RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03844
            INDEX CODE:  100.07
XXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 JUNE 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He was wrongfully  eliminated  from  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot
Training (SUPT) and request he be reinstated in SUPT.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He started SUPT in class 04-08, but was rolled (washed back) to  class
04-09.  The protocol at  the  time  was  to  roll  students  back  two
classes, placing students in a class at roughly at the same  point  in
the syllabus.  He believes he should have been rolled to  class  04-10
instead of 04-09.  He was told it was too hard to switch his  training
folder to the new system.  As a result, he was only rolled  one  class
and he never recovered.  He was always behind the other  students  and
believes the Instructor Pilots  (IP’s),  knowing  he  was  a  “rolled”
student, favored the others and did not help him and it  appeared  the
IP’s  hoped  he  washed  out.  While  the  official  reason  for   his
elimination from SUPT was a flying  deficiency,  he  believes  it  was
caused by the reasons stated above.  After he rolled, he was not given
a fair chance to improve his pilot skills.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  his  Aviation
Profile and AETC 475, Education and Training Report.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Personnel Data System  reflect  the  applicant
was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air  Force  on  29
May 2002  On 9 March 2003, he entered SUPT at Laughlin AFB, TX.

The applicant was eliminated for a flying training  deficiency  on  19
September 2003.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F  recommends  denial.   A3F  states  the  applicant’s   flying
training records were destroyed one  year  after  his  elimination  in
accordance with document disposition guidance and they are  unable  to
have full access  to  his  grade  book.   However,  A3F  was  able  to
reconstruct a portion of the training record  from  archived  computer
training files.

According to A3F, applicant failed one pre-solo contact sortie but his
overall progress was average, up  through  the  initial  solo.   After
successfully completing the solo,  he  failed  three  normal  syllabus
sorties in a row for a variety  of  problems  to  include  poor  basic
aircraft control, loop, spin prevent, and letdown/traffic entry.   IAW
with syllabus guidance, failing three sorties in a row  results  in  a
progress check.  The  applicant  received  an  overall  unsatisfactory
grade for the progress check.  He was  authorized  and  completed  two
additional training sorties before  going  to  his  first  elimination
check to evaluate his performance with  regard  to  his  potential  to
complete the syllabus within resource  constraints  and  potential  to
enter  and  complete  follow-on  training  courses.   He  failed   the
elimination check.  By failing the elimination check,  it  placed  the
applicant in the Commanders Review (CR) process.  The goal of  the  CR
is to determine whether a student has the  potential  to  continue  or
should be eliminated from training.  He was reinstated to training  as
a result of the first CR.  Two additional review rides were authorized
and flown.  He completed the second elimination  check  and  continued
with the normal syllabus flow.  However, the CR,  additional  training
sorties, and two eliminations put him several training days behind his
04-08 classmates.  He passed the next two  syllabus  sorties  but  had
unsatisfactory grades for go-around  and  in-flight  checks;  he  also
received  an  unsatisfactory  for  ground  operations  and   in-flight
planning/area operations.  He had a 7-day break in training, for which
an additional training sortie was flown.  A  third  elimination  check
was flown which he failed.   He  received  unsatisfactory  grades  for
cloverleaf,  Cuban  eight,   lazy   eight,   in-flight   planning/area
orientation, decision making,  and  situational  awareness.   After  a
second CR, he was eliminated for flying deficiency.

A3F also states every student who has been eliminated for any  variety
of reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend USAF  pilot
training.  However, other than the applicant’s opinion,  there  is  no
evidence  of  error  or  injustice  presented  which   justifies   the
applicant’s reentry into SUPT.  As to timeliness, the full record  was
destroyed IAW AF  records  disposition.   Without  the  full  training
record or  elimination  package,  there  is  no  practical  avenue  to
substantiate any of his allegations.   His  submission  is  more  than
three years after the fact and cannot be  supported  without  detailed
evidence.  Therefore A3F recommends no change to applicant’s record.

The A3F 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  26
January 2007 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 an error or injustice to warrant granting the  relief
sought  in  this  application.   The  evidence  of  record  shows  the
applicant had difficulties  passing  normal  syllabus  sorties  for  a
variety of reasons to include poor basic aircraft control, loop,  spin
prevent, and letdown/traffic entry. The applicant  was  given  in  our
opinion ample opportunity to meet the  standards  of  the  specialized
undergraduate pilot training. However, after over 50 hours  of  flight
time, he was eliminated for flying deficiencies.  We  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the Aircrew Training and Standardization
Division and adopt its rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.  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   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  BC-2006-03844  in
Executive Session on 28 February 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 December 2006,w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  HQ AETC/A3F Letter, dated 19 January 2007.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 January 2007.




            JAY H. JORDAN
            Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC


[pic]

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive EE Wing 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002




XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

      Reference your application, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-03844,
submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).

      After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

      You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence
for consideration by the Board.  In the absence of such additional
evidence, a further review of your application is not possible.

      BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




                       GREGORY E. JOHNSON
                       Chief Examiner
                       Air Force Board for Correction
                       of Military Records


Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings