RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00937
            INDEX CODE: 115.00,128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The ATC Form 126A be expunged from her record so she can  compete  for  a
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) slot or change the basis  of
the record to reflect the following:

        a. The reason for elimination from training be changed from  “Flying
deficiency” to “Medical deficiency.”

    b. The Finding be changed from “was sufficient for elimination” to  “was
not sufficient for elimination.”

       c. The recommendation be changed from “should not be  considered  for
reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “should be  considered  for
reinstatement in this course at a later date.”

2. Reinstatement into phase III of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT),  with
an assignment to NAS Corpus Christi to fly the T-44.

3. Her eight (8) year pilot training commitment  be  reduced  to  three  (3)
years or  to  be  grand-fathered  to  an  eight  year  active  duty  service
commitment (ADSC).

4. Her aviation service date of 6 June 1995 be changed to reflect  the  four
months of lost flight pay and any other back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her performance in pilot training was affected by a shoulder injury.   After
an inadequate amount of time to heal, she was sent back to  flying,  despite
her continued pain.  She  was  given  two  options:   eliminate  herself  or
endure the pain.  She chose to endure the pain because quitting was  not  an
option.  She was later eliminated because of the effect the pain had on  her
flying.  The flight surgeon, who was  not  qualified  in  orthopedics,  gave
Wing leadership advice  contrary  to  that  of  the  recommendation  by  the
attending orthopedic surgeon specialist who was handling  her  injury.   She
has since been advised by an USAF Pilot Physician, that at the time  of  her
elimination, Air Training Command  (ATC)  (now  AETC  -  Air  Education  and
Training Command) had a policy in affect that would allow  a  student  pilot
six (6) months to heal an injury  before  being  eliminated  from  training.
The current instruction, AETCI 36-2205,  allows  12 months.   She  was  only
given two and a half months of healing time on medical hold.   She  was  not
advised of  this  policy  while  at  UPT  and,  therefore,  received  advice
contrary to ATC’s policy.  She contends that she was prematurely  eliminated
from UPT due to a transient medical condition.  If given  adequate  physical
recuperation time she would have been able to complete UPT successfully.

In support of her appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
AETC/DOFP letter, dated 25 May 2001, Deputy Commander, XXXXX  letter,  dated
10 October 2001, XX AMDS/SGPF letter, dated 15 August 2001,  letter  w/atchs
from XXXXXX Medical Office, dated 2 October 2001, 612 CPS/DP  letter,  dated
22  February  2002,  AF  Form  475  (Education/Training  Report),  dated  27
February 1995, and ATC Form  126A,  Record  of  Commander’s  Review  Action,
dated 15 February 1995.

The applicant provided a letter from HQ AETC/DOFP  which  indicates  that  a
medical record review revealed that the applicant had her first T-38  flight
on 1 September 1994 but did not reveal the nature of the injury  to  medical
personnel until 20 September 1994.  She began exhibiting difficulty with  T-
38 operations on 16 September 1994.  A C5288  sortie  was  conducted  on  27
September 1994 followed immediately by a C6289 on 28 September  1994.   Both
rides resulted in “U” grades.  She accrued 16.0  hours  of  T-38  experience
during the month of September 1994.  She was placed in  Duty  Not  Including
Flying (DNIF) status on 30 September  1994  and  a  letter  written  by  the
flight surgeon to the first Commander Review Board  (CRB)  stated  that  the
injured right arm may well have contributed to her poor flying  performance.
 She  underwent  a  number  of  therapeutic  modalities  including  physical
therapy and intra-articular steroid injections.  On  16  December  1994  she
returned to flying status despite a recommendation from  orthopedic  surgery
on 13 December 1994 that she remain DNIF for an  additional  three  to  nine
months.  This reiterated a previous  recommendation  for  extended  DNIF  by
orthopedic surgery on 17 November 1994.  On 6 January 1995 she was found  to
have substandard visual acuity and stood  down  until  receiving  corrective
lenses.  She received  two  review  rides  for  adjustment  to  glasses  but
continued to do poorly.  At her second CRB she was eliminated from  training
with a total of 24.2 hours.

The DOFP letter further stated that the  crux  of  this  case  is  that  the
member was returned to training by a flight  surgeon  who  did  not  possess
specialty level knowledge of orthopedic surgery in the  face  of  documented
advice from an orthopedic surgeon to the contrary.  It is his  opinion  that
this  decision  adversely  affected  her  ability  to   complete   UPT   and
contributed to her elimination.  He recommends the  applicant  be  permitted
to enter Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
captain.

On 14 March 1994 the applicant was enrolled in UPT.

On 12 August 1994 the applicant injured her right wrist and shoulder due  to
a jet ski incident.

In October 1994, the applicant went to a Commander Review  Board  (CRB)  and
was returned to training.

On 17 February 1995, during the second CRB,  the  applicant  was  eliminated
from undergraduate pilot training (UPT) due to flying deficiencies  and  was
reclassified as an F-15E Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) assigned to  aviation
service code 06 (Disqualified-flying requirement terminated).

On 6 June 1995 the applicant  was  re-enrolled  in  undergraduate  navigator
training (UNT) resulting in a new aviation service date of 6 June 1995.

On 19 February 1996, the applicant graduated from Specialized  Undergraduate
Navigator Training (SUNT) and is currently serving a 6 year ADSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAOY  reviewed  the  file  and  indicated  that  they  conducted  a
complete audit of the applicant’s master personnel record and flight  record
folder and determined that the applicant should have  received  flying  gate
credit for the 340 days spent in UPT.  As such, her  aviation  service  date
has been recalculated in accordance with AFI  11-402,  paragraph  3.11.1.1.5
and reestablished as 1 July 1994.  This action has been passed to  her  Host
Aviation Resource  Management  (HARM)  office  to  ensure  all  aeronautical
orders are amended to reflect the correct  date.   Upon  completion  of  the
amended orders,  the  applicant’s  request  for  changes  to  her  financial
records will be completed automatically  via  the  associated  Military  Pay
Order.  No further action is required.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AETC/SGPS concurs with the applicant’s request for reinstatement in  SUPT
and her request to have her elimination changed from “Flying deficiency”  to
“Medical deficiency.”  Her outstanding record  as  a  WSO  demonstrates  her
potential and motivation to  enter  and  complete  SUPT.   Noting  that  her
remaining requests are administrative in nature and not medical  they  defer
to the line side.

They indicated that the applicant feels she has been  granted  an  injustice
concerning her medical diagnoses, treatment and follow-up.   Based  only  on
the documents  submitted  for  review  they  can  certainly  understand  the
applicant’s concern and reason for the BCMR request.  The AETCI 36-2205,  is
an administrative line AFI not a medical one.  The  input  to  increase  the
medical down time during training from XXXX  to  XXXX  months  was  recently
coordinated with and approved by the HQ AETC/SG for  implementation  and  is
the current AETC policy.  While they believe  her  medical  well  being  was
paramount to all concerned,  better  coordination  and  communication  could
have been made  with  and  between  all  parties  involved,  concerning  her
injuries,  her  prognoses  and  the  AETC  policy  on  medical  hold  versus
elimination.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AETC/DOF recommends no change to the applicant’s training  record.   They
indicated that after being  injured,  the  applicant  elected  not  to  seek
medical aid because she did not want  to  fall  behind  in  training.   Upon
finally being examined by the Flight Surgeon, she was  prescribed  over-the-
counter  pain  relievers  but  continued  in  training.   Subsequently,  she
experienced flying problems and was recommended for elimination.   During  a
required medical evaluation, the Flight Surgeon found the injury might  have
been affecting her performance.  This exam  is  required  for  all  students
being  considered  for  elimination  to  ensure  students   are   “medically
qualified at the time of any non-medical disenrollment.”  As a  result,  the
applicant was to be  reinstated  into  training  following  a  Medical  Hold
status to resolve the medical issue.  During this 3-month  period,  she  was
treated with pain relievers and physical therapy.  After being told she  was
being returned to Flying Status, applicant felt she was not ready to  resume
training.  She asked to  be  placed  in  a  lower  performance  aircraft  to
complete training.  The request to change aircraft was denied - there is  no
cross-track  policy  (medical  or  otherwise  to  cover  this  exigency  for
undergraduate student pilots.  Applicant asserts she was  told  her  options
were to be medically eliminated and reapply for training later, or  continue
training in the T-38 and “learn to fly with pain.”  She  again  requested  a
transfer to another training track, but was denied.  When  she  returned  to
training, she experienced continuing training problems and was  subsequently
eliminated for flying deficiencies.  Another medical exam  was  required  to
ensure  the  applicant  was  medically  qualified  for  flying   duty   upon
disenrollment.   Applicant  subsequently  was  selected  for  and  completed
navigator training (required flying medical qualification).   The  applicant
has since completed five years service as a  navigator  and  Weapons  System
Officer (WSO) before filing this application.

Applicant’s assertions on Medical Hold policy are correct.  At the  time  of
her elimination, there was a policy allowing up to 6 months in Medical  Hold
before students would be considered for elimination.  AETC  48-102,  Medical
Management  for  Undergraduate  Flying  Training  Students,  describes   the
process where local Flight Surgeons require HQ AETC/SGPA approval to  extend
students beyond a 3-month Medical Hold status.  Medical Hold status  can  be
expanded to allow up to 12 months.  This is reflected in  AETCI  38-102  and
AETCI 26-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and  Management  (used
by flight training supervisors and commanders). AETCI states that  “students
will be eliminated if they become medically disqualified unless  the  nature
of the disqualification  is  such  that  it  is  likely  to  resolve  within
12 months of the initial disqualification.”  Additional policy  guidance  is
contained in  AFI  36-2205,  Applying  for  Flying  and  Astronaut  Training
Programs:   “Officers  attending  UFT  who  are  eliminated  for  short-term
medical reasons  (as  determined  by  the  eliminating  authority)  will  be
reentered in the same UFT program  when  they  medically  re-qualify.”   The
paragraph goes on  to  say  (underline  added):   “Those  officers  who  are
eliminated for medical reasons of a long-term (1 year or more), may  reapply
for UFT board consideration when they are medically  qualified.   They  must
meet all age  and  eligibility  criteria  and  compete  for  the  first  UFT
selection board after being medically qualified.”

After the applicant was injured she elected not to  reveal  or  discuss  her
situation with medical authorities for 37 days.  It is reasonable to  assume
an injury as serious as the one portrayed, would normally require  immediate
medical attention.  However, responsibility for this decision lies with  the
applicant.  The applicant continued in training to the point she was in  the
elimination process when the injury surfaced as an  issue.   Then  following
the 3-month Medical Hold, the  Flight  Surgeon  returned  the  applicant  to
flying  status.   Subjectively,  flight  line  supervisors  may  have   been
reluctant  to  believe  the  injury  was  in  fact  interfering   with   the
applicant’s ability to fly.  It is likely, the injury  was  perceived  as  a
“distraction” to compensate for  her  flying  difficulties.   Applicant  had
repeated medical exams and was qualified for flying duty at the time of  her
elimination from training for a flying deficiency.

Applicant has waited five years before making the submission to the  AFBCMR.
 Applying AFI 35-2205 policy standards to this case  renders  the  applicant
ineligible for UFT selection as she exceeds maximum  age  and  Total  Active
Federal Commissioned Service (TAFSC) requirements.

Applicant’s request to be reinstated into the T-44 advanced  training  track
is not supportable.  Although  she  is  a  current F-15E  WSO,  placing  her
directly into an advanced track after a five  year  break-in-training  would
place  her  at  a  conspicuous  disadvantage,  and  jeopardize  chances  for
successful completion.

There is no basis provided by the applicant to support requested changes  to
backpay and allowances, pilot  training  commitment,  and  aviation  service
date.

However, if the decision is to grant the applicant’s request, the AETC  From
126A should be  changed  to  show  the  applicant  “may  be  considered  for
reinstatement at a later date.”

If a decision is made to reenter the applicant in  training,  recommend  the
applicant complete the entire year long  course  and  compete  for  advanced
track selection based on merit.  Additionally, she will require both an  age
and TAFSC waivers  IAW  AFI  36-2205,  Applying  for  Flying  and  Astronaut
Training Programs.

Other requests for  pay,  service  commitment,  and  aviation  service  date
changes requires further policy determinations by offices within HQ USAF.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPSFO recommends denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  states
“My 8 year pilot training commitment be reduced to  3  years  since  I  have
already served 5 years as a rated officer.  Should this not be  possible,  I
request to be grand-fathered to an 8 year ADSC, since that  was  the  policy
in effect when I would have graduated from UPT."   The  applicant  graduated
from UNT on 19 February 1996 and is currently  serving  a  6-year  ADSC  for
that  training  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2107,  (Active  Duty   Service
Commitments and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table  1.4,  Rule
2, 6 July 1994 (version in effect at the time).  Her rated service as a  WSO
(5 years) has no bearing on her UPT commitment if applicant  is  reinstated.
These are separate training issues with different ADSCs  (6  years  for  UNT
and 10 years for JSUPT).  In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2107,  (Active  Duty
Service Commitments), IC 2001, Table  1.1,  Rule  10,  JSUPT  graduates  now
incur a 10-year ADSC.  Note  1  states:   “The  ADSC  will  be  served  upon
graduation and will run concurrently with any other ADSC.”  If applicant  is
reinstated into UPT at a future date, there is no provision in  the  AFI  to
reduce her ADSC to 3 years or to “grandfather” to 8 years.

Air Force members are still  expected  to  serve  the  appropriate  term  of
active service to  ensure  the  Air  Force  and  the  taxpayers  receive  an
appropriate return for their investment  in  training  and  education.   UPT
ADSC is served upon graduating from training.   Current  guidance  does  not
provide for the acceptance of her 5 years of rated  service  as  WSO  to  be
applied towards any  future  UPT  commitment.   Additionally,  there  is  no
allowance for a  “grandfather  clause.”   The  applicant  has  not  provided
sufficient justification to support her request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit F.

HQ AFPC/DPAO indicated that AETC Form 126A  (Record  of  Commander’s  Review
Action) documents the history on  an  individual,  and  in  this  case,  the
elimination from pilot training.  They do not  support  the  elimination  of
the AETC Form 126A from the file.   The  applicant  also  requested  an  age
waiver if required.  At the time of initial entry into pilot  training,  the
applicant met the age requirements.  USAF/DP does not normally  require  the
member to obtain an age waiver when he or she is reinstated  into  training.
If an age waiver is required, they support the request.  However, the  final
approval for age waivers for entry into SUPT rests with HQ AF/CC.

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation  and  indicated  that  this  injustice
occurred  when  she  was  placed  back  on  flying   status   before   fully
recuperating from a shoulder injury.  Her premature return  to  the  cockpit
directly affected her performance and led to her elimination from UPT.   Had
she been  given  adequate  time  to  heal,  she  would  have  completed  UPT
successfully.  No action was taken earlier because she  did  not  know  that
there was a recourse for the decisions made.  Then as a  second  lieutenant,
she trusted the guidance she received from  her  supervisors  was  full  and
complete.  She was not made aware of all her options, including the AFBCMR.

She is requesting reinstatement into  phase  III  because  she  has  already
successfully completed Phase I (academics) and  Phase  II  (T-37  training).
Her goal has always been to be a C-130 pilot and placing her in a T-44 or T-
1 for Phase III in JSUPT would allow her the opportunity to compete  towards
that goal.  Selecting a C-130 out of the T-38 track (Fighters/Bombers  only)
is no longer an option as it had been when she went through UPT in 1995.

She’s requesting 5 years of rated flying as  a  Weapons  System  Officer  be
counted towards her rated UPT commitment  because,  had  the  injustice  not
occurred, she would have completed 7 of the 8 years  of  her  rated  service
commitment by now.

After being eliminated, her Aviation Career Incentive Pay (flight  pay)  was
interrupted for four months while waiting for  her  Undergraduate  Navigator
Training class to begin.  If she had been  placed  on  medical  hold  for  6
months instead of being  eliminated,  per  AETC  policy,  this  interruption
would not have occurred.  There would not have  been  a  break  in  aviation
service.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.     Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  an  injustice   warranting   partial   relief.
Essentially, the applicant contends that she was given insufficient time  on
Medical Hold in order for injuries to her shoulder and wrist to heal.  As  a
result, she was prematurely eliminated from UPT due to a  transient  medical
condition.  Had she been given sufficient  time  to  recuperate,  she  would
have successfully  completed  UPT.   We  note  that  the  applicant  injured
herself in mid-August 1994, however, apparently  elected  not  to  seek  any
type of medical attention until  20 September  1994,  and  that  was  for  a
stomach virus.  Apparently the pain she  continued  to  experience  affected
her flying to the extent that she was sent to a review board.  As a  result,
she was seen by the flight surgeon on 30  September  1994,  nearly  6  weeks
after the incident.  It was at that time she  commenced  treatment  for  the
injury, was reinstated  to  training,  and  placed  on  medical  hold.   She
remained on medical hold  until  sometime  in  January  1995  when  she  was
returned to flying status.  Unfortunately, she continued to experience  pain
that ultimately affected her flying ability  resulting  in  her  elimination
from UPT.  The Chief, Physical  Standards  Branch  points  out  that  better
communication between all parties involved could have  been  made  regarding
the AETC policy on medical hold versus elimination.   We  note  that  during
the time period in question, the applicant could have  remained  on  medical
hold up to six months.  However, based upon the documentation submitted,  we
find no evidence that the applicant requested to remain on medical hold  for
the maximum amount of time and was denied.  On the other hand, we  note  the
statement from the Pilot Physician who  indicates  that  the  applicant  was
returned to flying status by a flight surgeon  who  did  not  specialize  in
orthopedic surgery, in the face of documented  advice  from  the  orthopedic
surgeon treating the applicant.  In view of the foregoing,  we  are  of  the
opinion that both  the  applicant  and  the  Air  Force  can  share  in  the
responsibility for her elimination from  training.   In  this  respect,  the
applicant  did  not  seek  out  treatment  immediately  for  fear  of  being
eliminated from training and  the  Air  Force  apparently  returned  her  to
training before she had an opportunity to  fully  heal.   Interestingly,  we
note the applicant was eliminated from UPT in  February  1995  but  did  not
submit this appeal until February 2002, seven years after the  incidents  in
question.  Regardless, in view of the totality of the circumstances of  this
case, we believe that some relief is warranted in this  case.   We  are  not
inclined to return her to Phase III of UPT considering the  length  of  time
she has been removed from training.   The  decision  regarding  whether  she
should be reinstated to UPT and where that training is accomplished is  best
left to the Air  Force.   However,  we  believe  she  should  be  given  the
opportunity to apply for reinstatement to pilot training.   Whether  or  not
she is successful in her quest for reinstatement to UPT  will  be  dependent
on the needs of the Air Force.   Therefore,  we  recommend  her  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

4.     With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  request  regarding  her  aviation
service date, we note that her records have  apparently  been  corrected  to
reflect an aviation service date of 1 July  1994,  in  accordance  with  the
governing directives thereby giving her flying gate credit  for  the  period
of time she was in UPT.  She has not established to  our  satisfaction  that
this date is in error or unjust and that she should be awarded  an  aviation
service date of 5 March 1994, the date  she  originally  entered  UPT.   She
believes that she should have this date on  the  basis  that  had  she  been
placed on medical hold for six months, she would not have  had  a  break  in
aviation service.  As noted above, the Board believes that she has to  share
in the responsibility for her medical condition and are not  persuaded  that
any further correction is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  this
portion of the request.

5.     Lastly, with respect to her request  for  a  reduction  of  her  ADSC
should she successfully complete UPT, we note that applicant  has  requested
that she either be grandfathered to the ADSC which was in  effect  when  she
originally entered UPT (eight years) or that the five years she  has  served
as a Weapons Systems Officer be counted toward that eight  year  commitment,
thereby only serving three years upon successful completion of UPT.   It  is
our opinion that the current 10-year ADSC should not  be  curtailed,  should
she graduate  from  UPT.   Should  she  be  successful,  we  believe  it  is
appropriate  that  she  serve  her  full  UPT  commitment  upon  graduation.
Therefore, 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.   As  such,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that ATC Form  126A,  dated  17  February
1995, be amended to reflect the following:

       a.   Section  I.  Initiating  Authority,  reflect  the   reason   for
elimination from training  was  “Medical  Deficiency”  rather  than  “Flying
Deficiency.”

    b.  Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under the
Finding heading that the student’s deficiency “was not sufficient for
elimination” rather than “was sufficient for elimination.”

      c.  Section III. Reviewing  Authority  Recommendation,  reflect  under
the Recommendation heading  that  the  student  should  “be  considered  for
reinstatement  in  this  course  at  a  later  date”  rather  than  “not  be
considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00937
in Executive Session on 7 November 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 15 April 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 3 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 3 September 2002.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, 13 September 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 October 2002, w/atch.





                 WAYNE R. GRACIE
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 02-00937





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to   , be corrected to show that ATC Form 126A, dated 17 February
1995, be, and hereby is, amended to reflect the following:

            a.  Section I. Initiating Authority, reflect the reason for
elimination from training was “Medical Deficiency” rather than “Flying
Deficiency.”

      b.  Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under
the Finding heading that the student’s deficiency “was not sufficient for
elimination” rather than “was sufficient for elimination.”

            c.  Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect
under the Recommendation heading that the student should “be considered for
reinstatement in this course at a later date” rather than “not be
considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency