RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00844
            INDEX CODE:  115.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was improperly and unnecessarily eliminated  from  pilot  training.   In
her three academic failures, she received a 77.7% (two questions  away  from
passing at 85%), 83.3% (one question away from the passing  85%)  and  81.5%
(one question away).  Essentially, she was eliminated  from  pilot  training
for missing four questions on three tests out of the eight  tests  she  took
and out of a total of only 9 tests in  the  entire  course.   When  she  was
initially recommended for elimination, the records erroneously  indicated  a
74.1 % instead of the 77.7% actual test result for her first failure.   This
error  was  not  corrected  for  the  Commander's  Review  (CR),  and   this
inaccuracy may have inappropriately contributed to the decision to  initiate
the disenrollment.  It should be noted that when a student fails an exam,  a
retest is required.  She scored 96.3% and 93.3% on the retests of the  first
two failures and was not  allowed  to  retest  the  third.   LAFBI  36-2205,
states that a student may be eliminated for  failure  "to  meet  proficiency
standards of the syllabus in flying,  academics,  or  procedures",  however,
that statement is vague and  does  not  specify  what  constitutes  academic
failure.

The applicant was unable to find any requirement  that  a  CR  be  initiated
after three failures and she had only one remaining  test  to  complete  the
rest of her training.  There is no rational basis for her to have  not  been
allowed to retest on this failure and allowed to take  her  last  exam  when
she was doing so well. She had shown excellent success at  retests  and  she
had an above average passing grade. Therefore the decision to eliminate  her
after three failures, given the minimal questions  missed,  considering  the
excellent retest scores and her satisfactory overall  academic  record,  and
the fact that there was  only  one  final  test  required  to  complete  the
training,  was  arbitrary  and  capricious.   Even  if  there  had  been   a
regulation requiring the initiation of the CR, her record clearly  justified
another chance.

She was entered into the Commander's Awareness Program (CAP),  a  monitoring
program designed to ensure academically or procedurally  deficient  students
receive remedial training, after  which  they  can  return  to  the  regular
curriculum, better able to succeed.  She and her flight commander entered  a
verbal agreement that she was not to fly on Saturdays, nor was  she  to  fly
two sorties on any given day in  order  to  allow  more  time  for  academic
studies.  On 6 Feb 99 an Instructor Pilot (IP)  violated  that  contract  by
requiring her to fly on a Saturday.  The agreement was again  violated  when
she was required to both fly and afterward take  the  navigation  test.   An
academic exam was considered to be a sortie  for  training  purposes.   That
navigation test was the one on which she missed one  answer  for  her  third
failure.   She  completed  all  subsequent  flying  sorties  satisfactorily,
according to the  standards.   She  was  not  to  be  scheduled  to  perform
navigational events in the airplane for several  more  weeks,  yet  she  was
required to take that exam in navigation the same day she was  flying.   Her
concentration and focus had to switch from one  course  to  the  other  just
minutes before her exam.  She had personal problems  which  interfered  with
her ability to study, impacted her performance,  and  should  have  received
more consideration by the CR.  In  addition,  the  CR  made  a  point  of  a
"personality conflict" with  a  civilian  instructor.   The  instructor  was
upset that  she  was  not  using  his  technique  regarding  a  mathematical
computation.  This was on her next to  last  day  of  training  and  had  no
bearing on her academics because she had no deficiencies on the exam.

The reviewing authority that recommended her for retention was  required  to
include applicable records and a written summary of  the  significant  facts
and rationale used in arriving at the recommendations.  This did not  occur.
 The absence of these  essential  comments  may  very  well  have  been  the
difference between a positive recommendation  and  the  one  that  resulted.
Additionally, she had previously been in the CAP for being  airsick.   After
a student made three successful flights following an  airsick  episode  they
were removed.  AETCI 36-2205 states that  students  who  become  airsick  on
four or more pre-solo sorties will be placed on CAP.  This  did  not  occur.
She was placed on airsick CAP after only 2  episodes  and  she  successfully
continued  in  her  training  without   further   airsick   episodes.    The
airsickness, a  common  problem  with  students  early  in  training,  never
recurred.  However, after  she  failed  her  third  academic  test  and  was
removed from training, her commander removed the form from her records  that
indicated  she  had  been  cleared  off  of  the  airsick   CAP   and   then
inappropriately  administratively  put  her  back  on  airsick  CAP  status,
without any justification or any airsick episodes.

In her paperwork presented to the CR it  was  stated  that  she  was  ranked
last, number 30 out of 30 students in her class.  She  was  actually  number
28 out of 30.  While these errors by the CR may be  looked  at  individually
as minor, they had a cumulative  unfair  effect.   Another  student  in  her
class also failed three exams at approximately the same  time  she  did.  He
was allowed to continue in training and currently flies for the  Air  Force.
A different standard was applied  to  the  male  student  to  allow  him  to
continue in training while a woman, was dismissed on the  same  record.  Two
males were allowed to continue  in  training  after  academic  disenrollment
while no women were.  Lt  Col  K---  stated  that  she  "lacked  either  the
motivation or the ability to grasp the academic material  presented".   This
was an inappropriate and inaccurate statement which  unfairly  affected  the
outcome of the CR and is contradictory to his recommendation  letter  signed
two weeks after her training,  stating  that  she  was  a  highly  motivated
individual.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  provided  her  counsel's   brief,
documentation associated with her elimination from  SUPT,  an  extract  from
LAFBI 36-2205, and LAFBI 36-2220 and 2205.  Her  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  27
May 98 and was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on  that  same
date.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of  captain,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 27 May 02.

The applicant entered pilot training at Laughlin AFB  TX  on  14  Oct  1998.
She was entered into the CR process after failing three cumulative  academic
exams.  After reviewing her training records the Operations Group  Commander
recommended retention in training; however, wing  commander,  as  the  final
reviewing authority, recommended elimination for academic  deficiency.   She
was eliminated from SUPT on 16 Feb 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommends denial.  DOF states that there is no cumulative  passing
average applied in SUPT.  Each exam stands alone with the requirement for  a
minimum passing score of 85%.  A student failing three  exams  is  put  into
the CR process.  The number of total exam questions,  questions  missed,  or
margin of failure is not considered.  The  only  application  of  cumulative
average scores is used for computing academic standing for  eliminees  being
considered for navigator training (93%  required)  and  for  graduate  final
ranking and achievement awards.  Three cumulative academic failures  is  one
of four ways  the  CR  may  be  initiated.   This  requirement  for  minimum
academic competence exists in all SUPT syllabuses and has been used  as  the
standard for more than 25 years.  Her CAP  training  plan  was  followed  as
closely as possible with the her best interests and her  continued  progress
in training.  Every effort was made to minimize  the  number  of  activities
scheduled during the duty day to allow for additional study time.   However,
given the number of simulator events, aircraft sorties, and  academic  hours
required in the syllabus, to complete  training  within  the  allotted  time
requires multiple events be accomplished on most  days.   Student  schedules
are developed based on a 12-hour day to ensure timely course completion  and
maximize training resource utilization.   Students  are  expected  to  study
when off-duty and to maximize study during the duty day when  not  scheduled
for training events.  Students not scheduled for multiple activities can  be
expected to fall behind classmates and are often held back for training.

As the final reviewing authority, the wing commander had access  to  all  of
her training  records  to  include  her  show-cause  letter,  in  which  she
described her personal circumstances.  There is no evidence to show  it  was
not considered in the final decision to eliminate her from training.

The applicant construed her training plan as a verbal contract, not  subject
to change.  It was  also  her  perception  that  academics  would  count  as
sorties and she would not be scheduled for two events.  However, this was  a
misinterpretation on her part.   The  flight  commander  provided  his  best
approach for her to overcome her academic difficulties.   Every  effort  was
made to provide special treatment for her  within  the  constraints  of  the
syllabus and available training time and resources.

There is no evidence presented verifying that her records presented  in  the
CR were erroneous.  DOF is unable to make comment of her  assertion  that  a
male student with the same  academic  record  was  retained  while  she  was
eliminated.   The  male  student's  trainings  were  unavailable.   However,
documentation provided by the applicant shows that there  were  12  students
removed from training for academic deficiency during the tenure of the  then
assigned wing commander.  Of the 12, 10 were male and 2  were  female.   The
fact that two male  students  were  subsequently  reinstated,  but  the  two
females were not, is not indicative of bias or injustice.  It  remains  that
there were eight other male students who were also eliminated  for  academic
deficiencies during this time period.

Students must prepare for and perform many activities in  a  single  day  or
they will not be able to complete training.  She had already been held  back
once  for  her  academic  deficiency.   Students   cannot   be   held   over
indefinitely until they can achieve standards.  This  is  not  effective  or
efficient use of limited training resources and is not equitable  for  those
students  achieving  standards   within   programmed   time   and   syllabus
constraints.

The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states  that  her  first  test  failure  was  the  result  of  her
exhaustion from running 26.2  miles  the  day  before  the  exam.   She  was
determined to run the San Antonio marathon in tribute  to  her  best  friend
who passed away a couple of weeks before she started  pilot  training.   Her
second and third test failures were  related  to  a  combination  of  stress
factors, frustration, sadness, and the bull-headed mentality that she  could
deal with all things in her life by herself without  asking  for  help.   In
addition, her flight commander broke his contract with her  not  to  fly  on
weekends and to not schedule her to fly on the same day as a major  academic
test.  Achieving lower that a passing score of  three  academic  tests  does
not automatically eliminate a student  from  training.   She  explained  her
circumstances to her flight commander and assured him that her  reasons  for
not doing well on the tests were for  personal  reasons  that  affected  her
concentration.  The thought of not graduating at the top  of  her  class  as
she had planned had frustrated her and she was determined  to  complete  the
course.  The flight commander did not consider  her  rationale  as  a  valid
reason for failing academically.  He told  her  that  the  standard  was  to
recommend students for elimination with three  academic  failures  while  at
the same time he recommended another individual for reinstatement.

DOF states that the number of total  exam  questions,  questions  missed  or
margin of failure is not considered. The type  of  question  missed  is  not
considered  either.   In  simple  terms,  a  test  does  not  determine  the
competency of a pilot but measures individual knowledge  and  retention,  as
well as comparison of one student to another.  The 85% standard  is  not  an
accurate measurement of how well a student will  perform  as  a  pilot.   In
SUPT all students  begin  with  academics  only,  progress  to  a  stage  of
academics overlapping flying, and end the  course  with  the  flying  phase.
During the overlap phase the academics and flying do not coincide  directly.
 Students are required to master a flying skill at the same time  study  for
advance instrument academics that would not be applied until weeks later.

A common practice in pilot training was for students  to  review  copies  of
the actual tests  in  preparation  for  the  test.   The  rationale  was  if
everybody did it how could the leadership possibly eliminate everybody  from
training.  The students who cheated eventually were required to apply  their
knowledge and skill in the airplane  a  few  weeks  later.   Those  students
grasped the material upon application in the airplane, justified  their  own
conduct and are aviators today.  She opted to not cheat, excelling on a  few
tests with a score of 100% and ultimately failing a total  of  three  tests.
The words of her squadron commander, who told her that she would never  have
the ability to understand advanced combat weapons systems like air  launched
missiles if she could not grasp the basic academics  of  flying  because  of
her test failures, provided negative reinforcement that had  a  huge  impact
on her self confidence.

Her complete submission 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 error or injustice that would warrant  reinstatement  into  the
SUPT program.  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 office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In cases of this nature,  we  are
not inclined to disturb  the  judgments  of  commanding  officers  absent  a
strong showing of  abuse  of  discretionary  authority.   We  have  no  such
showing here.  Evidence has not  been  presented  which  would  lead  us  to
believe that the appropriate standards or procedures were  not  applied,  or
that the applicant was denied any of  the  rights  and  privileges  she  was
entitled to.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
00844 in Executive Session on 15 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
      Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 02, w.atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 30 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair