RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02805
            INDEX CODE:  125.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His elimination flight/checkride was plagued with weather, maintenance
problems, and delays that contributed to his  inability  to  pass  and
continue with training.  He also had to bear  the  hardship  of  being
separated from his pregnant wife who was activated for Operation Noble
Eagle.  His wife should have been released from  active  duty  earlier
and returned back to Air National Guard (ANG) status because  she  was
no longer world wide  deployable.   Additionally,  he  identifies  the
following as contributors to his elimination from training:

            1. He had  to  fly  in  actual  instrument  meteorological
conditions (IMC) during his final check ride, conditions for which  he
had not been trained.

             2.  Scheduling  difficulties  and  aircraft  malfunctions
contributed to his failure.

            3. The geographic-separation from his pregnant wife was  a
hardship and contributed to his poor performance in training.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, a statement from his wife, copies of his AETC Form 126A and
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
copies of his wife’s orders and  pertinent  medical  documentation  as
well as surface weather observations from the day  of  the  flight  in
question, and a report on individual personnel (personnel summary).

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

_________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former enlisted member of the Louisiana ANG  (LAANG),
entered SUPT  on  9  April  2002  at  Laughlin  Air  Force  Base.   He
encountered difficulties early in training, failing 6 of  32  aircraft
sorties flown and was given appropriate additional training for breaks-
in-training due to weather and additional rides to overcome his flying
difficulties.  He completed five instrument simulators during which he
was provided instruction and repeated practice of all basic instrument
maneuvers and procedures - he received overall good grades  for  these
instrument  missions.   After  multiple  failures  however,   he   was
administered a final progress check that he failed.  Consequently,  he
was entered into  the  Commander’s  Review  Process,  where,  after  a
thorough review  by  his  chain-of-command,  he  was  eliminated  from
training, effective 30 September 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  During the SUPT  training  program  there
are numerous checks and balances to ensure the students are  receiving
the best training possible.  Students are given ample  opportunity  to
state if they are experiencing  personal  problems  which  may  affect
their performance.  The Commander’s Review process incorporates a wide
array of checks used to ensure students  undergoing  the  process  are
offered ample opportunities to be  successful.   The  applicant  never
raised his concerns or personal circumstances as detracting  from  his
flying performance.

DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AETC/DOF recommends denial.  DOF notes that  while  the  failed  final
check ride led directly to his elimination, the applicant  should  not
blame it as the root cause of all his problems.  He  had  also  failed
three consecutive instructional sorties.  In accordance with  syllabus
instructions, this is a trigger for a flight evaluation  by  a  senior
supervisor.  This evaluation looks at  student  progress,  ability  to
accept instruction, and potential to complete training within syllabus
constraints.  He failed the final check ride because of unsatisfactory
grades on departure,  single-engine  pattern,  in-flight  checks,  and
situational awareness.  The training he  received  was  in  compliance
with established command  policies  and  syllabus  guidance.   He  was
provided additional training but was still unable to meet basic  skill
standards to remain  in  SUPT.   Repeated  opportunities  to  complete
training represent a waste of finite resources and taxpayer’s dollars.
 There is no evidence of error or injustice  that  would  substantiate
his reinstatement.

DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
23 April 2004 for review and comment 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of  weather,  maintenance  problems
and delays were the cause of  his  checkride  failure.   Additionally,
separation from immediate family members, while unfortunate, is not an
unusual occurence.   Consequently,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or  injustice.   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  issue(s)   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-
2003-02805 in Executive Session on 5 May 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:



      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ANG/DPPI, dated 5 Mar 04
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 15 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair