ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-01491

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be returned to pilot training.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 28 September 2000, the AFBCMR  considered  a  similar  appeal  from  the
applicant.  The Board granted the applicant the opportunity  to  apply  for
reinstatement  into  flying  training  based  on  merit  (See   Record   of
Proceedings at Exhibit F).

Applicant has requested reconsideration of his appeal and contends that  as
of 9 Mar 01, a student pilot who has successfully completed  one  phase  of
pilot training no longer carries his flight failures, or “downs”  from  the
previous course into the next.   Under  this  new  policy,  he  would  have
started the T-44 program with a clean slate  like  the  rest  of  his  T-37
classmates, and a single mistake would not  have  been  the  death  of  his
flying career.

The Navy’s policies were not appropriate for “joint” pilot  training  since
they did not translate Air Force student records in an equitable  and  fair
manner and greatly reduced Air Force members’ opportunities for success  in
the T-44 program.  Applicant believes that the change in the Navy’s  policy
supports this view.

A required reference to the letter of appointment for  the  junior  officer
board chairman is missing from the Progress Review Board form.  He contends
the reason it is missing is because there was no letter.

Applicant’s request, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  is   1
Jun 94.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  A
profile of the applicant’s performance reports reflects ratings  of  “meets
standards.”  The applicant was eliminated from SUPT in Aug 98  for  failure
to master the procedures and skills required to safely  fly  the  aircraft.
The applicant has  subsequently  failed  to  gain  reinstatement  to  pilot
training.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to  the  Board’s  request,  HQ  AETC/DOF  provided  an  additional
evaluation of the applicant’s appeal.  They again recommend denial  of  the
applicant’s request to be returned to pilot training.

In their review, the only new information surfaced in the  applicant’s  new
appeal is the change to  CNATRA  student  management  guidance.   Carryover
failures between training  phases  surfaced  during  a  CNATRA  Commander’s
Conference in  Mar  01.   A  decision  was  made  to  change  the  training
guidance—primary downs (failed events) will not carry forward  to  advanced
training, but prior phase training record may  be  used  as  a  performance
reference.  This particular issue was not addressed in  isolation,  but  in
the context of several proposals to improve student management and training
administration.

Since Aug 98,  the  applicant  has  used  every  available  means  to  gain
reinstatement in training.  He  filed  a  complaint  with  the  AETC/IG—the
resulting review found no grounds  for  his  assertions.   A  Congressional
Inquiry on the applicant’s behalf  was  answered  by  SAF/LL.   Again,  the
findings did not support the applicant’s complaints.  Applicant has  sought
relief through both the AFBCMR  and  the  Board  of  Corrections  of  Naval
Records.  In  each  of  these  attempts,  the  results  did  not  meet  the
applicant’s satisfaction.  From AETC/DOF’s perspective, the  Navy  decision
to change the carryover policy was done in concert with  other  initiatives
to streamline US Navy  training  pipeline  internal  controls  and  overall
student management policies.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation,  the  applicant
indicates that it does absolutely nothing to counter his appeal  or  refute
the evidence.  After more than two months of extensions, the best  AETC/DOF
could do was to point out that the decision to finally fix the T-44  course
was “done in concert with other initiatives.”  He indicates  that  this  is
exactly his point, that the Navy’s policies were  defective  in  more  ways
than one.   The  process  was  flawed.   The  Navy’s  policies  were  never
appropriate for “joint” pilot  training,  since  they  failed  to  properly
translate Air Force records.   He  states  that  his  vigorous  pursuit  of
justice made the decision-makers aware.

He indicates that  it  is  unclear  why  AETC/DOF  failed  to  address  the
additional evidence  of  his  illegal  Progress  Review  Board  (PRB).   He
maintains that since the  junior  officer  chairman  of  his  PRB  was  not
appointed in accordance with host service directives, his  elimination  was
in direct violation of the US Navy and US Air Force joint  flying  training
memorandum of understanding.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

The applicant submitted additional information for the  Board  to  consider
advising of his selection as the USAFE Logistics Plans Command  Manager  of
the Year and his nomination for the  2002  Outstanding  United  States  Air
Force Logistics Plans Command Manager of the  Year  award.   The  applicant
provides this information as concrete demonstration of  his  dedication  to
achieving excellence.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reviewing this application and  the  evidence  provided  in
support of the appeal, the Board remains unpersuaded that the applicant has
been the victim of an error or injustice warranting the relief sought.   We
note that with the exception of the information regarding the change to the
Navy’s training policy, all of the evidence provided by the  applicant  was
available during our initial consideration of his request for reinstatement
to pilot training.  As such, we will limit our comments to the new evidence
submitted by  the  applicant.   The  applicant  contends  that  the  Navy’s
decision to change its policy  to  not  carry  forward  failures  from  the
primary phase of training to the advanced phase validates  his  claim  that
the Navy’s policies were not appropriate for “joint training” and that  his
elimination from training was unfair and inequitable when compared  to  his
Air Force contemporaries.  The Board does not believe  that  the  applicant
has presented sufficient evidence to draw such a broad inference.  While it
has been confirmed that the applicant would not have been  eliminated  from
advance training in the Air Force for the error made in the Navy’s  program
and might possibly have not been eliminated from the Navy’s  program  under
the Navy’s new policy, this does not automatically confirm the applicant as
the victim of an error or injustice.  Based on the evidence of  record,  we
do not find evidence that the applicant was treated  any  differently  than
any other Air Force student similarly situated in training  with  the  Navy
during this timeframe.  We are also not informed as to  the  rationale  for
the Navy’s change to its’ policy.  Therefore, we again, find  no  basis  to
grant the relief requested.

2.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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 Docket  Number  BC-2000-01491
in Executive Session on 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Memorandum, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 3 Jan 03,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit J.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 03.
    Exhibit K.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 03,
                w/atch.



                                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                             Panel Chair