RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01010
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A, Record of  Commander’s  Review  Action,  be  changed  to
allow  his  reinstatement  into  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training
(SUPT) or to allow him to compete for  Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator
Training (SUNT) or Air Battle Management Training (ABMT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In November 2001 he was eliminated from pilot training with only  four  days
and three sorties remaining until graduation for using an advance copy of  a
T-38 standardization quiz.  While he cannot  erase  the  damage  caused,  he
does believe his sense of integrity has grown and matured.   The  Air  Force
has invested a significant amount of money and resources  to  train  him  to
this point and it would be a waste to neglect that training in the  face  of
a mistake that has taught him so much about the officer he needs to be.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Due  to  the  time  lapse  since  the  applicant’s  elimination  from  pilot
training, his training and  elimination  record  have  been  destroyed.   To
reconstruct details AETC/DOF retrieved available computer archived records.

The applicant is serving on extended active  duty  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant effective and with a date of rank of 31 May 2002.

The applicant entered SUPT in February 2001 with class 02-06 at  Vance  AFB,
OK.

On 4 June 2002, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

            He did at or near Vance Air Force Base,  Oklahoma,  from  on  or
between 28 September 2001 to  5  April  2002,  on  divers  occasions,  while
preparing  for  weekly  standardization  evaluation  exams,  wrongfully  and
dishonorably receive unauthorized aid by  improperly  obtaining  an  advance
copy of the examination for use in preparation  for  the  test  to  gain  an
unfair advantage of his classmates.

            He did at or near Vance Air Force Base,  Oklahoma,  from  on  or
between 28 September 2001 to 5 April 2002,  on  divers  occasions,  fail  to
obey a lawful general regulation, to wit:   Air  Force  Instruction  33-129,
Communications and  Information,  dated  4  April  2001,  paragraph  6.1  by
wrongfully using a government computer to access  and  view  another  user’s
password protected files containing  the  standardization  evaluation  phase
tests without authorization or permission.

On 7 June 2002, after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right
to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance  and  submitted
a written presentation.

On 18 June 2002, he was found  guilty  by  his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment: A forfeiture  of  $1,048.00  pay  per  month  for  two
months and a reprimand.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
his Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF),  Officer  Selection  Record,  and
Officer Command Selection Record.

The AETC Form 126 A, dated 1 July 2002 indicates the applicant of class  02-
08 was  recommended  for  elimination  from  training  because  of  lack  of
adaptability.  The reviewing authority believed the  applicant’s  deficiency
was sufficient for  elimination  and  recommended  he  be  disenrolled  from
training, he not be considered for reinstatement in the course  at  a  later
date, and not be considered for undergraduate navigator training  or  battle
management training.  The wing commander  approved  the  elimination  on  15
July 2002.  The wing commander also directed the applicant remain under  his
personal supervision.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommended denial.  They indicated  the  AF  Form  3070,  provided
shows the applicant on “diverse occasions between 28 September  2001  and  5
April 2002 gained unauthorized access to testing computer files.”  This six-
month period covers the entire T-38 phase.  It  was  a  repeated  effort  at
unauthorized access to sensitive computer material, and the  applicant  also
gained undue advantage over his classmates.   The  applicant  chose  to  use
every advantage he could find, ethical or not, to  enhance  his  performance
standing.  An officer enjoys a  position  of  trust,  assumes  a  continuing
responsibility for leadership, and exemplary  conduct  at  all  times.   The
applicant did not meet his basic obligations while performing  in  a  benign
training environment.  Can he be trusted to perform as an aircrew member  in
an operational setting, where others must trust their lives  on  his  skills
and judgment?  We cannot view this  “habit”  as  “one  mistake,”  which  the
applicant asserts.  Every student who has been eliminated  for  any  variety
of reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend  pilot  training.
They cannot ‘recycle’ those eliminated for cause simply because  individuals
feel they are deserving of the second chance--it  is  unfair  to  those  who
succeeded by their own hard work and perseverance.  The applicant’s  success
in other endeavors is commendable, but a return to training is  not  a  just
reward.   There  is  no  evidence  of  error  or  injustice   substantiating
reinstatement.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO concurred with the recommendation of AETC/DOF.  They  do  not  see
evidence of an error, injustice, or unusual circumstances  that  support  an
exception to policy in this case.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates a copy of the test  that
was obtained was used during a group study session with the majority of  his
T-38 classmates present.  As was offered by their testimony,  although  some
did not know where the information came from they did acknowledge  they  had
received it.  If his intentions were to advance his  placement  relative  to
his class, it would have been to his benefit to  keep  this  information  to
himself, and he did not.  The test was part of  the  weekly  standardization
process.  The overall value of these tests combined throughout  the  program
was only five percent of the total score.  The difference when figured  into
the mass calculation would have very little impact on his  overall  standing
in the class and makes cheating on them  to  gain  an  advantage  pointless.
Gaining an unfair advantage was not involved in his thought process  at  any
point, nor would it have benefited  him.   The  final  aspect  he  needs  to
address is the question of an aircrew’s ability  to  trust  him  with  their
lives  based  on  his  skills  and  judgment.   The   squadron   commander’s
recommendation was to retain and  offer  further  technical  training.   His
comments were “the applicant displayed the  qualities  of  a  competent  Air
Force Officer.  His  motivation  and  attitude  are  commendable.”   As  his
commander,  he  (squadron  commander)  was  in  a  position  to  make   this
recommendation based on his overall opinion of him (applicant) in  spite  of
his  (applicant)  actions.   The  commander’s  statement  would   lead   him
(applicant) to believe the commander felt he would be  able  to  succeed  if
given the chance to learn from his mistake.  If  the  Board  feels  the  Air
Force would benefit from the training and education already  invested,  then
he ask to be reinstated into JSUPT or be allowed to compete for a  Navigator
or Air Battle Manager position.

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 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  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or an injustice.  The applicant received  nonjudicial
punishment for gaining unauthorized access to testing  computer  files.   It
was  a  repeated  effort  at  unauthorized  access  to  sensitive   computer
material, and he gained an undue advantage  over  his  classmates.   He  was
ultimately eliminated from T-38  (bomber/fighter)  advanced  training.   The
Board finds the applicant’s actions  improper,  especially  with  him  being
ranked number two out of seven  in  his  class.   We  note  the  applicant’s
achievements, accomplishments, and letters of support; however,  we  do  not
find his actions warrant reinstatement into SUPT or that he  be  allowed  to
compete for UPT or ABMT.  We also note,  it  would  not  be  fair  to  other
students, who were eliminated for lesser offenses, to  allow  the  applicant
that privilege.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
01010 in Executive Session on 29 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 19 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 30 April 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 2004.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 May 2004, w/atchs.




                       CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                       Panel Chair