RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02966
                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review  Action,  be  removed
from his  records  and  he  be  reinstated  into  Undergraduate  Pilot
Training (UPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was treated unfairly and was the victim of prejudice from the staff
at Vance AFB.  He was not properly advised when to cancel a surgery he
had scheduled during his UPT.  His flight commander did not  take  the
time to discuss with him any of the possibilities with regard  to  his
surgery and his flight training time schedule.  He decided against the
surgery for fear that he would lose his only chance  to  complete  the
flying program.  The uncertainty of not knowing what would  happen  to
him if he went ahead with the surgery and the lack  of  guidance  from
his flight commander caused him  undue  pressure  and  was  eventually
reflected on his UPT  performance.   The  issue  of  instructor  pilot
continuity became a major problem.  He was tossed around with a  total
of nine different instructor pilots in a period of a month  and  three
weeks.  Interservice rivalries were an issue that played a major  role
and affected the quality of training  at  Vance  AFB.   The  issue  of
preferential treatment was openly discussed  among  fellow  classmates
and sometimes caused morale to be low.  Many of the Instructor  Pilots
acted more  like  evaluators  providing  minimal  instruction.   These
issues were not brought  up  during  the  Commander’s  Review  process
because he thought he was going to be given a fair chance to prove his
skills and competence to the Group Commander.

He is convinced that one of the deciding factors in  the  decision  to
eliminate him occurred because of an incident that happened during his
last training flight at Vance AFB with the squadron commander.  During
one of the approaches to landing, the squadron commander wrongly  gave
him a gear-down confirmation when in fact the landing gear  was  still
up.  This caused the squadron commander to want to eliminate  him  out
of the program as quickly as possible, discredit his ability to  learn
and complete the flying program, and portraying him as  not  competent
and of questionable character.   His elimination wasn’t due to  flying
deficiency  but  an  issue  of  personality  conflicts  and   personal
interests.

In support of his appeal, the applicant includes 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 is currently an active member of the Air Force
Reserve serving in the grade of first lieutenant, with a date of  rank
and an  effective  date  of  26  February  2001.   His  total  Federal
commissioned service date is 26 February 1999 and  his  paydate  is  5
March 1998.  The applicant is currently  serving  as  the  Officer  in
Charge, Airfield Readiness, Barksdale AFB, LA.   He  was  assigned  to
this position, effective 25 June 2003.  He  is  credited  satisfactory
years of Federal service for the  Retirement  Years  Ending  (RYEs)  4
March 1999 and 4 March 2000.  He was not  credited  with  satisfactory
years of Federal service for the RYEs 4 March 2001, 4 March 2002 and 4
March 2003.

The applicant’s record contains one AF Form 475 dated 23 November 1999
to document his elimination from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot
Training (JSUPT) due to flying deficiencies.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal  are  contained
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  states
that the applicant’s training record speaks for itself  the  applicant
was given an equal opportunity to complete  pilot  training,  but  the
responsibility for  failure  to  complete  lies  with  the  applicant.
AETC/DOF is sure that every student who has been  eliminated  for  any
reason wishes he or she had a  second  chance  to  attend  USAF  pilot
training.  However, to reinstate the applicant, would not be  fair  to
those students who applied themselves and  were  able  to  master  the
required skills the first time  around.   The  applicant’s  subsequent
success as a civilian pilot is  to  his  credit,  but  should  not  be
rewarded with  a  reinstatement  into  pilot  training.   HQ  AETC/DOF
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter dated 18 February 2001, the  applicant  requested  that  his
application be temporarily withdrawn.  On 7 March 2001, the  applicant
was advised that his case was administratively closed at his  request.
The case was reopened via counsel’s letter of 9 September 2003.

Counsel asserts that the advisory emphasizes the applicant’s  academic
deficiencies, however, it  ignores  the  fact  that  even  though  the
applicant was at the bottom of his class and ranked  low  in  military
and professionalism; he was still above standards with an 89.2 percent
average.  Counsel states that there is no cut off for who  passes  and
who fails academically as far as class ranking is concerned,  and  the
applicant could have completed training with these grades but for  his
elimination ride.  The conflicts  raised  by  AETC/DOF  regarding  his
engagement party is also irrelevant; however, it shows that the  staff
at Vance was eager to inject  any  minor  detail  of  the  applicant’s
personal life to justify their action, regardless of the lack  of  any
impact  on  his  actual  performance.   Counsel  further  states  that
AETC/DOF defends having given the applicant nine different instructors
in a short period of time  by  stating  that  instructors  have  other
things to do.  They further admit that limiting the number of trainers
and continuity are very important to “ensure students  get  consistent
instruction and feedback to reinforce learning.”  Counsel states  that
it would seem that instructor pilots would be  assigned  to  a  flying
training base primarily to train students  in  accordance  with  their
policies and goals, and other duties would be secondary.

The applicant submits a paragraph-by-paragraph response  to  the  AETC
advisory.  Applicant states that he is  currently  in  the  Air  Force
Reserve and has received a letter from the Air Force  Reserve  stating
that he is currently eligible and being considered  for  promotion  to
captain.  He is in contact with the  recruiting  office  at  Barksdale
AFB, LA and has been told that if he can get this  situation  resolved
through the Air Force Board for Correction of  Military  Records,  the
recruiter would  be  more  than  willing  to  assist  him  in  getting
reinstated into pilot training and  sponsor  him  through  a  unit  at
Barksdale AFB, LA.

The rebuttal comments by counsel  and  the  applicant  comments,  with
attachments, 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 instruction or unjust.  We
are constrained to note that for obvious reasons,  in  cases  of  this
nature, the needs of the  service  rather  than  the  desires  of  the
individual are paramount when determining whether a member  should  be
continued in training.  We noted the arguments of  the  applicant  and
counsel; however, they have not  persuaded  us  that  the  applicant’s
opportunity to complete pilot training was unjustly hampered by unfair
practices within his flight.  A review of his flight training  records
reveals a variety of flying deficiencies and that his flying  training
performance fluctuated,  resulting  in  his  being  scheduled  for  an
Elimination Check.  While it may be that there could  have  been  more
consistency in the applicant’s training, we believe the applicant  was
provided a sufficient remedy by  the  fact  that  he  was  given  more
opportunities  to  succeed  than  were  normally  afforded  to   other
trainees.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant  has  provided
no evidence substantiating his claims of prejudice.  In the absence of
such evidence  or  showing  that  the  information  contained  in  the
applicant’s training records is  erroneous  or  that  his  substantial
rights were violated, we agree with the  detailed  assessment  of  the
applicant’s assertions by the Air Force office of  responsibility  and
find that the applicant has not substantiated his  disenrollment  from
JSUPT was either in error or unjust.  Accordingly, this application 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 23 October 2003 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
                       Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 00-
02966 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 2000, with attachments.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, undated, with attachments.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 February 2001,
               Applicant’s letter, dated 18 February 2001, and
               AFBCMR Letter, dated 7 March 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 9 September 2003, with
               attachments.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair