RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00222
            INDEX CODE:  126.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 JUL 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 16 August 2004 Training Report be removed from his records and  he
be reinstated into Joint Undergraduate Navigator Training (JUNT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Chief of Naval Air Training Instruction (CNATRA) 1500.4F,  Student
Naval Aviator Training and Administration  Manual,  was  not  followed
during his training.  He also  asserts  his  grade-point  average  was
incorrect on his elimination memorandum, and his flight records do not
reflect the correct total flight hours.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant   provided   a   Letter   of
Recommendation from his wing commander.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular  Air
Force on 18 May 2002.  On 16 June 2002, he entered JUNT at  Pensacola,
Florida.   He  was  eliminated  from  JUNT  on  18  August  2004   for
unsatisfactory performance.

He is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade Captain.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F recommends denial.  A3F  states  in  part  if  the  applicant
provides verifiable data, his academic grade point average  and  total
hours should be corrected.  There is no evidence of error or injustice
substantiating  reinstatement  and  recommend  the  applicant  not  be
reinstated into training, and no change to  his  personnel  record  be
made.  Applicant is of the  opinion  he  failed  the  sortie  and  was
eliminated  from  training  because  he  flew  Composite-6X   with   a
particular  instructor.   The  inference   embedded   throughout   his
application is the fact that if he had been in an AF Training  Program
none of this would have occurred.

While it is embarrassing to be eliminated for failing the last ride in
a Training Program, the applicant is not the first  officer  this  has
happened to, and he will not be the last.  If the applicant  had  been
in an Air Force Undergraduate Program he  would  not  have  graduated.
His chronic airsickness would have resulted in removal  from  training
for lack of adaptability.  Every student eliminated from training  for
any variety of reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend
Undergraduate Flight Training.  However, reinstating the applicant  is
unfair to those students who were able to master the  required  skills
during  their  initial  exposure.   Repeated   attempts   to   retrain
individuals eliminated for cause, represents wasteful use of resources
and taxpayer dollars.  The applicant’s success in other  endeavors  is
commendable, but a return to training is not a  just  reward  and  the
arguments presented by the applicant are without merit.

The AETC/A3F evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  void  the
16 August 2004 TR.   DPPPEP  states  in  part  the  TR  documents  the
applicant’s elimination from training.  There are no procedural errors
documented on the TR.  The applicant is simply requesting the  removal
of the report based on elimination information.  The TR is an accurate
document as long as the elimination from training remains apart of the
applicant’s record.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The office of primary responsibility (OPR) seems to take umbrage  with
this makes it difficult to conclude the OPR was 100%  objective.   The
advisory opinion fails to address  the  personal  statement’s  central
argument  regarding  never  being  placed  on   Marginal   Performance
Disposition (MPD) status and the OPR  fails  to  provide  an  adequate
objective review of the Aviation Training Jacket (ATJ)  a.k.a.  Flight
Training Record) vs. Navy regulations.

The 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 error or injustice to  warrant  granting  the  relief
sought  in  this  application.   The  evidence  of  record  shows  the
applicant  had  difficulties  attaining  standards  and  there  is  no
evidence of procedural error documented in his training records.   The
Board notes, the applicant was recommended for a Progress Review Board
(PRB), due to flying deficiencies and the PRB voted to  reinstate  him
and provide additional training.  Subsequently, he was recommended  to
the PRB for a second time  after  he  was  graded  unsatisfactory  for
timing control, situational awareness, and safety of  flight  and  the
PRB recommended he be eliminated from training.   The  Board  believes
the applicant was given ample opportunity to meet the standards of the
joint undergraduate navigator  training  and  failed  to  do  so.   In
regards to the applicant’s contention that his flight records  do  not
reflect the correct total flight hours, should he  provide  verifiable
data his total flying hours should be corrected.  Therefore, we  agree
with the opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  offices  of  primary
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice, and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the  contrary,
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 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 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-
2006-00222 in Executive Session on 7 June 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Steve A. Cantrell, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/A3F, dated 10 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 31 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 06, w/atchs.




      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair