RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02740
            INDEX NUMBER:  113.04

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to change the  option  he  selected  on  his  aviator
continuation pay (ACP) agreement from option A  (25  Years  Aviator
Service) to option D (3  years)  or,  in  the  alternative,  he  be
allowed to decline ACP altogether.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given sufficient time to weigh his  decision  before  he
was required to submit the paperwork.

He believed that selecting any option other than  the  one  for  25
years of aviator service would have an adverse impact on his future
promotion chances.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based on information in the Personnel Data System, the  applicant’s
Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  is  26  Feb  90.   He
reentered active duty from the Reserves on 15 Nov 99.  On 7 Jan  00
he signed an Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) agreement and incurred
an active duty service commitment date (ADSC) of 29 Sep 15.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay,  AFPC/DPAOY,  evaluated  this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

When the applicant signed the ACP  agreement,  his  supervisor  was
preparing to depart on a TDY.  Since the supervisor’s signature was
required on the  agreement,  it  is  possible  that  the  applicant
perceived a need to make an immediate decision in an effort to  get
his agreement  signed  and  processed  prior  to  his  supervisor’s
departure.   His  supervisory  chain,  however,  never   told   the
applicant, that he had to sign his ACP agreement immediately.

The  applicant  also  claims  he  was  unaware  of  the   deadlines
associated with his ACP agreement.  The  second  page  of  the  ACP
agreement states, “Member was counseled from the ACP  instructional
package provided and in accordance with (IAW)  AFI  36-3004”  (Atch
2).  This statement is included to ensure that  Air  Force  members
understand the ACP program, the agreement they are signing, and the
significance of generating an ADSC IAW with their  agreement.   Any
misunderstanding the applicant had concerning deadlines  associated
with the ACP was  due  to  a  failure  on  his  part  to  read  the
associated instructions,  and  does  not  constitute  an  error  or
injustice on the part of the Air Force.

Finally, the applicant stated  that  he  made  the  choice  he  did
because he believed any other choice would have adversely  impacted
his promotion chances.   There  is  no  indication,  however,  that
anyone in the applicant’s squadron implied  that  his  chances  for
future advancement were related to the option he  selected  on  his
ACP agreement.

The applicant’s commander half-heartedly supports  the  applicant’s
request, using  the  applicant’s  short  time  on  active  duty  as
rationale.  Although the applicant was brought on active duty  from
the Reserves on 15 Nov 99, he had previously served on active  duty
for over nine years.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by stating  the
reason for his application is that  he  had  insufficient  time  to
evaluate his decision.  He references information  taken  from  the
FY 00 Implementation Message,  Part  III,  which  talks  about  the
availability of ACP agreements on the Internet and that this  would
allow sufficient time for pilots to make a decision.  The applicant
states that due to his  unique  circumstances,  he  was  not  given
sufficient time.

The applicant also provides details of the sequence of events  that
led to his signing the ACP agreement before he  took  advantage  of
the information available.  The applicant states that although  his
supervisor did not put any pressure on  him  in  regards  to  which
option on the ACP agreement to select, he was told that he  had  to
sign and fax the paperwork in before the end of the business day.

In regards to the fact that he had previously been on  active  duty
for nine years, the applicant states that this is true. He did not,
however, have prior experience in  the  type  unit  he  was  to  be
assigned to and had  only  worked  on  a  special  project  at  the
headquarters since his return to active duty.  He  states  that  he
feels having to make a decision that could potentially  affect  the
next fifteen years of his life without any background  to  draw  on
put him in an unfair position.

The applicant reiterates the fact that the wrong information  given
to him by  his  supervisor  led  to  the  decision  he  made.   The
applicant further states that had he known he  would  be  making  a
decision to return to active duty for over fifteen years, he  would
have never returned to active duty.

The applicant’s complete 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 probable 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  their
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 probable 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 this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 January 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordan, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 00, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAOY, dated 8 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair