RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00434
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A be changed  to  show  that  he  be  considered  for
reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT)  at
a later date and that he be  considered  for  Undergraduate  Navigator
Training (UNT) or Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training at a later
date.

In a letter dated 2 Mar 04, applicant  amended  his  DD  Form  149  to
request the following:

        a.  Change Section I of his AETC Form 126A to read “Failure to
Adapt” vice “Flying Deficiencies.”

        b.  Change Section  IV  (sic)  of  his  AETC  Form  126A  from
“eliminate” to “reinstate”.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was eliminated from phase III  of  SUPT  for  flying  deficiencies.
However, during his training he lost a sister and grandmother within a
two-week period and his wife gave birth.  Due to  traveling  and  time
off, he fell behind in his training.  He should  have  asked  to  take
time off from training, but chose to remain with his class.

All of the issues that affected him before are now under control.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his Officer
Performance  Report  (OPR)  closing  26  Sep  03,  a   copy   of   his
Education/Training Report (TR) closing 26 Sep 02, AF Form  215,  dated
15 Dec 03, letter, dated 2 Mar 04, and letters of support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
first lieutenant.  He entered active duty on 17  Mar  01  and  started
SUPT in Oct 01.  The applicant was eliminated from SUPT in Sept 02 for
flying deficiencies.  He was not recommended for reinstatement to SUPT
or  for  consideration  for  Undergraduate  Navigation   Training   or
Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training.   He  was  recommended  for
continued service in a nonrated position.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  They do not
find substantiation of an error or injustice in the evidence submitted
by the applicant  regarding  his  elimination  from  SUPT.   From  the
counseling documentation in the training record, it  is  evident  that
the applicant’s instructors and supervisors were aware of  his  family
situation.  After his last check ride failure and  second  entry  into
the Commander’s Review process, the applicant submitted two show cause
letters to the Operations Group Commander and Wing Commander in  which
he could have identified any factors affecting training.  In  his  two
letters, dated 13 and 26 Sep 04, respectively, the applicant  did  not
mention family circumstances as a mitigating circumstance.

In regards to the applicant’s request to change  the  reason  for  his
elimination from flying deficiency to failure to  adapt,  clearly  the
difficulties he experienced, substandard  performance  in  flying  and
procedures and  lack  of  potential  to  complete  the  course  within
syllabus constraints, would be categorized as flying deficiency.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the  applicant  indicates
that the Air Force evaluation does  not  accurately  characterize  his
overall performance in Phase  II  of  SUPT.   He  provides  a  further
overview of his  Phase  II  training.   He  also  provides  additional
information regarding his Phase III training.  Applicant  states  that
the personal circumstances that affected his training  were  not  well
documented.  He provides an explanation of why he did not  make  known
the problems he was experiencing during  the  counseling  sessions  he
underwent.  He provides a timeline of specific events he  experienced.
The applicant also provides details on specific events  that  impacted
his  performance  in  the  areas  of   situational   awareness,   task
management, basic aircraft control, and procedural knowledge.

The applicant indicates that the issues that challenged  him  in  SUPT
have been resolved.  He believes that the Air Force  will  benefit  by
sending him back to SUPT.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   While  the  applicant’s  personal
problems may have impacted his training, he has presented insufficient
evidence that  his  training  was  not  conducted  within  established
guidelines.  Additionally, it appears that  the  applicant  failed  to
fully make known that he had personal problems that were affecting his
training.  In the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_______________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
00434 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 12 Apr 04,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 15 May 04,
                w/atchs.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair