RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03595
                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
                       COUNSEL:  Anthony W. Walluk

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into Joint Specialized Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
(JSUPT) and be reentered into a pilot training program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  treated  unfairly  both  individually  by  disparate  personal
treatment, and jointly as a member  of  a  training  flight  that  was
subjected to unusually unfair and demoralizing practices  as  compared
to the practices of the sister flight.  He was denied training flights
to which he was entitled  and  which  other  students  received.   His
elimination violated his right to due process.  As a result  of  these
actions and errors committed  at  Vance  AFB,  OK,  he  was  denied  a
reasonable opportunity to both obtain the skill level expected by  the
staff there and to demonstrate his potential to successfully  complete
pilot training.  He was not given a fair  opportunity  to  attain  his
goal to become a pilot in the Air Force.  The only way to  remedy  the
inappropriate elimination from training is to allow him to reenter UPT
at a base other than Vance AFB, OK.

In support of his appeal, the applicant includes his  counsel’s  brief
elaborating on the foregoing contentions and documents associated with
the events and issues raised  in  his  application.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service as  25
May 1993.  He is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain, with a date of rank and an effective date of  20  July  1997.
The applicant is currently serving as a Resources Flight Commander  at
Hanscom AFB, MA.

Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the  applicant
containing 9 allegations of violations of  training  instructions  and
unprofessional behavior which led to his being  improperly  eliminated
from JSUPT, an investigation was conducted by an investigating officer
appointed by the command IG during the period 29 August to  8  October
1999.  In a report signed on 8 October 1999, the investigating officer
concluded that the applicant’s  allegations  were  not  substantiated.
The investigating officer’s conclusions were subsequently approved  by
the command IG.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal  are  contained
in the official  documents  provided  in  the  applicant’s  submission
(Exhibit A) and in the letter prepared by the  appropriate  office  of
the Air Force (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AETC/DOF  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   HQ  AETC/DOF
counters the applicant’s and his counsel’s assertions.  The  applicant
had ample opportunity  during  counseling  sessions  with  his  Flight
Command and Squadron Commander to surface many of the  issues  brought
forth in his application.  He also  had  the  opportunity  to  discuss
these issues again in his “show cause letter” to  the  Wing  Commander
during the Commander’s Review but from the records submitted,  he  did
not.  The applicant’s record speaks for itself-he was given  an  equal
opportunity to complete pilot training,  but  the  responsibility  for
failure lies with the  applicant.   HQ  AETC/DOF  concludes  that  the
applicant should not be considered  for  reinstatment  into  UPT.   HQ
AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel asserts that the advisory as  written  goes  to  extraordinary
lengths to sway the minds of the BCMR members.  The advisory misstates
many facts and takes them out of context.  Irrelevant facts have  been
provided from current  regulations  to  support  their  past  position
rather than furnish the BCMR with regulations that were in  effect  at
the time when the applicant was eliminated.  The advisory is extremely
one-sided and minimizes the accomplishments  of  the  applicant.   The
applicant was not a total failure as is portrayed with emphasis on his
minimal failures in separate blocks of training.  No mention  is  made
on the total number of successful flights or  the  percentage  of  the
course satisfactorily  completed.   They  ignore  the  fact  that  the
applicant was very near the end of the course when he was disenrolled.
 Counsel notes that the applicant did not provide a  copy  of  the  IG
report because the  report  he  received  was  heavily  redacted  with
sentences, paragraphs and even entire pages censored from the  report.
It was impossible for them to coherently  respond  to  their  findings
since they couldn’t formulate a complete picture due to the amount  of
essential information withheld.  Therefore, they believe the best  way
to rebut the advisory is  a  paragraph-by-paragraph  response  by  the
applicant.  Finally, counsel  states  that  should  the  BCMR  approve
relief that it be in the form of the opportunity to “recompete” for  a
position.  The recommendation from the advisory office is disingenuous
and is a red herring.  The applicant is no longer  eligible  to  apply
for competition and  if  the  BCMR  does  not  return  him  to  flying
training, he will have no other opportunity.

The applicant also submits a paragraph-by-paragraph  response  to  the
AETC advisory.  Applicant states that it is true that  he  could  have
raised many of these issues during counseling sessions or directly  to
the flight commander.  He did not complain about the way  things  were
being run at that point because he was raised in  the  military  as  a
dependant.  His leadership was limited to  being  the  senior  ranking
student.  It was not his place to quibble.  Throughout his AF  career,
he learned that whining and complaining is not the military  way.   He
put up with the hazing and harassment; since he felt that it was  part
of the indoctrination.  He trusted his instructors  when  it  came  to
matters of training, expecting that they would be doing the maximum to
help him succeed.  Unfortunately, this was not the case and they  gave
up on him, and instead expended their efforts to eliminate him  rather
than focus on their job of training.  He raised all  these  issues  in
the Commander’s Review; however  there  was  no  record  kept  of  the
proceedings.  His age eliminates him from  consideration  through  the
active duty selection process.  The chances of being selected  from  a
field of over 500 officers, a second time, as  a  senior  captain  are
nonexistent.  He was wronged, due to the unjust elimination from Vance
AFB;  he  should  not  be  further  wronged  by   this   inappropriate
recommendation in the advisory opinion.  The job of the flight schools
is not to eliminate students, but to train them.  Complete  copies  of
their responses 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  carefully  reviewing  all
the evidence, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  disenrollment
from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) was either
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation or unjust.  The
applicant’s counsel arguments  were  noted;  however,  they  have  not
persuaded us  that  the  applicant’s  opportunity  to  complete  pilot
training was unjustly hampered by unfair  and  demoralizing  practices
within  his  flight.   Based  on  his  flight  training  records,  the
applicant’s flying training performance fluctuated, resulting  in  his
going to a Progress Check and an Elimination Check.  His success as  a
pilot  depended  greatly  on  his  own  level  of  ability.   We   are
constrained to note that for obvious reasons, in cases of this nature,
the needs of the service rather  than  those  of  the  individual  are
paramount.  In our estimation,  no  evidence  of  injustice  has  been
provided which would warrant  extraordinary  relief  in  the  form  of
setting aside this policy or that he was  not  afforded  due  process.
Accordingly, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and find no basis on  which  to
favorably consider 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 issues 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 13 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Edward H. Parker Panel Chair
                       Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03595 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF dated 28 Jan 02 w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dtd 1 May 02, w/applicant’s
               Statement.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/IG, Report of Investigation, dated
               11 Dec 01 (withdrawn).




                                   EDWARD H. PARKER
                                   Panel Chair