RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00696
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training  (SUPT)
be voided and he be reinstated to training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive adequate training to help him complete Joint SUPT.

He was not placed in  the  Commander’s  Awareness  Program  (CAP)  to
receive extra help in the procedures area of his training  as  others
in the same situation were.

He was required to perform two emergency procedures for which he  had
not received the initial instruction.

A classmate that received the same training as he and who had greater
problems has been reinstated to pilot training.   He  has  discovered
that his classmate was given an  automatic  review  based  solely  on
ethnicity that he was not given.  When he spoke with his Numbered Air
Force Headquarters about reinstatement, he was directly  asked  about
his ethnicity.

An Inspector General inquiry into his case confirmed the existence of
the policy which created the inequity in  treatment  between  he  and
some of his classmates.  The policy was  revised  a  year  after  his
elimination.

In  support  of  his  appeal,   the   applicant   provides   training
documentation, an affidavit  from  another  student  to  confirm  the
inequitable review policy, and a copy  of  the  IG  response  to  his
formal complaint.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered SUPT with class 02-14 in  Aug  01.   The  applicant
encountered problems in  various  phases  of  his  training  and  was
subsequently placed into the Commander’s Review process.  After final
review and approval of the Wing  Commander,  he  was  eliminated  for
flying deficiency on 14 Mar 02.  On 22  Jul  03,  applicant  filed  a
complaint through the AFPC hotline alleging discrimination, based  on
the routine review of female/minority eliminations conducted at  19th
Air Force and HQ AETC.  Applicant  alleged  these  reviews  were  not
performed for  non-minority  male  students.   The  IG  investigation
confirmed  that  the  practice  had  existed  and  was  found  to  be
questionable and had been discontinued in Apr 03.

Since student elimination files are destroyed after one year, the  IG
had to  rely  on  archived  computer  records,  which  only  provided
approximately 80 percent  of  the  applicant’s  records.   From  this
review, the IG concluded that the applicant’s elimination  from  SUPT
was for cause and in accordance with command guidance.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.   They
provide individual responses to each of the allegations made  by  the
applicant.  However, they  state  that  they  are  limited  in  their
ability to fully respond to each allegation since they had to rely on
computer-archived records, which do not provide a full picture of the
applicant’s  performance  and  training  situation.  The  applicant’s
allegations and a synopsis of their findings follows:

        a.  Applicant’s break in training before instrument simulator
rides exceeded maximum allowable.  Applicant did have a break in  his
simulator training continuity during the Christmas-New  Year  holiday
period.  However, they do not agree with  applicant’s  assertion  and
based on the amount of training the applicant received conclude  that
training  supervisors  were  judicious  in  their  use  of   training
resources in accordance with syllabus guidance.  Training  continuity
leading to the applicant’s instrument check was excellent.

        b.  Aircraft break in training  before  the  check  ride  was
maximum allowable without additional non-syllabus ride.  As indicated
in a. above,  they  conclude  that  the  facts  do  not  support  the
applicant’s point of view.

        c.  Applicant was not given emergency procedure training  for
IMC radio failure or complete electrical  failure  procedures  within
three months of check ride.  First exposure to electrical failure  in
IMC was  on  the  check  ride,  which  he  failed.   They  find  this
allegation to be without merit.   The  applicant’s  instrument  check
ride was administered on 14 Feb 02.   IMC  radio  failure  topic  was
documented on 23 Oct 01  and  again  on  the  check  ride.   Complete
electrical failure topic was covered on 12 Oct 01 and again on 16 Oct
01.  Electrical failure in IMC is not a listed topic on the Form 37A,
which is the form that  provides  the  list  of  Emergency  Procedure
topics.

        d.  Applicant was not afforded XX87 rides (review or break in
training  sorties)  given  to  other  trainees.   Their   review   of
applicant’s training determined that applicant’s training  continuity
met syllabus and command standards.

        e.  Applicant was  not  reinstated  to  training  because  of
ethnicity.   Before  the  applicant  entered   training,   AETC   had
established a headquarters-level review of all  female  and  minority
eliminations with the  intent  to  provide  detailed  information  on
female/minority  performance  in  flying  training.   The  additional
higher headquarters review of female/minority  eliminations  did  not
lead to an  automatic  reinstatement  as  the  applicant  insinuates.
There were a limited number of reinstatements for cause as  a  result
of the additional review.  However, given a perception of unfairness,
the staff  discontinued  the  process  in  Apr  03.   HQ  AETC  staff
continues to monitor female/minority performance trends and publishes
a quarterly summary along with other attrition data.

        f.  Applicant was not placed on Commander’s Awareness Program
(CAP)  despite  requesting  this  action  to  his  instructor.    The
objective of CAP is to focus supervisory  attention  on  a  student’s
progress  in  training,  specific  deficiencies,  and  potential   to
complete training.  CAP is intended  as  a  short-term  program  with
training tailored  to  address  the  student’s  particular  situation
within the limits of the syllabus.  Placement in and removal from CAP
is the responsibility of the student’s flight commander and  normally
initiated when substandard performance requires close  monitoring  of
an individual’s progress.  In hindsight, placement of  the  applicant
on procedural CAP may  have  been  a  reasonable  course  of  action.
However, based on the available records, the applicant appeared to do
fine on Emergency Procedures and general  knowledge  when  graded  on
daily training sorties, but faltered in check  ride  situations.   It
does not appear that  placement  in  CAP  would  have  prevented  the
applicant’s failure on the check ride.

        g.  Applicant was  not  scheduled  to  fly  with  the  flight
commander or Assistant while other students were able to benefit from
the experience of the flight commander.  They cannot  determine  from
the records which instructors the applicant flew with.

As stated, not having the applicant’s full  training  record  hampers
their ability to provide the best possible responses  in  this  case.
The applicant believes his training was inadequate.  While they  have
determined that the applicant’s training was not perfect, it was well
within command standards.  The applicant  was  administered  adequate
training and sufficient opportunity to succeed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  on
16 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting the applicant’s direct
reinstatement to SUPT.   Although  the  applicant’s  complete  flying
training records were not available, the applicant has not  presented
sufficient evidence that his training was not conducted in accordance
with established standards.  We also note HQ AETC/DOF’s comment  that
the IG concluded after investigation of  a  complaint  filed  by  the
applicant that  he  was  eliminated  from  SUPT  “for  cause  and  in
accordance with command guidance.”

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, we further note that the
IG concluded that the  practice  of  routine  review  of  female  and
minority eliminations was questionable and led to the practice  being
discontinued.   Additionally,  HQ  AETC/DOF  points  out   that,   in
hindsight, it appears placing the applicant on procedural Commander’s
Awareness Program may have been a reasonable course of action.  Given
these two considerations  in  particular,  we  believe  that  in  the
interest of equity and justice, it would be  appropriate  to  provide
the applicant the opportunity to be considered for reinstatement into
SUPT.  However, if the applicant  applies  his  application  will  be
considered on  its  own  merit  and  our  recommendation  in  no  way
guarantees his acceptance for reinstatement.   If  the  applicant  is
accepted for reinstatement, we  also  recommend  he  be  granted,  if
required, an age waiver and Total Active Federal Commissioned Service
(TAFCS) waiver.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

        a.  The AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review  Action,
Section III, Reviewing Authority Recommendations, dated  4 Mar 02, be
amended to indicate that  the  applicant  should  be  considered  for
reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at
a later date.

        b.  If he applies for  reinstatement  into  SUPT  and  it  is
required, he be granted an age waiver.

        c.  If he applies for  reinstatement  into  SUPT  and  it  is
required, he be granted a Total Active Federal  Commissioned  Service
(TAFCS) waiver.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  BC-2004-
00696 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 V. Hennessey, Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 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.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2004-00696


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

              a.  The AETC Form  126A,  Record  of  Commander’s  Review
Action, Section III, Reviewing Authority Recommendations, dated  4  Mar
02, be amended to indicate that the applicant should be considered  for
reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a
later date.

              b.  If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and  it  is
required, he be granted an age waiver.

              c.  If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and  it  is
required, he be granted a Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned  Service
(TAFCS) waiver.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency