RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02063
            INDEX CODE:  115.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 Jan 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to allow  his  reinstatement  to  Specialized
Undergraduate Flying Training (SUPT), and his eligibility to apply for
Undergraduate Navigator or Air Battle Manager Training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On or about 20 Jan 02, on his dollar  ride  in  UPT  Class  03-03,  he
became sick and could not fly due to mild sinus congestion.  About the
same time, he was dealing with problems in  a  personal  relationship.
As a result, after being frustrated  by  several  weeks  of  Duty  Not
Involving Flying (DNIF) for the temporary sinus  problem  and  dealing
with a relationship problem, he lost focus and made the decision  that
seemed reasonable at the time.  He felt that flying would have to take
a back seat until he was able to resolve his personal issues.  In  his
inexperienced way, he felt this was not only for  safety  reasons  but
also for the fact he was not  preparing  himself  adequately  for  the
rigors  of  flying  because  of   the   stressful   personal   issues.
Unfortunately, all of these  events  came  about  at  a  critical  and
extremely stressful  part  of  the  UPT  program.   After  only  three
training sorties, rather than tell his flight commander  the  complete
situation, he simply told him  he  could  not  go  fly,  resulting  in
referral to the commander's review process.   He  made  this  decision
despite efforts by his flight commander to convince him to stick  with
the program.  Simply put, he clearly did not listen adequately to  his
professional mentors.  He has since fully resolved any personal issues
that may affect his performance in the demanding environment of  pilot
training.

He continued to maintain his professionalism and remained academically
in the top five in his class with an average of 98.8  percent  through
six exams.  After, meetings with the flight  doctor  and  life  skills
personnel,  the  final  reason  for   disenrollment   was   considered
Manifestation  of  Apprehension  (MOA),  considered  a  self-initiated
elimination (SIE) in the pre-solo phase of the program.  If  he  would
have fully confided in his flight  commander  and  let  him  know  the
situation  he  was  dealing  with  at  the  time,  he   believes   the
recommendation of the board would likely have been different.  He also
believes he would have continued flying  training  or  at  least  been
recommended for UPT/UNT at a later date.

Currently, he has continued to exercise the privileges of his  private
pilot's license, logging approximately  60  total  hours,  and  he  is
pursuing an instrument rating.  He has  completed  a  Flying  Class  I
physical and  he  is  physically  qualified  for  all  flight  duties.
Needless to say, his desire to fly has not lessened  and  his  ability
and aptitude are not limiting.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provided  an  expanded
statement, documentation from his medical  record,  and  a  supportive
statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 30 May 05.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 17 Jun 01.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AETC/DOF  recommended  denial.   According  to  HQ  AETC/DOF,  the
applicant's flying training grade-book was destroyed  one  year  after
his elimination in accordance with document disposition guidance.   As
such, they were unable to review his  original  grade-book  containing
counseling statements and other  instructor  or  supervisory  comments
pertinent to the time period and the applicant's  training.   However,
they were able to reconstruct a portion of the  record  from  archived
computer training  files.   They  have  used  this  record,  documents
provided by the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC),  and  material
submitted by the applicant to describe the circumstances  and  process
leading to his elimination from training.

HQ AETC/DOF noted the applicant entered SUPT at Vance AFB  with  Class
0303 on 3 Dec 01.  He  completed  preflight  training,  six  simulator
missions and three aircraft sorties.  The applicant became ill with  a
sinus infection, and although he completed academic lessons through 14
Feb 02, he did not fly.  During illnesses, students/pilots are  placed
on  DNIF  status  until  resolution  of  the  medical  condition,  and
recleared to fly by a flight surgeon.  At some point during  the  DNIF
timeframe, the applicant told his flight commander he  could  not  fly
for reasons beyond the  DNIF.   The  flight  commander  (according  to
applicant's statement) tried to convince the applicant  to  remain  in
the program.  However, the applicant chose not to  continue  training.
On or about 15 Feb 02, the applicant was  placed  in  the  commander's
review process to  review  whether  the  applicant  should  remain  in
training or be eliminated.  His elimination was approved by  the  wing
commander on 4 Mar 02.

The original AETC Form l26A, Record of Commander’s Review  Action,  is
no longer available (destroyed with other training records);  however,
an elimination letter sent by the wing military personnel flight (MPF)
to AFPC included detailed information taken from the AETC  Form  l26A.
This record shows  the  applicant  elimination  cause  as  MOA.   This
conflicts with the elimination cause on the archived computer training
record which shows DOR/SIE (drop-on-request), previously termed  self-
initiated elimination.  The DOR/SIE elimination code is one digit  off
the MOA code (E55 vice E56), and  may  have  been  a  computer  error.
Another possibility is the student was withdrawn from  training  as  a
DOR/SIE candidate, but during the commander’s review process,  it  was
determined MOA was a better fit regarding elimination cause.   In  any
case, the elimination  letter  provided  by  AFPC  shows  MOA  as  the
elimination reason.

HQ AETC/DOF indicated the applicant's behavior  rendered  him  a  poor
risk for continued aircrew training of any type.  Intuitively,  flight
training carries inherent risks.  Aircrews will make  errors,  weather
conditions will change, aircraft will malfunction, but they  train  to
decrease these  intrinsic  risks.   However,  an  identified  risk  of
aircrew incapacitation due to stress  or  anxiety  is  not  acceptable
given the potential for catastrophic  consequences.   The  applicant's
supervisors and commanders went to great lengths to ensure they made a
sound operational decision based on the facts and  their  judgment  as
instructor pilots and training experts.  While they may understand the
applicant's desire to reenter training, he must assume  responsibility
for and endure the consequences of his actions.   They are quite  sure
that every student who has been eliminated for any variety of  reasons
wishes he or she had  a  second  chance  to  attend  Air  Force  pilot
training.  However, attempts to  retrain  individuals  eliminated  for
cause represents wasteful use of taxpayer's dollars  and  limited  Air
Force resources.  The applicant's subsequent success as a civil  pilot
is to his credit,  but  this  does  not  represent  justification  for
reinstatement into pilot training.  In their view, the AETC Form  126A
should stand as written, and the applicant should  not  be  considered
eligible for reinstatement into UPT.

A complete copy of the AETC/DOF evaluation, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  29
Jul 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  provided  in  support  of   his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  No evidence has been presented which
shows to our satisfaction that the information used as a basis for the
applicant's elimination from SUPT was erroneous, there was an abuse of
discretionary  authority,  or  that  he  is  not  at   risk   for   an
unpredictable recurrence of the circumstances that ultimately  led  to
his elimination from training.  In view of the foregoing, and  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
decision that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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   issues   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-
2005-02063 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 05, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 20 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair