RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00099
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 JULY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for  under  graduate  pilot  training  (UPT)  due  to  an
administrative error at his AFROTC Detachment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given fair consideration for a pilot  slot.   When  applying  for
the AFROTC Potential Pilot  Qualified  (PPQ)/Potential  Navigator  Qualified
(PNQ) Categorization Board, HQ AETC received  the  wrong  paperwork  (Flying
Class I (FCI)/Commissioning Physical instead of the  Department  of  Defense
Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB) physical) from AFROTC, which  may
have contributed to his nonselection for pilot training.

If provided the chance to  compete  against  his  peers  during  the  FY  06
primary selection board, he would have been selected for pilot training.

His physical was completed on 9 Feb 05 but because his flying class I  (FCI)
physical required a waiver, it was not approved until 19 May 05.

On 14 Nov 06, he was told by the ROTC Program Manager for HQ AETC/SGPS  that
the information from his DoDMERB physical  should  have  been  entered  into
WINGS for categorization and not his FCI  physical.   He  also  stated  that
having to wait on  the  waiver  should  not  have  affected  his  chance  of
applying for a pilot slot.  Therefore, his paperwork should  not  have  been
delayed.

He was told that due to bad timing in starting the physical  process  early,
at  15  months  instead  of  12  months  prior,  the  information  from  his
FCI/Commissioning physical had to be submitted  for  categorization  instead
of the DoDMERB physical.  If FCI/Commissioning physical  was  not  initiated
the DoDMERB physical could have been used, and that information  could  have
been entered for categorization which would  have  allowed  him  to  compete
with his peers for the primary board.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy  of
an e-mail from the Director of Personnel, AFROTC Detachment 014, a  copy  of
his Flying Class 1/1A Physical, personal statements  from  the  Director  of
Personnel, AFROTC Detachment 014, a  former  Assistant  Professor,  and  the
Detachment Commander (at the time), recommending applicant for a UPT slot.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
Second Lieutenant.

The applicant met  the  AFROTC  Potential  Pilot  Qualified  (PPQ)/Potential
Navigator  Qualified  (PNQ)  Categorization  Supplemental  Board,  and   was
selected as a potential navigator.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/SGPS reviewed this  application  and  recommends  denial.   All  the
medical  processing  was  done  according  to   procedure   and   based   on
documentation submitted at the  time  of  the  review.   Applicant  was  not
medically qualified for FCI prior to 19 May 05, as there had been no  formal
request to review his case file.  SGPS is of the  opinion  applicant  should
be able to compete for a UPT seat, but  in  the  same  manor  as  any  other
active duty officer competing for UPT.

It is required by AFROTC AFI 36-2011 that in order for a  formal  review  on
any  in-college  applicants  applying  for   scholarships   the   Detachment
Commander must request, via e-mail, the  case  be  reviewed.   Although  the
DoDMERB Physical Exam may have been completed in May  03,  this  office  did
not receive the request for review, and no action was taken by  SGPS.  On  9
Feb 05, applicant took a Flying Class I  UPT  medical  examination  and  the
case was received by SGPS on 9 Mar 05 for review.   It  was  noted  on  this
examination (the first seen by SGPS), that he was an Hep-B  carrier  and  he
was certified disqualified for military service on 29 Mar 05.  Based on  the
fact he was prior service and this was diagnosed while  on  active  duty,  a
liver function study was done.  Normal values were received on  18  May  05,
and he was granted a waiver for all flying and AF  commission.   It  appears
that he  was  never  certified  for  AFROTC  participation  on  his  DoDMERB
physical exam (PE) as he would have required a waiver  on  that  examination
as well, and their files show no such review or  certification  took  place.
Therefore, he could not have used his DoDMERB PE  to  meet  the  AFROTC  UPT
selection board as he states on his DD Form 149.  Once a new examination  is
completed it supersedes any previous examination and in his case the  Flying
Class I replaced the May 04 DoDMERB which was never certified.

The SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ ROTC/CC reviewed this case and recommends denial.  The  applicant  should
compete among his peers for an active duty pilot training slot.

Pilot selections through AFROTC are based on an order of  merit  (OM)  using
commander’s class ranking  (50%);  cumulative  grade  point  average  (15%);
field training results (10%); physical  fitness  score  (10%);  standardized
academic aptitude tests – Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT)  or  SAT
or ACT (10%); and Pilot Candidate Selection Model (PCSM) score  (15%).   The
OM provides a cadet ranking for both the pilot and navigator  lists,  except
that the navigator OM uses the Navigator portion of  the  AFOQT  instead  of
the PCSM.  To provide a level playing field for all  cadets  graduating  the
next fiscal year, scores for both the primary and  supplemental  boards  are
based on March data.  Thus, applicant’s OM score would have  been  the  same
in March as it was for September.  This process is fair  and  equitable  and
results in selection of the  best  AFROTC  candidates  for  pilot  training.
Generally, about 75 cadets are picked up from the pilot alternate list  each
year.  Applicant’s OM was significantly  below  the  “cut  line”  for  pilot
selection, but his navigator OM was  high  enough  to  receive  his  current
navigator training slot.

He received fair consideration during the selection board and did  not  meet
the board with erroneous data, but failed to meet the March 2005  board  due
to an incomplete medical record.  Both board results  would  have  been  the
same, based strictly on his OM.

The ROTC/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  AETC/SGPS  evaluation  states  they  “cannot   address   any   of   the
administrative actions, or  polices  carried  out  within  the  Detachment.”
This is the exact point he tried to prove – that  his  ROTC  detachment  did
not submit all the necessary documentation on  his  behalf  to  successfully
meet the UPT board.
His detachment did not email the request for his case to be  reviewed,  thus
not completing the DoDMERB.

He was not “significantly below the  “cut  line”  for  pilot  selection;  he
provides the OM calculation tables to prove it.  It is apparent that his  OM
score should not have been the problem for him not receiving a UPT slot.

He did not receive fair consideration for the pilot  slot.   If  there  were
750 slots available during the primary board and only  75  available  during
the supplemental board,  the  probability  of  being  selected  through  the
supplemental board has been greatly reduced.

Bottom line is there are still  some  obvious  inconsistencies  that  should
have been corrected at the Detachment level.  Contrary to how  the  HQ  AETC
commander perceives his order of merit, it  is  proven  that  he  his  fully
qualified and highly deserving of the opportunity to be selected for UPT.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 offices of primary responsibility.  Based  on  our
understanding of the  selection  process,  the  mishandling  of  applicant’s
medical paperwork was not a determining factor as to whether or not  he  was
selected  for  an  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training  slot.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
agree with the recommendations of AETC/SGPS  and  ROTC/CC  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim or an error or injustice.  Accordingly,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
00099 in Executive Session on 2 May 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Mr. Clarence R. Anderegg, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
00099 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 12 Feb 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ROTC/CC, dated 17 Mar 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 07.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 10 Apr 07,
                w/atchs.




                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                             Panel Chair