RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01400
                                 (CASE #2)

            INDEX CODE: 102.07,115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be granted an immediate age waiver to apply  for  a  USAF  commission
and Undergraduate Pilot  Training  (UPT)  through  Officer  Training  School
(OTS) as a UPT candidate.  He requests  relief  via  one  of  the  following
options (in order of preference):

        a.  An age waiver and direct him, at the  earliest  opportunity,  to
OTS as an aviation officer candidate and,  following  successful  completion
of OTS and subsequent commissioning, to UPT.

        b.  An age waiver and the opportunity to  apply  twice  for  an  OTS
aviation officer candidate slot.

        c.  Direct him to OTS (with his current career classification as  an
air traffic control officer candidate) and provide him with an  age  waiver,
after successful completion of OTS and  subsequent  commissioning,  and  the
opportunity to apply twice  for  the  first  two  active  duty  officer  UPT
selection board opportunities.

2.  His Date of Rank (DOR) to second lieutenant be adjusted to May 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The problem  with  the  AFBCMR’s  original  remedy  was  that,  rather  than
directing him to OTS as an aviation  candidate  (the  avenue  he  had  twice
originally pursued), they  directed  him  to  OTS  in  some  unnamed  career
category with an arbitrary 90-day suspense after commissioning in  which  to
meet a UPT selection board.  In essence, the AFBCMR  directed  him  (or  the
United States Air Force (USAF)) to randomly choose a career field for  which
he had neither  competed  nor  had  any  desire  to  pursue.   In  order  to
accommodate the AFBCMR’s remedy, Air Force Personnel Center  (AFPC)  had  to
categorize his career path;  they  have  since  classified  him  as  an  air
traffic control officer candidate.  The AFBCMR took pains to highlight  that
their decision was not to be construed as endorsement  of  his  fitness  for
pilot training; they did not want to be seen to  be  bypassing  a  selection
board.  The irony is that in directing him to OTS as they  did  (which  lead
to his random classification as an air traffic  control  officer  candidate)
the AFBCMR essentially bypassed another selection board.  If the  Board  can
arbitrarily choose a career path for him, he would request they put  him  on
his desired career path (and the career path for which  they  found  he  had
been denied fair opportunity to apply) without  arbitrary  obstacles.   This
career  classification  action  has  been  taken  to  satisfy  the  AFBCMR’s
stipulation that he hold a commission prior to applying for UPT.  He has  no
problem whatsoever accepting  air  traffic  control  as  his  second  career
option, but his primary goal remains the  same  one  he  has  been  pursuing
since he enlisted in the USAF which is to become a USAF pilot.   To  further
exacerbate the  situation,  the  Board  also  established  a  90-day  window
following his completion of  OTS  within  which  he  must  make  any  single
application for UPT.  He feels  he  is  being  burdened  with  an  arbitrary
deadline:  pilot selection boards for active duty officers only  occur  once
a year.  The Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) selection board,  for  example,  will
meet on 3 April 2003, therefore he will have to wait until CY04 for  an  OTS
class that is  properly  aligned  to  meet  the  90-day  criterion,  further
extending his accession process.  Another reason why he  desires  to  pursue
UPT via the OTS aviation candidate  route  rather  than  as  a  commissioned
officer  is  that  OTS  aviation  applicants  can  meet   selection   boards
throughout the year.  Furthermore, though the Board found that he  had  been
unfairly denied the opportunity to  apply  for  two  boards  they  are  only
offering one remedial opportunity.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  and
other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
staff sergeant.

On 9 July 2002, the applicant’s request that he be provided  an  opportunity
to obtain a commission in the United States Air Force  (USAF),  that  he  be
granted an age waiver to attend pilot training, and that his  date  of  rank
be adjusted to April 1998 and that he receive back pay for  lost  wages  and
flight pay was considered and partially granted by the Air Force  Board  for
Correction of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR).   The  Board  recommended  that,
provided the applicant is otherwise qualified, he be  entered  into  OTS  at
the earliest possible date and if he completes OTS and is  commissioned,  he
be allowed to apply, within 90 days from the date of his commissioning,  for
pilot training and if  selected  he  be  granted  an  age  waiver.   For  an
accounting of  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s
appeal, and the rationale of the earlier decision  by  the  Board,  see  the
Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRS/RSOCL indicated that in  the  best  interest  of  the  Air  Force  they
recommend the original AFBCMR disposition  be  continued  to  maintain  AFRS
precedence.   AFRS  currently  does  not  consider  waivers  for  rated  age
requirements for the simple fact that the  supply  of  qualified  applicants
exceeds their yearly requirement of only 121 pilots with approximately  500-
600 applications per year.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


The applicant reviewed  the  evaluation  and  indicated  that  personnel  at
AFRS/RSOCL indicated that he is  to  be  classified  as  13M1,  Air  Traffic
Controller upon graduation and will have  90  days  to  apply  for  a  rated
position.  They further indicated that the supply  of  qualified  applicants
is substantially higher than the yearly requirement of 121 pilot  positions;
therefore, they do not have  to  consider  applications  with  waivers.   In
essence, this means to him [the applicant] that even though the  age  waiver
will be formalized upon graduation from BOT, the application package  for  a
rated position will not make its way to the rated selection  board  for  the
simple fact that it will include an age  waiver.   Also,  according  to  the
statement, AFRS receives approximately 500 to 600 applications a  year  that
do not require any type of waivers thus they do not see the need to make  an
exception to the rule.  He finds this misleading.  It  seems  like  AFRS  is
complying with the disposition of the case knowing that at the  end  of  his
future he will be managing the Control Tower  rather  than  as  an  airplane
pilot.


He has a great love for flying and since becoming a  military  aviator  that
feeling has grown stronger.  Over ten years of combined civilian  commercial
and military flying experience has given him the opportunity to improve  and
sharpen his aeronautical skills.  He would like to continue serving the  Air
Force and his country in the same honorable fashion  he  has  for  the  past
eight years; and if  given  the  option,  he  would  like  to  attend  Pilot
Training after graduating from BOT.  He has made good-faith efforts to  meet
all Air Force requirements for selection to OTS as  an  aviation  candidate,
but the very people who were trained to help him achieve  his  career  goals
have hindered such efforts at every step.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or  an  injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
applicant’s requests, the documentation in support of his  appeal,  and  our
original decision, we are not persuaded to grant any further relief  to  the
applicant.  Essentially, the applicant is asking the Board to guarantee  him
an automatic slot into undergraduate pilot  training  (UPT)  by  designating
him as an aviation officer  candidate  in  Officer  Training  School  (OTS),
giving him a date of rank as though he completed OTS  in  1998,  or  in  the
alternative, two opportunities to apply for  a  UPT  slot  after  completing
OTS.  As we previously concluded,  the  applicant  may  have  been  provided
inaccurate information when he applied for OTS.   As  a  result,  the  Board
provided the applicant an opportunity to complete officer training and  upon
commissioning from OTS, be given an age waiver and the opportunity to  apply
for UPT.  We believe the  applicant  should  recognize  that  no  system  is
perfect and he should count himself fortunate to be given  this  opportunity
to gain his commission and possible UPT slot.  It is true courts  have  held
that correction boards have an abiding  and  moral  sanction  to  determine,
insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and take  steps
to grant thorough and fitting relief.  However, in the Board’s opinion,  the
applicant has still not established to our satisfaction  that  his  original
nonselections for OTS were in error or unjust.  Further, it  was  never  the
intention of the Board to obligate the Air  Force  to  place  the  applicant
into pilot training; rather, the  Board  believed  he  should  be  given  an
opportunity to compete for UPT on the basis  of  his  qualifications.   This
determination was based solely on the possibility  that  the  applicant  was
provided inaccurate information regarding his UPT applications.  In view  of
the foregoing and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary,  we
find no basis upon which to recommend any further relief.

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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 1 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-01400 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 April 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  ROP, Docket Number BC-2001-03695,
               dated 9 July 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRS/RSOCL, dated 15 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 June 2003, w/atchs.




                       JOSEPH A. ROJ
                       Panel Chair