RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02568
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, Section III, Block 3,  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” to allow him to be considered  for  future  Specialized  Undergraduate
Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He experienced extraordinary circumstances that contributed to  his  failure
in Introductory Flight Training (IFT).  The  result  was  his  disenrollment
from SUPT and subsequently made future reinstatement into  SUPT  under  AETC
guidelines, impossible.  Since then,  he  has  obtained  his  private  pilot
certificate and now is seeking a decision that will allow him to reapply  to
SUPT.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,  AETC
Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, a letter from HQ AFROTC/DO, dated 1  May  2001,
a Company Grade Officer Performance Report (CGOPR) for the  period  15  June
2002 through  15  June  2002,  AETC  Form  6  (Waiver  Requests),  dated  21
February 2002 & 4 April 2002, and other documentation.

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
second lieutenant.

On 11 July 2001, applicant began  the  IFT  program  at  a  civilian  flight
training facility.  He did not make  his  first  attempt  to  pass  the  FAA
flight evaluation until 3 February 2002.

On 3 February 2002, the applicant failed his first  attempt  on  the  flight
evaluation.

On 7 February 2002, a waiver for an additional 8.0  hours  of  training  was
generated.  On 14 February 2002, the waiver was reviewed  by  AFROTC/DO  and
based  on  the  large  number  of  additional  hours   requested,   AETC/DOF
disapproved the waiver on 20 February 2002.

On 21 February 2002, a  second  waiver  was  submitted  for  3.5  hours  and
approved by AETC/DOF.

On 15 March 2002, the  applicant  completed  the  additional  training,  but
failed his second attempt on the Private  Pilot  check  ride  on.   At  this
point the applicant had completed 53.5 flying hours  (enrolled  in  IFT  for
approximately 240 days).

On 19 March 2002, another waiver was submitted requesting an additional  1.5
hours to complete training.  19AF/DO recommended disapproval  on  22  March.
AETC/DOF also disapproved the request on 26 March 2002.

The  559th  Flying  Training  Squadron  Commander,  personally  appealed  to
AETC/DOF the following week.  On 4 April, AETC/DOF  approved  an  additional
3.0 hours flying time.

The civilian flight school would not approve the applicant to make  a  third
attempt within the allotted hours (total time 56.5 hours).

On 3 May 2002, his commander recommended he be  eliminated  from  IFT  using
AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action.   Final  authority  for
approving this action (19AF/DO) concurred and signed the AETC Form  126A  on
16 May 2002.

Applicant is  currently  enrolled  in  Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator
Training (SUNT).

_________________________________________________________________






AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial.   They  indicated  that  the  applicant  was
assigned to the 559th Flying Training Squadron at Randolph AFB, TX  in  June
2001 as a student awaiting pilot training (APT).

Guidance for APT officers is included in the Application for  Correction  to
Military Records.  APT officers  should  be  enrolled  in  IFT  as  soon  as
practical after being assigned to units, and complete IFT within 90 days  of
enrollment and within a 50 flying hour maximum.

During this training, students complete the FAA requirements for  a  Private
Pilot Certificate (PPC) to include a check ride by an FAA flight examiner.

Any deviation from these guidelines requires a waiver for approval  by  this
office (HQ AETC Aircrew Training  &  Standardization).   These  waivers  are
submitted by the assigned unit commander, and coordinated through  AFROTC/DO
(Maxwell AFB, AL), then 19AF/DO before final review by AETC/DOF.

The applicant failed the  flight  evaluation  on  two  successive  attempts.
Waivers for additional training were granted  totaling  56.5  flying  hours.
After this added training, the applicant could  not  be  recommended  for  a
third evaluation attempt within allotted flying time.

Applicant was enrolled in a 90-day program from 11 July  2001  until  3  May
2002, over 280 days.  It is their opinion, the applicant was given an  equal
opportunity to complete IFT, but failed with 6.5  additional  flying  hours.
His subsequent attainment of a PPC is to his credit.   However,  the  intent
of the IFT program is to introduce students to  flying  in  simple,  single-
engine aircraft, screen those  students  who  cannot  adapt  to  the  flying
environment, and serves as a foundation  for  military  flight  training  in
more complex, high performance aircraft.  Resource allocation  and  syllabus
constraints are set to ensure students can learn at  a  reasonable  rate  in
preparation for the rigors demanded in SUPT.

Since IFT began in October 1998, over  4100  students  have  completed  with
over 500 students currently enrolled in training.  In this 47-month  period,
there have been 21 students  eliminated  for  flying  training  deficiencies
(less than 0.05% attrition).  Failure in IFT is indicative of little, or  no
potential to complete SUPT.

Applicant’s eligibility status for further  pilot  training  should  not  be
changed.  Applicant  should  not  be  allowed  to  re-compete  for  a  pilot
training slot.  However, if  the  decision  is  to  change  the  applicant’s
eligibility status, the applicant’s AETC Form 126A,  Review  of  Commander’s
Review Action, should be changed to show applicant “may  be  considered  for
reinstatement at a later date.”  As the applicant is currently  enrolled  in
navigator training, he must  complete  SUNT  and  awarded  the  aeronautical
rating of navigator before reapplying for a pilot  training  slot  (AFI  36-
2205, Applying for  Flying,  Air  Battle  Manager,  and  Astronaut  Training
Programs).

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, with attachments, which is 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 an injustice.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  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.   The  applicant  failed  the  flight
evaluation after two attempts.  He  was  granted  a  waiver  for  additional
training totaling 56.5 flying  hours.   After  the  additional  training  he
could not be recommended for a third evaluation attempt within the  allotted
flying time.  The Board is of the opinion that the  applicant  was  given  a
sufficient opportunity to complete IFT, and  did  not.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  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  02-02568
in Executive Session on 21 November 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 7 October 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 October 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 October 2002, w/atchs.



                                ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                Panel Chair