RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01709
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect he  completed  Introductory  Flight
Training (IFT) and his selection to Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)
be reinstated.  If his appeal is approved, he requests a waiver of the
five year Total Federal Commissioned Service Date  (TFCSD)  to  attend
UPT.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for and was accepted  for  UPT  by  the  2004  Active  Duty
Undergraduate  Flying  Training  Board.   His   records   inaccurately
reflected his elimination from IFT.  Consequently, his orders to  UPT,
class start date of 17 May 2004, were rescinded.

He completed IFT in 1999; however, during the course of his  training,
the syllabus was not properly adhered to resulting in  his  completing
the course albeit without having soloed.  He was  informed  that  this
precluded his consideration for UPT at that time, but he  could  apply
to have this waived or reapply in the future.  He applied for a waiver
and it was denied on the basis that the solo requirement was not met--
not that he failed to complete the course.

The document making it appear that he was eliminated from  IFT  is  an
AETC Form 126A, dated August 1999.  This document  notes  he  did  not
solo and recommends, among other things, that he not be considered for
Specialized  Undergraduate  Navigator  Training  (SUNT).   His   first
assignment from USAFA was to SUNT and he graduated SUNT on 1  December
2000.  The IFT Certificate of Completion and the fact  that  the  AETC
Form 126A recommendations were not followed should prove sufficient to
correct his record.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the  letter
revoking his  2004  UPT  selection  and  a  personal  statement,  with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned  Service   Date
(TAFCSD) is 2 June 1999.  He is currently serving on active duty as  a
KC-135 navigator instructor in the grade of captain, with an effective
date and date of rank of 2 June 2003.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that he  was
selected to attend Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)  by  the  Active
Duty Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) Board, which convened on  2-5
March 2004.  However, his name was subsequently removed from the  list
of officers selected to attend UPT because it was  discovered  he  was
ineligible  to  apply  to  the  active  duty  UPT  board  due  to  his
elimination from Introductory Flight Training (IFT) at the  Air  Force
Academy in 1999 and subsequent loss of his  commissioning  source  UPT
slot.

In  response  to  the  applicant’s  27  July  2004  letter  requesting
additional time in order to respond to the advisory opinions, his case
was administratively closed  on  5  August  2004.   By  letter,  dated
1 October 2004, the applicant requested his  appeal  be  reopened  for
consideration by the Board (Exhibit B).

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force at Exhibit C and D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ 557th  Flying Training Squadron commander (557  FTS/CC)  recommends
the application be denied.  They state  the  applicant’s  request  for
reinstatement into UPT was reviewed in 1999 by the  commander  of  the
Air  Education  and  Training  Command  and  denied.   Based  on   the
applicant’s records, he was the only one of  95  student  pilots  that
went through Colorado Skyways in 1999 and  did  not  solo  within  the
required 40 hours.  The applicant’s records state  he  was  unable  to
solo within 40 hours due to Flying Training  Deficiencies  (FTDs)  and
was eliminated from the IFT program.  The HQ 557 FTS/CC evaluation  is
at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPAO provided  the  following  information  for  clarification
only, with no recommendation.  DPAO states the applicant is  a  United
States Air Force Academy (USAFA) graduate of the class  of  1999.   He
applied to the 2-5 March 2004 UFT active duty board and  was  selected
to attend UPT.  During the course of loading his assignment,  HQ  AETC
discovered  a  database  entry  identifying  the   applicant   as   an
introductory flying training program (IFT)  eliminee.   The  applicant
provided documentation since no source documents were available.  DPAO
indicates that the applicant attended SUNT despite the  recommendation
on the AETC Form 126A and was an instructor navigator, with over 1,200
navigator hours when he  applied  to  the  UPT  board.   He  also  has
obtained a  civilian  pilot’s  license.   The  March  2004  UPT  board
reviewed 253 applicants and rated the applicant in the bottom  quarter
of 150 active duty selectees.

DPAO cannot account for the discrepancies between  the  dates  showing
the applicant’s completion of IFT and then later, his elimination from
IFT.  They cannot account for  his  attendance  of  SUNT  despite  the
recommendation against consideration to attend SUNT.  DPAO has a  copy
of a January 2000  email  from  an  NCO  during  the  reclassification
process that says, “the Academy wants him  to  be  a  navigator…”  but
cannot find any other documentation.  DPAO contacted the commander who
was at the USAFA at the time and he clearly remembers eliminating  the
applicant for flying training deficiencies, specifically  for  failure
to solo in the  40-hour  syllabus.   He  could  not  explain  why  the
applicant received a certificate of completion, but feels it must have
been an error.  DPAO is responsible for conducting the UFT active duty
selection board; in this role, they made the decision,  based  on  the
eligibility criteria in AFI 36-2205, to remove  the  applicant’s  name
from the March 2004 select list.  The HQ  AFPC/DPAO  evaluation,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to  FTDs
and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A  and  it
is a recommendation.  He could have soloed in the  allotted  40  hours
and this is evident in the letter provided.   He  was  not  eliminated
from the IFT program--he completed the program without soloing.  There
were no course documents or verbal statements of a  solo  requirement.
The only document he was given upon  arrival  in  the  program  was  a
“Welcome to Introductory Flight Training” packet, which  mentions  the
40 hours of instruction, but does not state the solo requirement.   If
he had been aware of a solo requirement, he could have and would  have
soloed.   Aside  from  the  circumstances  surrounding  his  case,  he
believes he is more than qualified to excel and successfully  complete
UPT and has provided an additional letter of recommendation  from  his
flight  instructor.   The  applicant’s   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends the application  be  denied.   Based  on  DOF’s
review, they find the applicant did not meet established standards for
completing IFT and  is,  therefore,  ineligible  to  apply  for  pilot
training.  DOF states that both the United States  Air  Force  Academy
(USAFA) Introductory Flight Training (IFT)  program  manager  and  the
flight school president briefed the solo requirement to the applicant.
 As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated  from  IFT,
the applicant signed a commander’s review letter  and  the  AETC  Form
126A, Record of  Commander’s  Review  Action,  which  recommended  the
applicant be removed from flight training for his inability  to  solo.
Since completion of IFT was a prerequisite for UPT and  the  applicant
had lost his UPT slot because he had not completed IFT, the  applicant
petitioned the AETC/CC for a waiver to  the  requirement  to  complete
IFT,  which  was  denied.   How  and  why  the  applicant  received  a
completion  certificate  cannot  be  determined.   The  applicant  was
eliminated from IFT  for  Flying  Training  Deficiencies  (FTD).   The
applicant’s allegations were previously researched  and  addressed  by
the appropriate agencies.  DOF’s review of the  allegations  found  no
new evidence that would indicate changes to past  recommendations  and
decisions.  To waive IFT completion and reinstate the  applicant  into
UPT would not be fair to those students who did solo, who did complete
IFT and who were able to master the required flying skills  the  first
time around.  Nor, would it be fair to those other applicants who were
eliminated from IFT for FTD and cannot attend  UPT.   The  applicant’s
subsequent success as a civil pilot is to his credit, but that follow-
on success should  not  be  rewarded  with  reinstatement  into  pilot
training.  However, if the Board provides the requested relief, change
the AETC Form 126A to read, “reconsider for reinstatement at  a  later
date,” allowing  the  applicant  to  reapply  for  pilot  training  in
accordance with the governing Air Force instruction.  The HQ  AETC/DOF
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 25 February 2005 for review and response (Exhibit H).

As of this date, the applicant has not responded.  However, it appears
the applicant’s squadron commander has submitted a response in  behalf
of the applicant.

The squadron commander states, in part, that after reviewing  all  the
facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s  elimination  from
IFT, he believes the Air Force made  a  mistake  and  caused  a  great
injustice to the applicant.  It is apparent to him that C--- S---  was
more concerned with flying all 40 hours allotted in the IFT program to
generate revenue rather than with successfully soloing  IFT  students.
He indicates the applicant was unsuccessful in his  multiple  attempts
(since August 1999)  to  correct  the  injustice.   He  is  thoroughly
convinced that what happened to the applicant regarding his  UPT  slot
is wrong and the only way to make things right in the applicant’s case
is to reinstate his UPT slot, grant him the necessary  waiver  (waiver
to exceed his five years of Total  Federal  Commissioned  Service)  to
attend UPT, enroll him in the next available UPT class and correct his
AETC Form 126A to indicate he successfully completed IFT.

The squadron commander’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   After  carefully  reviewing  the
applicant’s complete submission and the evidence of record in  judging
the merits of his case, we were persuaded that reasonable doubt exists
concerning the adequacy of the applicant’s training while  he  was  in
the Introductory Flight Training  (IFT)  program  and  his  subsequent
elimination from the program  in  1999.   We  were  persuaded  by  the
statement from a former flight instructor who believes  the  applicant
was  unfairly  treated  during  his  training.   The   former   flight
instructor personally flew with the applicant while he was  undergoing
IFT training and states the applicant was competent to solo  but,  due
to switching between instructors and  different  teaching  techniques,
the applicant was not given the opportunity to solo.   We  also  noted
the statements of support from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
pilot examiner, a flight instructor from his  current  assignment  and
his current commander who highly recommend the applicant be reinstated
to Undergraduate Pilot Training  (UPT).   In  addition,  we  note  the
applicant has subsequently obtained a civilian pilot license and  that
his first assignment from the Air Force  Academy  was  to  Specialized
Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT), despite the  AETC  Form  126A
recommendation against SUNT consideration.  As to applicant’s  request
that his records  be  corrected  to  reflect  completion  of  the  IFT
program, since the solo requirement was not completed, we are inclined
to agree with HQ AETC/DOF’s recommendation to  change  the  AETC  Form
126A to reflect reconsideration for reinstatement  at  a  later  date.
Based on the experience he  has  received  since  1999,  the  numerous
statements of support and in consideration of the  fact  that  he  has
since corrected the flying training  deficiencies  for  which  he  was
eliminated, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in  favor  of
the applicant and he be reinstated in UPT, providing he  is  otherwise
qualified for aviation service, with appropriate waiver approval.   In
view of  the  foregoing,  we  recommend  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________

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 126,  Record  of  Commander’s  Review  Action,
Section III, reflects “RECONSIDER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT A LATER DATE.”

      b.  Provided he is physically qualified,  he  be  reinstated  in
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at the  earliest  practicable  date
and he be granted waivers for age, total active  federal  commissioned
service and completion  of  the  Introductory  Flight  Training  (IFT)
Program, if required.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session  on  7  April  2005  and  2  June  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
              Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01709.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, 557 FTS/CC, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 1 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 17 Feb 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from Applicant’s commander, dated
               23 Mar 05, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2004-01709




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.  The AETC Form 126, Record of Commander’s Review
Action, Section III, reflects “RECONSIDER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT A LATER
DATE.”

      b.  Provided he is physically qualified, he be reinstated in
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at the earliest practicable date
and he be granted waivers for age, total active federal commissioned
service and completion of the Introductory Flight Training (IFT)
Program, if required.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency