RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01823
            INDEX CODE:  125.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A  be  corrected  to  allow  his  reinstatement  into
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While in SUPT he was exposed to eight different instructors  when  the
Operating Instruction (OI) called for a maximum of  three;  that  many
external factors existed that, coupled with the normal challenges  and
difficulties of SUPT, imposed  a  higher  stress  level  on  him  than
experienced  by  most  SUPT  students;  his  elimination  check   ride
contained biased subjectivity.

His complete submission, along with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while a member of the ---- Air National Guard (-- ANG),
was selected for SUPT and began training on 21 March 2000.  During  T-
37 primary training, he failed four Contact Category aircraft training
sorties and one Instrument Category  simulator  training  sortie.   He
failed the Instrument Category check ride on his first attempt and was
subsequently  ranked  24th  in  his  class  of  31  students.    After
discussions with his home unit commander, the student flight commander
recommended the applicant continue training and he  was  entered  into
the T-38 advance track.

While in T-38 advanced track  training,  the  applicant  graded  below
standard  on  11  aircraft  sorties  and  5  simulator   events.    He
successfully passed rechecks on the  Contact  and  Formation  Check’s.
However, he failed the  second  retake  on  the  Instrument/Navigation
Check.  As a result,  he  was  entered  into  the  Commander’s  Review
process where he was eventually eliminated from training by the  final
approval authority (Wing Commander).

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ANG/DPFP recommends denial of relief.  DPFP  notes  the  tremendous
amount of documented correspondence surrounding this case from subject
matter experts, those familiar with applicant’s performance  and  from
the Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force,  who  presented  that
the applicant lacked the ability to develop the skill  sets  necessary
for the flying profession.

DPFP states that while the applicant did not complete SUPT, as an  ANG
officer, he can be reclassified and trained  into  another  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).

DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the --  ANG
Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to
the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B.

HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant  not  be  reinstated  into  SUPT.
DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB)  has  recommended
against his retention as a flying asset, largely on the recommendation
from the ANG Advisor to the Commander of 19th Air  Force,  and  argues
that at the time, the advisor, was not  given  access  to  letters  or
other supporting materials now in applicant’s possession that may have
swayed the advisor’s opinion.  Applicant notes also that  the  --  ANG
recommended against his retention in the ANG as a flying  asset.   His
contention is that the Commander mistakenly noted that the majority of
applicant’s letters of support were from his peers: fellow trainees in
SUPT.  The applicant contends that of the 18 letters he submitted,  10
were from instructor pilots, 2 from current  fighter  pilots,  2  from
current instructor pilots of the T-37 and F-15, and finally 1 from the
F-15 commander of the ---nd Fighter Wing in the --- ANG.

The applicant notes that  of  the  23  instructors  he  flew  with,  3
instructors account for one half of his substandard rides and contends
that that fact alone accounts for a more  critical  grading  practice.
While he asked  to  fly  with  different  instructors,  no  change  in
continuity was ever made.

The applicant’s letter, which includes rebuttal statements to  the  HQ
AETC/DO’s evaluation, 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.  We took notice of  the  evidence
of record and the  applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the
merits of the  case  and  felt  that  the  applicant  did  not  submit
sufficient  evidence  to  overcome  the  presumption   of   regularity
concerning  the  initial  recommendation  of  his   Operations   Group
Commander  (Reviewing  Authority)  that  he  “not  be  considered  for
reinstatement in the course at a later date.”  Consequently, 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

While we sympathize with the applicant’s  disappointment  and  concern
for the gravity of his decision regarding his future as an  Air  Force
pilot, the Board notes  the  applicant’s  zeal  to  return  to  flight
training and the Operations Group Commander’s recommendation  that  he
be  considered  for  technical  training  and   non-rated   operations
training.  We are in agreement with this recommendation and  encourage
the applicant to pursue these avenues.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2002-01823 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ANG/DPFP, dated 6 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Apr 03, w/atch.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair