  If  there  was  any  question  as  to  the  clarity   of   this
recommendation, there is nothing in the record to show  the  applicant
surfaced his uncertainty until the AFBCMR application.

In reference to the applicant stating that record of performance since
his elimination indicates he is a viable UFT candidate, DOF  indicated
that AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying and Astronaut Training Programs,
Section  1.1,  Application  Requirements,  Figure  1.1,  Ineligibility
Criteria for Specialized Undergraduate Flying Training, provides  that
“Individuals eliminated from any flying  training  course  to  include
UFT, the USAF Enhance  Flight  Screening  Program  (EFSP),  the  Pilot
Indoctrination Program (PIP), Flight  Instruction  Program  (FIP)  and
Introductory Flying Training (IFT)  conducted  by  or  for  the  Armed
Forces of the United States…”

In summary, the applicant was given an equal opportunity  to  complete
pilot training, but the responsibility for failure  to  complete  lies
with the individual.  Therefore, they recommend denial of  applicant’s
request.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation   and   states   that
prescription eyewear was issued to him.  He did bring the prescription
eyewear with him to training, however, did not wear the eyeglasses nor
did his instructor direct him to wear  his  glasses  during  training.
His instructor was aware of his DD 171, however, for  reasons  unknown
to him, he was not instructed to wear glasses.

He is not contesting the flying skills of his  T-41  Instructor  Pilot
(IP), but based on personal dealings with him, he did not  attempt  to
offer nor render proper counseling.

He tried informally to approach his IP.  To the best of his knowledge,
his AOC and he did submit a “show cause letter” to the 34th Operations
Support Squadron, but  the  sentiment  at  the  Academy  was  that  of
elimination due to the pilot cut backs in the mid-90s.

When he applied for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT)  in  1995,  he
stated on the AF 215 and he informed his chain of command that he  had
been eliminated from the T-41 in 1994.  Not once was  he  informed  of
his ineligibility for reapplying at a later date.  For this reason, he
continued to seek a UFT slot from the Air Force and later was accepted
into Naval Aviation.  Even his Air  Officer  Commander  (AOC)  at  the
Academy who had undergone extensive training was unaware of the  long-
term  elimination  repercussion.   During  their  counseling  sessions
(where the chain of command communicated  with  the  flying  squadron)
they were both under the impression that he would be eligible  in  the
future for UFT.

Since his commission into the Air Force, his experience  has  been  in
Aircrew training.  To include, Familiarization rides in T-38, F-16, UH-
60 aircraft, numerous simulators, and as a  training  subject  at  the
research lab at Brooks AFB, TX.  His argument is that he has  8  years
of “hands on” experience and understanding  as  a  non-rated  officer,
which will prove beneficial in UFT.

He has served his country diligently and faithfully  for  the  past  8
years and will continue to serve until his services can no  longer  be
rendered.  His dedication is  pure  to  the  Armed  Forces,  which  is
evident by his outstanding record as an Air Force officer.  After  the
11 September, he volunteered (November 2001 to March 2002)  to  deploy
to the Middle East to support Operations SOUTHERN WATCH  and  ENDURING
FREEDOM  combating  terrorism.   He  respectfully  requests  that  his
package be looked at favorably to include reinstatement into UFT,  and
his USAFA T-41 records  be  expunged  without  having  to  reapply  in
accordance with AFI 36-2205 due to his selection into Naval  Aviation.
He states, however, if the board looks favorably on his  package,  but
requires that he reapply for UFT, he will continue to reapply via  the
AF 215 and seek the required waivers.  His dedication  to  our  nation
has been a top priority for him and he wishes to further  augment  our
force as a combatant aviator.  He states that our pilot  retention  is
at critical minimal manning and every additional  person  that  enters
into  the  aviation  career  field  further  increases  our   nation’s
capabilities.

A copy of applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence
of record, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the  relief
requested should be approved.  The majority finds  that  the  comments
provided  by  the   Air   Force   accurately   addresses   applicant’s
contentions.  The majority notes that at no  time  during  his  flying
training did the applicant indicate that he had personal problems.  In
regard to applicant’s contention that the instructor was inexperience,
the majority finds that the instructor in question had  completed  all
requirements to become an instructor and was current and qualified  in
the  T-41  aircraft.   The  majority  also  does  not  understand  the
applicant’s failure to wear his glasses while in  training  which  was
clearly not the fault of the Air Force.  In view  of  the  above,  the
majority is in agreement with the comments and recommendations of  the
Air Force and finds no basis upon which to recommend favorable  action
on this application.

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 19 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                         Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                         Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                         Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Olga M. Crerar voted to correct the records and  has  submitted  a
Minority Report  which  is  attached  at  Exhibit  F.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jan 02.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 12 Jun 02, w/atch.
      Exhibit F. Minority Report.




                             OLGA M. CRERAR
                             Panel Chair




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
 
SUBJECT:  Minority Report on AFBCMR Case of

 
      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case
and feel constrained to disagree with the determination of the
majority of the panel that the applicant should be denied an
opportunity to be considered for flying training.
 
      While I agree with the majority that the applicant could have
provided more persuasive evidence, he has established, in my opinion,
that due to unusual circumstances he was denied a fair opportunity to
complete flight training at the academy.  In this respect, the
applicant should have flown with his prescribed glasses; on the other
hand, the Air Force instructor should not have allowed him to fly
without glasses since the USAFA Chief of Optometry Services just prior
to his training had determine that glasses would be worn while
performing training.  I also note that the applicant had personal
problems during the period in question and these problems could have
hindered his changes of completing flying training.  I also note that
it was never discussed or apparent to the applicant that this failure
precluded future opportunities for flight training in the Air Force.
 
      I agree with the majority of the Board that applicant should not
be reinstated in flight training through the correction of records
process; however, I believe the policy stating that his prior failure
of flight training should be waived so that he can be given the
opportunity to be considered for Undergraduate Flight Training.
 
 
 
 
                                     OLGA M. CRERAR
                                     Panel Chair
 
 
 





AFBCMR 01-02617




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.








                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency