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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1984-03852-2
            INDEX CODE:  100.07
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his request for reconsideration, he requests his records be corrected  to
show he was disenrolled from basic pilot  training  for  some  reason  other
than “flight deficiency.”

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

From the limited Air Force records available, it appears that the  applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Air Force Reserve  on  31  May  1949  and
entered basic pilot training on 19 June 1949.  The applicant was  eliminated
from USAF pilot training in September 1949.  Subsequent to  that  time,  the
applicant continued to serve as a member of the reserve  components  of  the
Air Force and Army in various capacities.  His name was placed on  the  Army
Retired List in the grade of major on 25 August 1987.  He was credited  with
26 years, 8 months and 4 days of satisfactory Federal service and 42  years,
4 months and 7 days of service for pay.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s available military records,  are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit G.

On 20 February 1985, a similar appeal  was  considered  and  denied  by  the
Board.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the
applicant’s service, and, the Board’s consideration of the appeal,  see  the
Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

On 2 September 2002, the applicant submitted a request for  reconsideration,
contending that it is his desire to have the reason  for  his  noncompletion
of basic pilot training changed from “flight deficiency.”

In support of his appeal, the applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,  a
supportive  statement  from  a  student   contemporary,   a   Randolph   AFB
historian’s statement concerning pilot instructor  shortages  and  documents
relating  to  his  appeal.   The  applicant’s  complete   submission,   with
attachments A to D, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommends the applicant’s records remain unchanged.   The  process
in place today to review elimination cases remains essentially the  same  as
the one used fifty years ago.  Those boards served as a  corporate  body  to
provide checks and balances and to maintain training system  integrity.   In
this matter, no one individual instructor, or one  failed  ride  constitutes
grounds for immediate elimination without review and approval  by  competent
authority.   In  DOF’s  opinion,  there  is  no   compelling   evidence   to
substantiate  the  applicant’s  assertions.   The   DOF   evaluation,   with
attachment, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant believes that he has provided a preponderance of evidence to
substantiate instructor  misconduct.   He  feels  because  of  his  proven
lengthy performance, statistically, “flight  deficiency”  could  not  have
occurred (although, flight instruction  deficiency  surely  did).   He  is
pursuing this matter because of honor, duty, and trust.  He has no  reason
to lie or fabricate any of this matter.   The  applicant’s  rebuttal  with
attachments 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice.   While  we  do  not  doubt  the
sincerity of the applicant or his supporters, more than  fifty  years  have
elapsed since the period under review.  Because  of  the  passage  of  time
during which memories can fade or become distorted and the non-availability
of training records, the applicant’s ability to substantiate his claims has
been severely  diminished.   We  note  the  statements  provided  from  the
applicant’s classmate and a Randolph AFB historian.  However, in  our  view
these statements do not substantiate that the  decision  to  disenroll  the
applicant from flying training in 1949 was inappropriate, contrary  to  the
governing regulation and policies then  in  effect,  or  not  in  the  best
interests of the Air Force or the individual.  We note that  subsequent  to
the period under review, the applicant had a successful career,  ultimately
performing as a rated officer.  We do not find this fact alone  invalidates
the actions taken by Air  Force  officials  in  1949.   While  we  are  not
unappreciative of the applicant’s service to his Nation, we are  unable  to
conclude that actions under review  were  erroneous  or  improper,  thereby
warranting favorable consideration of 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 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-1984-03852-2:

    Exhibit E.  ROP, AFBCMR Docket No. BC-1984-03852-1, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 2 Jan 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
    Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.




                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                                   Panel Chair