RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01731
INDEX CODE: 128.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive the Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Bonus for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not notified of his eligibility for the bonus in accordance
with Air Force policy directives and instructions. After discovering
the eligibility criteria had changed, he inquired with the Air Force
point of contact (POC) who determined that he was, in fact, eligible
under the new criteria. When he asked for back pay for the first year
he was eligible (but did not know he was because he was not notified
of his new eligibility), his request was denied because the Air Force
would gain no retention benefit for the year he had already served,
and because uncited “rules” did not allow it.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documentation
pertaining to the ACP, including a statement provided in his behalf
from the Commander, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC)
Southwest Region, and his Inspector General complaint concerning this
matter.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 95. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 6 Jun 73.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the
Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAOY recommended denial. They noted that during FY00, the Air
Force implemented an expanded ACP program. Notification of eligible
pilots was accomplished through official message traffic and normal
publicity channels including the Air Force Times. Commanders/ACP
supervisors were explicitly charged with reviewing the personnel
records for eligible members under their command/supervision and
notifying them of their eligibility. These responsibilities were
clearly delineated in the FY00 ACP Implementation Message.
According to AFPC/DPAOY, the applicant failed to sign an ACP agreement
during FY00 even though he was eligible, as did many pilots. The FY00
ACP Program was highly publicized and implementation messages and
instructions were disseminated from both the Air Staff and the Air
Force Personnel Center. The question of what constituted notification
has been addressed at the highest levels of Air Force leadership &
General Counsel. It has been upheld that their current procedures
using official message traffic to commanders and Air Force media
outlets has been deemed sufficient and constitutes “due diligence.”
To compliment these procedures, the Air Force Personnel Center also
developed a website that describes the ACP program in great detail,
including eligibility dates, rules, and agreement effective date
guidelines. The applicant also stated he was not notified in
accordance with AFPD 36-30, Military Entitlements. With this
statement, he mistakenly characterizes the ACP bonus as an entitlement
when it is clearly listed as a Special/Incentive Pay, not an
entitlement. His argument to apply the same standards of notification
that cover entitlements is false.
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.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAOY evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his detailed response, the applicant indicated that the
notification process for the expanded ACP program lacked robust
visibility for those who were eligible and rigorous command and
control in the implementation of the program. He believes that He is
not requesting a backdated agreement, but simply asks that the Air
Force provide retroactive payment of the bonus for which he was
eligible and entitled. He strongly recommends that the Board correct
the injustice by directing the Air Force to comply with the governing
Air Force directive and provide him his FY00 ACP bonus.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office
of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, in the absence of
sufficient evidence the Air Force did not exercise due diligence in
regard to their notification procedures, or that the applicant was
treated differently than others similarly situated, we agree with the
recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of
establishing that he has suffered either an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01731 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, dated 18 Jun 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 5 Jul 02, w/atchs.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
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...
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...
Another individual's (Lt Col S---‘s) ACP agreement was faxed after his agreement and that individual received his payment on 29 Dec 99. 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). ...
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...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04587
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AGR Order, Aeronautical Order, the Fiscal Year 2011 Reserve ACP Program Implementation Message, a supporting letter from Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command AGR Management Office, his promotion order to the grade of colonel, and his ACP Agreement. The fact the applicant may not have been aware of the ACP program, the five day delay in his promotion order does not justify backdating his ACP Agreement to pay him a 24-month...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03700 ADDENDUM
Excluding him, when the written ACP program never excluded officers occupying API 0 positions and when the AFBCMR and the Director of the ANG approved it retroactively for other API 0 billeted pilots' pre-FYll service, would be a discriminatory application causing error and injustice. Further, NGB does not dispute that the ACP policy as written never excluded API 0 pilots as the Director ANG concluded by approving ACP for some of them in 2010. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03348
Even though Air Force policy extended UPT service commitments to ten years, previous Board decisions waived the additional two years when documentation clearly indicated that an injustice occurred. The complete DPAO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his earlier appeal, the Board concluded his ADSC should be recorded as eight years rather than ten years. Had the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03043-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03043 INDEX CODE: 102.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 MARCH 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his Regular Air Force (RegAF) appointment be reinstated as an exception to...
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.