RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01333
INDEX CODE: 128.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
A sum of $25,000 of his income be moved from his 2000 W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement, to his 1999 W-2.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 10 Dec 99, he signed an agreement to receive Aviation Continuation Pay
(ACP) for extending his active duty service commitment (ADSC). His
commander faxed his agreement to AFPC. Due to a delay in processing his
paperwork, he did not receive his first payment until 11 Jan 00. Since the
payment was made in 2000, it was considered income for 2000. This income
was authorized, earned, and payable in 1999 by his agreement. The
effective date of the agreement was 16 Nov 99. Paragraph 3 of the
agreement states that payments are based on the effective date of the
agreement and the option he selects. Since he received two ACP payments in
2000, his pay was increased $50,000 for the year resulting in $2,012 extra
in taxes. Another individual's (Lt Col S---‘s) ACP agreement was faxed
after his agreement and that individual received his payment on 29 Dec 99.
In support of his request applicant provided a sample ACP agreement; AF
Form 102, Inspector General, Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint
Registration; email communications; and, his 1999 and 2000 U.S. Individual
Income Tax Returns.
His complete submission is appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay, AFPC/DPAOY, reviewed applicant's
request and recommends denial. DPAOY states that the Air Force made no
technical errors, unnecessary delays or identified any irregularities
during the processing of his ACP agreement. The fact that he was not paid
during 1999 was caused by his 27 day delay in signing the agreement from
program inception; the massive volume of agreements that were being
processed; the government closures from the holidays and the Y2K computer
issues; and, different payment dates at Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) (see Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that the advisory fails to note that although the program
was authorized on 16 Nov 99, implementation of the program was delayed
several weeks while AFPC developed the procedures for implementation. The
facts concerning the massive number of agreements during the holidays and
period of the Y2K problem are irrelevant. In the interest of fairness, all
agreements signed before the end of the year should have been processed and
paid before the end of the year.
Lt Col S---'s agreement was faxed during the same telephone call. It
appears that both agreements were processed on that same day, 27 Dec 99,
however, Lt Col S--- was paid on 29 Dec 99 and he was not paid until 11 Jan
00. Although there was a first-in first-out policy in place at AFPC, DFAS
does not seem to share this policy (see 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 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. While the applicant’s increased tax burden for 2000 was
unfortunate, in our opinion the time that it took to process his payment
was not unreasonable given the high volume of applications being processed
in a rather constrained timeframe. 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 15 Aug 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, dated 11 Jun 01, w/atchs
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 01.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
The total agreement payment amount is divided by the total length of the agreement in days (360 days per year) to arrive at a “daily rate.” This daily rate is then multiplied by the number of days served under the agreement to arrive at the amount of ACP the member has “earned.” Based on the “daily rate,” members receive the annual payment at the beginning of the agreement year with the member “earning” the payment over the course of the year. A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation...
Before his second board met, the rules changed making officers that wrote the board to decline promotion ineligible for separation allowance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 5 May 1988 and separated in the grade of captain on 10 Oct 99 after being twice passed over for promotion to major. As a result of an ACP agreement he entered into on 10 May 96,...
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. 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01731
AFPC/DPAOY indicated that following a thorough review of the applicant’s request, the findings and recommendations of the office of the Air Force Inspector General, Air Force Rated Force Policy, and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, they find no further information to support this request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02306
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should still be eligible for his ACP since he transferred to a full time position with the Air National Guard (ANG) and will be performing the same duties that qualified him for ACP on active duty. They point out that paragraph 2.2, “Recoupment,” states officers will be advised that if the SecAF approves their request for release from active duty or accepts their resignations, they may be subject...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00204 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The date of his medical disqualification be changed from 23 October 2000 to 17 November 2000. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
He provided the correct date to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) but the problem was not fixed until after he signed the contract. If the Board grants the application, the records should be corrected to show an initial UPT ADSC of 31 July 1997. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Aviation Continuation Pay Program, stated that the purpose of the advisory opinion, dated 14 September 1999, was to offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into an ACP agreement.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that he understands that ACP was not designed for members serving in different pay status formats. The available evidence indicates that the applicant terminated his ACP agreement when he left AGR status and became a Traditional Guardsman prior to completing his ACP service commitment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00342
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/A3OT recommends denial of applicant’s request because the error was not his medical condition leading to disqualification but in the documentation and reporting of his disqualification for flying and parachute duty. He was medically qualified to fly until Dr. K--- grounded him with his AF Form 1042, dated 13 Dec 05. B J WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-00342 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ 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...