RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00293
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted an Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given incorrect guidance when it came time to apply  for  pilot
candidacy.  He was informed that because his  eyes  do  not  meet  the
initial vision requirements for pilot training, he could not apply for
pilot candidacy.  The  cadre  instead  instructed  him  to  apply  for
navigator candidacy.  He has since  been  informed  that  the  correct
procedure would have been to apply for a pilot slot.

For receiving incorrect counseling from his AFROTC  cadre  during  the
application process for possible pilot candidacy, he requests that his
records be brought before the next pilot candidacy board.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
statement from the Commander of AFROTC Det 880, a copy of  his  Flying
Class 1A Physical documents, a copy  of  an  e-mail  from  the  Chief,
Physical Standards AF Medical Operations Agency, stating that  he  was
granted an FC I waiver to qualify for UPT, and a  statement  from  the
Commander of 436 Operations Support Squadron,  recommending  applicant
for UPT.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of 2d Lieutenant.

The applicant met the ROTC Potential Pilot  Qualified  (PPQ)/Potential
Navigator Qualified (PNQ) categorization board in March 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS states that PPQ and PNQ are special selection boards held by
HQ ROTC/RR to select those that by their ROTC entry  physicals,  could
potentially be qualified for UPT or UNT.  HQ ROTC/RR  then  determines
the number of seats they have for each category, racks and stacks them
based on grades, Det CC  recommendation  and  other  non-medical  ROTC
criteria, and if selected the  individual  is  then  scheduled  for  a
Flying Class 1 or 1A examination.  This process keeps the AF treatment
facilities from doing up to 1500 physicals for approximately  500  UPT
seats.  This selection process has been in effect for many  years  and
has worked exceptionally well.  All those in ROTC are aware that there
are no waivers for the PPQ categorization review, one  must  be  fully
qualified or they will be disqualified.  This is  because  any  vision
disqualifications for flying could only be overturned by an  Exception
to Policy (ETP) granted by the Air Force Chief of Staff.   There  were
no medical waivers  or  ETPs  authorized.   Based  on  these  criteria
applicant was selected  for  UNT,  due  to  his  vision,  he  was  not
qualified for UPT.

In April 2002 waiver authority was delegated to HQ AFMOA/SGZA  to  the
same criteria that the AF CC used to grant ETPs.  It appears that  the
applicant’s file was submitted to HQ AFMOA/SGZA and in December  2002,
he was granted a waiver for UPT.

Under the review and certification system that was  in  place  at  the
time of the applicant’s initial  PPQ/PNQ  review,  he  was  found  not
qualified for PPQ and qualified for PNQ.   There  were  no  policy  or
review errors made on the part of HQ ROTC/RR or HQ AETC/SGPS  in  this
selection process.

Therefore, while they do support the applicant’s  request  to  reapply
for UPT, they do not feel he should be considered ahead of  the  other
UPT applicants.  All the processing of the applicant’s case  was  done
according to procedure and based on  documentation  submitted  at  the
time of the review.  The applicant should be aware  that  if  accepted
for UPT he will undergo a full and complete  ophthalmology  evaluation
during MFS at Brooks AFB, TX, which will include full vision studies.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO states that based on the procedures in place at the time Det
880  forwarded  the  eligible  pilot  candidates  to  HQ  ROTC,  then,
applicant did not meet the pilot medical standards.

In a memorandum dated 15 January 2003, the Det  880  Commander  stated
his belief that applicant, if he had been medically  qualified,  would
have obtained a pilot slot.  When the applicant  reported  for  active
duty in the Air Force on 15 May 2002 he was  not  medically  qualified
and remained unqualified until          16  December  2002,  7  months
after his commissioning date.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 March 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record,
the majority of the Board is persuaded  that  the  applicant  should
have another opportunity to compete for entry into UPT.  It  appears
that shortly after the applicant was considered and not selected for
enrollment in UPT, there  was  a  change  in  policy  pertaining  to
waivers by which the applicant may have been allowed to compete  for
entry into UPT.  In view of the potential benefit to the Air  Force,
the applicant’s desire to serve  as  a  pilot,  and  the  supportive
statement from his commander, the Board majority believes  it  would
be in the best interests of the service if he was  again  given  the
opportunity to compete for enrollment in UPT.   The  Board  majority
does not favor the applicant be automatically given a UPT slot based
on the circumstances of his case, i.e., that the  actions  taken  in
March 2003 were  not  erroneous,  and  the  uncertainty  as  to  the
outcome.  Therefore,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  the  majority
recommends his records be brought before the  next  pilot  candidacy
board and he be allowed to compete for a UPT slot.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  he  is  given  the
opportunity to compete for a Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT)  slot
by reapplying and having his records brought  before  the  next  pilot
candidacy board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application,  BC-
2003-00293, in Executive Session on 28 May 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

By a majority vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Russell  voted  to  deny  applicant's  request,  but
does not  desire  to  submit  a  Minority   Report.    The   following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/SGPS, dated 18 Feb 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 3 Mar 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-00293
INDEX CODE:  100.07




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that he is given the
opportunity to compete for an Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot
by reapplying and having his records brought before the next pilot
candidacy board.





                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards
Agency