RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03006
                                        INDEX CODE:  100.07
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His elimination from Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training  (SUPT)  be
reversed and he be reentered into a pilot training program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to his status as an Air National  Guard  (ANG)  student  pilot,  he  was
treated unfairly and inappropriately received negative attention from a  key
instructor.  He was denied  additional  training  flights  after  breaks  in
training to which he was entitled and which  other  students  received.   He
was told that he was not in the proper  track  for  his  abilities  but  was
placed in the more demanding T-38 track because of his ANG status.   He  was
issued glasses which interfered with his flying despite having 20-15  vision
and having never before, or after, having a need for glasses.

He was a commercial airline pilot with 2,000 flying hours  when  he  entered
the ANG specifically for the purpose of becoming a pilot.  The ANG unit  was
a fighter unit.  SUPT consists of two flying phases, T-37, the  introductory
level of flying,  and  an  advanced  tract  following  T-37  training.   The
advanced tracks are T-38 for fighter aircraft, T-1 for  transport  aircraft,
and T-44 for propeller and helicopter training.  Because he was from an  ANG
unit that  flew  fighters,  he  was  already  designated  to  go  into  T-38
training.  He  completed  T-37  training  on  schedule  with  above  average
academics, typical problems in the other areas of T-37 training,  with  more
difficulty in the formation phase of flying.  The difficulties he  had  with
formation flying brought him to the attention  of  the  squadron  commander.
He was required to take a  "Check  Ride"  with  the  commander.   After  the
successful "Check Ride" the commander told him that despite his  good  make-
up flight he had concerns about his progressing to T-38s and  said  that  he
would call his ANG unit to discuss his concerns.  He later  found  out  that
the commander never made the call.  Once he entered  the  T-38  squadron  he
was told by the flight commander (Captain M---) "I want  you  to  understand
that if you were on active duty you would not be here (in T-38s)."   Captain
M--- made disparaging remarks regarding his own  flying  abilities  and  the
applicant's civilian time.  During the formation phase of training,  Captain
M---  flew  as  the  instructor  pilot  (IP)  with  the   applicant   almost
exclusively.  Two of the applicant's formation  flight  failures  were  with
Captain M---.  At the applicant's request, he was assigned  a  different  IP
for the following flight.  However, Captain M--- was in the  wing  jet  that
flew in the formation.  The applicant felt that he performed  satisfactorily
and the IP made no negative comment in the aircraft.  After  the  IP  had  a
lengthy discussion with Captain M---, the applicant was  debriefed  that  he
had failed the flight.  Because he had three bad flights he was required  to
fly a Review Ride  (88  ride)  with  the  flight  commander,  Captain  M---.
Captain M--- failed him on the 88 ride, which generated an Elimination  Ride
(89 ride) with the squadron commander.  Between the 88  ride  and  89  ride,
students  are  given  two  ungraded  warm-up  rides,  which  the   applicant
performed very well.  Although he felt he flew the 89 ride properly, he  was
failed.  During the debrief it was pointed out that during  the  final  turn
to approach and landing a high Angle-of-Attack (AOA) was indicated  and  was
the main reason for the unsatisfactory score.  His review  of  MCMAN  11-238
discusses the final turn and  descent  in  great  detail  and  applicant  is
convinced that he did make  the  necessary  immediate  corrections  required
because the aircraft controls were never taken from him.  Had  he  not  made
the correction the IP would have had to intervene.

He was ordered by Captain M--- to go to the  optometrist  for  an  eye  exam
even though he never had a vision problem.  He was  issued  eyeglasses  even
though he felt he did not need  them.   He  had  trouble  with  the  glasses
because they flogged inside his helmet.  He was wearing them on all  of  his
failed flights and believes they may have contributed to  his  performances.
He has since passed two FAA flying physical  examinations  without  glasses.
Another issue is the breaks in  training  he  experienced.   He  experienced
weather breaks between 20  October  and  31  October  and  again  between  2
November and 9 November.   After  these  breaks,  he  never  passed  another
training flight.   He  requested  "87"  rides,  which  are  not  scored  and
required by regulations, but his requests were denied.

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief,  personal
statements; AETC  Form  12,  Summary  Performance  Report;  Vance  AFB  T-38
Student Activity Record; an extract from MVMAN  11-238,  his  grade  report,
and character references.  His complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data  system  reflects  the  applicant,  a
member of the ANG and a commercial airline pilot,  was  appointed  a  second
lieutenant, Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  on  22 October  99  and  has  been
progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank  of  9  December  03.   He  entered  pilot
training at Vance AFB, OK on 29 February 2000 with an end-assignment  as  an
F-15 pilot.  On 15 December 2000, he was eliminated from SUPT.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommends denial.  DOF states that the applicant's  full  training
records were destroyed  one  year  after  his  elimination;  therefore,  the
inability to review instructor comments, supervisor  counseling  statements,
directed visits to  the  Flight  Surgeon,  and  other  detailed  information
available only  in  the  student  grade-book,  limits  their  capability  to
precisely portray his training.  The applicant  asserts  the  commander  did
not call the ANG unit to discuss concerns that he was not  qualified  to  be
entered into the T-38 advanced training track.  There is no way possible  to
support  or  refute  this  statement.  However,   AETCI   36-2205   requires
undergraduate flying training squadrons to  inform  the  ANG  anytime  Guard
students require a progress  check,  an  elimination  check,  a  commander's
review, or when there is a reasonable doubt about  the  student's  potential
to complete training.  Based upon this guidance, it is reasonable to  assume
the applicant's home unit was aware of difficulties encountered in both  the
T-37 and T-38 phases of training.  His assertion that his  flight  commander
treated him unfairly is supported only by his own written  statements.   DOF
did discuss these assertions  with  a  former  Vance  T-38  instructor,  who
stated that the officer in question had the reputation of being a very  good
flight commander,  'tough  with  students,  but  fair'.   In  light  of  the
applicant's continued flying difficulties, the statements  attributed  could
be  construed  as  motivational  in  nature,  but  misinterpreted   by   the
applicant.  Applicant alleges he  failed  his  formation  elimination  check
with the T-38 squadron commander for traffic pattern  and  landing  -  which
the applicant argues that he did meet standards.  When assigning an  overall
grade, the Squadron Commander assessed the applicant's abilities,  potential
for course completion within syllabus constraints, and demonstrated  success
in follow-on training.  The record shows the applicant failed the  formation
elimination check for not only traffic pattern and  landing,  but  also  in-
flight checks/fuel procedures, situational awareness, and  task  management.
The last three items, while not specific to formation,  have  task  elements
directly related to aircraft maneuvering  in  formation.   Training  records
show the applicant failed the preceding formation  progress  check  for  six
separate items graded below standards,  including  an  unsatisfactory  grade
for traffic pattern and landing.  Applicant was graded  below  standards  on
maneuvers/tasks on the elimination check,  which  were  consistent  negative
trend items during his formation training.

As  an  accepted  training  management  practice,  students  having   flying
problems are routinely sent to the Flight Surgeon's office for an eye  exam.
 This is used to identify potential changes  in  visual  acuity  manifesting
itself as an inability to land  the  aircraft  or  perceive  closure  during
formation maneuvering.  Although the detailed  record  is  unavailable,  DOF
presumes from the available record the Flight Commander sent him for an  eye
exam  after  failing  two  successive  contact  sorties.   Eyeglasses   were
'apparently' prescribed by a doctor.  The two  additional  training  sorties
listed on the applicant's contact grade report were 'apparently'  authorized
for "corrective lens adaptation."  The decision whether or not  a  pilot  or
student flies with prescription eyewear is  directed  by  competent  medical
authorities, not by a flying supervisor.  The Flight Commander did not  make
the applicant wear eyeglasses.

Applicant's  supposition  he  would  automatically  succeed   in   the   T-1
Airlift/Tanker track  because  of  his  commercial  aviation  experience  is
false.  The T-1 training program demands close  formation  abilities  (e.g.,
air-refueling), as well as situational awareness and task management  skills
on par with those required in  the  T-38  track.   Success  in  civilian  or
commercial aviation does not guarantee success in USAF pilot training.

Applicant was granted additional training sorties in  accordance  with  AETC
guidance.  The basic premise of this authorization is to provide  additional
training for cause, i.e., weather, maintenance cancellations, illness,  etc.
 Syllabus guidance is as follows:  Break-in-Training  Events  -  The  Flight
Commander authorizes these sorties for extended  delays  in  training.   For
aircraft, the break-in-training guideline is when a student  has  not  flown
for a minimum of five  calendar  days.   Flight  Commanders  will  use  this
authority only when the  remaining  syllabus  sorties  are  insufficient  to
compensate for the student's break-in-training.  In the situations cited  by
the applicant (20 October - 31 October and 2 November - 9 November), he  had
only flown a small number of formation sorties  and  there  were  sufficient
training opportunities and additional training sorties  in  accordance  with
command guidance.  DOF agrees that his  performance  in  T-37s  would  raise
doubts as to his suitability  to  proceed  into  the  T-38  advanced  track.
However, in all cases this is an ANG decision.  ANG fighter units may  chose
to find an airlift or tanker unit for  sponsored  students  when  they  lack
potential for fighter training.  However, units may also choose to  continue
as programmed, accepting the risk a student may be eliminated from  T  -  38
training.  There is little direct correlation between military and  civilian
flight training programs when compared on flying  skills  taught,  training,
intensity, and discipline. These are two disparate  types  of  training  and
flying environments.  The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he spoke with both the Vice  Wing  Commander  and  the
Squadron Commander following the elimination and both stated to  never  have
been told of his difficulties and added that if they were  made  aware  they
would have re-routed him to the T-1  Airlift/Tanker  track.   His  home  ANG
unit in no way made the choice to continue as programmed.  The ANG  did  not
accept the risk that he may be eliminated from training and  was  completely
unaware of the situation or circumstances.   Both  Commanders  made  several
unsuccessful attempts to secure a T-1 assignment for him.

The training record shows the progress check and  elimination  check  to  be
the only times he received a failing grade for traffic pattern  and  landing
in the formation phase.  On the flight just prior to the elimination  check,
he was graded as good on  traffic  pattern  and  landings.   This  does  not
indicate a consistent negative trend item.  During the debrief he  was  told
that the decision was subjective and would take  into  account  demonstrated
potential for success in follow-on training.  He was then told that  he  was
thought  incapable  of  succeeding  in   F-15   training   with   the   full
understanding that the decision was based on his future  F-15  schooling  in
mind.  What was not considered was the latitude  the  ANG  has  in  securing
alternate follow-on training.  The only alternatives  considered  were  F-15
completion or Elimination. He expressed his concerns  during  meetings  with
the Operations Group Commander  and  Wing  Commander  at  Vance  immediately
following his elimination check.  However,  due  to  a  student  death  only
weeks earlier that occurred in the traffic  pattern  and  landing  phase  of
flight in the T-37 squadron, there  was  an  extreme  level  of  sensitivity
concerning this phase of flight.

He endured intense fogging and serious difficulty adjusting  to  the  lenses
of the glasses he was prescribed.  This is likely due to the  fact  that  he
did not need glasses.  He expressed concerns  regarding  the  eyeglasses  to
his flight commander who did not consider allowing retesting  of  his  eyes,
but simply made it an  order  that  the  glasses  be  worn.   He  has  since
demonstrated better than perfect eyesight on three FAA  eye  exams  and  one
Department of Justice eye exam.

The periods of 20 October - 31 October and  2  November  -  9 November  were
excessive breaks in training.  These breaks were  of  much  larger  duration
than any other student.  Following the 20 October  -  31  October  break  in
training there was exactly one  flight  remaining  in  the  training  block.
Following the 2 November - 9 November break in training there  were  exactly
two flights  remaining  in  the  training  block.   The  remaining  syllabus
sorties were certainly insufficient to compensate.

His complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPDF recommends denial.  DPDF states it was evident that the  applicant,
from the beginning of SUPT,  was  a  below  average  student.   During  SUPT
training there are numerous checks  and  balances  to  ensure  students  are
receiving the best training possible.  The registrar contacting HQ  ANG  and
the sponsoring home unit is an integral part of  the  Commander's  Awareness
Program.  Documented email messages prove that this process, as required  by
AETCI 36-2205, was in place and functioning at the time.  In a  response  to
a   Congressional   inquiry,   ANG/DPFFF   replied,   "...while    formation
difficulties may have led to his entering a commander's review process,  his
elimination was based upon deficiencies in traffic pattern and landing,  in-
flight checks/fuel awareness procedures,  situational  awareness,  and  task
management--all non-formation related items.  The  Air  National  Guard,  in
fact, does not support his reinstatement to JSUPT based on these facts  from
AETC."  ANG/DPDF is confident he received the  highest  degree  of  training
and was afforded ample opportunity to  be  successful  in  JUPT.   The  DPDF
evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 10 Mar 04 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the  evidence  submitted  that  the  appropriate  standards  or
procedures were not applied, or that he was denied rights and privileges  he
was entitled to.  The applicant's contentions are duly  noted;  however,  it
is our opinion that applicant was granted every reasonable  opportunity  for
successful completion of SUPT, but was  unable  to  do  so  because  of  the
difficulties in performance he encountered.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the
opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force   offices   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
the absence of 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-
03006 in Executive Session on 6 May 04, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 20 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Jan 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Jan 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 May 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, ANGB/DPPI, dated 8 Mar 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Mar 04.





                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair