RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01979
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to show restitution of lost  flight  incentive
pay due to his unjust elimination from Joint Specialized Undergraduate
Pilot Training (JSUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 10 January 2007, the AFBCMR concluded he was unjustly removed  from
JSUPT in the final week of the course.  The  Deputy  Operations  Group
Commander at the time supported a transfer  to  a  different  aircraft
track that was not pursued since he was an Air  National  Guard  (ANG)
student.  Had a different aircraft track been pursued and approved  he
would have continued to serve as a  rated  pilot  and  receive  flight
incentive pay.  Therefore, he requests his flight pay be retroactively
implemented from 23 April 2001 through 10  January  2007,  the  period
during which the AFBCMR concluded an injustice occurred.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement with attachments.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while a member of  the  Wisconsin  Air  National  Guard
(WIANG), was selected for SUPT and began training on  21  March  2000.
During T-37 primary training, he failed four Contact Category aircraft
training  sorties  and  one  Instrument  Category  simulator  training
sortie.  He failed the Instrument Category check  ride  on  his  first
attempt and was subsequently ranked 24th in his class of 31  students.
After discussions with his home unit  commander,  the  student  flight
commander recommended the  applicant  continue  training  and  he  was
entered into the T-38 advance track.

While in T-38 advanced track  training,  the  applicant  graded  below
standard  on  11  aircraft  sorties  and  5  simulator   events.    He
successfully passed rechecks on the  Contact  and  Formation  Check’s.
However, he failed the  second  retake  on  the  Instrument/Navigation
Check.  As a result,  he  was  entered  into  the  Commander’s  Review
process where he was eventually eliminated from training by the  final
approval authority (Wing Commander).

On 20 May 2003, the Board considered and  denied  his  request  to  be
reinstated to JSUPT.  On 3 February 2004, he applied  through  counsel
for reconsideration.  Counsel’s request was not for reinstatement  but
to change his AETC Form 126A,  Record  of  Commanders  Review  Action,
dated 16 April 2001, to reflect “BE CONSIDERED  FOR  REINSTATEMENT  IN
THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.”  Changing the AETC Form 126A would  make
it possible for the applicant to compete for a training  slot  instead
of reinstating him to JSUPT.  On 22 April 2005, the Board again denied
his request.  On 7 May 2006, he applied for reconsideration  a  second
time and provided a letter from his former Deputy Commander  at  JSUPT
recommending the applicant be given a chance  to  compete  for  JSUPT.
The applicant also supplied an earlier AFBCMR case where the Board had
granted similar relief.  On 10 January 2007, the Board considered  the
new evidence presented by the applicant and a Board  majority  granted
his request to change his AETC Form 126A to reflect “BE CONSIDERED FOR
REINSTATEMENT IN THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.”  The Board majority did
not reinstate him to JSUPT but made it possible for him to compete for
a pilot’s slot in JSUPT.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  USAF/A30-AT  recommends  denying  the  applicant’s   request   for
restitution of lost Aviation  Career  Incentive  Pay  (ACIP)  as  they
believe that granting his request would violate the provision of Title
37, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 301a which requires  officers
to be in training leading to  award  of  an  aeronautical  rating  for
entitlement to ACIP.  A30-AT states the Boards decision in  his  prior
case enables him to compete for entry in another JSUPT class,  and  in
no way implies he should not have been  eliminated  from  his  initial
JSUPT class.  A30-AT states should  the  applicant  be  reinstated  to
JSUPT, his ACIP will be reinstated and his aviation service dates will
be adjusted for the period he was not in training leading to award  of
an aeronautical rating.

A30-AT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the AFBCMR’s  decision  does,  in  fact,  imply  he
should not have been eliminated and was in fact eliminated  in  error.
Therefore, if eliminated in error, the flight  incentive  pay  between
the dates of elimination and the means to return  to  JSUPT  was  also
lost in error.  He reiterates that had this error never  taken  place,
his ACIP would have stayed in effect.  He only asks for restitution of
pay lost as a result of an error and for only  during  the  period  of
that error.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01979 in  Executive  Session  on  27  November  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
      Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member






The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-01979:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAF/A30-AT, undated
    Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 August 2007.
    Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 September 2007.
    Exhibit E. Examiner’s Atch, Second Addendum to ROP, dated
               10 January 2007.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair