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 policy,
retroactive to 1 October 2003 (date he returned to Extended Active Duty
(EAD)).
He be afforded the opportunity to enter into a retroactive Aviator
Continuation Pay (ACP) Agreement, effective 1 October 2003, with an
incurred five-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is
17 May 1986. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
lieutenant colonel, Reserve of the Air Force, with a date of rank of
5 September 2002. Applicant has an established date of separation (DOS) of
31 January 2007. His service history reflects 18 years of service.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 22 September
2004. However, the applicant was informed that should he secure further
documentation from the Air National Guard (ANG) explaining the reason for
the delay, the Board would be willing to reconsider his application. A
summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for its
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at
Exhibit E.
On 26 August 2005, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration
based on the additional evidence he has provided from the Texas Air
National Guard verifying their requirement for him to serve as an alert
pilot until 30 September 2003. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachment, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of the appeal, the Board majority believes relief is warranted. In this
respect, we noted the statement from the applicant’s former commander
explaining that the applicant’s delay in returning to active duty was due
to a mission requirement. All Board members are of the opinion that, but
for the ANG requirement, the applicant would have returned to active duty
on 25 September 2003 as reflected on his original orders and would have
been eligible to apply for the ACP Program under the FY03 Aviator
Continuation Pay (ACP) Program. In addition, a majority of the Board is
persuaded that his Regular Air Force appointment should be reinstated as an
exception to policy. In view of the foregoing, the Board majority believes
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant and recommends his
records be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. He reentered active duty as a lieutenant colonel under the
Voluntary Rated Recall Program on 25 September 2003 rather than on 1
October 2003; that he entered into an Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP)
agreement; and, that he was entitled to ACP in the amount authorized by the
FY 2003 ACP Program.
b. Competent authority approved his request for a Regular Air Force
appointment as an exception to policy and action be initiated to obtain
Senate confirmation.
c. Upon Senate confirmation, he be tendered a Regular Air Force
appointment.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the record as recommended.
Ms Crerar voted to deny the applicant’s reinstatement for a Regular
commission but chose not to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-03043.
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 14 Apr 05,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, dated 26 Aug 05, with
attachment.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-03043
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that
a. He reentered active duty as a lieutenant colonel under the
Voluntary Rated Recall Program on 25 September 2003 rather than on 1
October 2003; that he entered into an Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP)
agreement; and, that he was entitled to ACP in the amount authorized by the
FY 2003 ACP Program.
b. Competent authority approved his request for a Regular Air
Force appointment as an exception to policy and action be initiated to
obtain Senate confirmation.
c. Upon Senate confirmation, he be tendered a Regular Air Force
appointment.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00915
Backdating an ACP agreement essentially offers an incentive to an officer for a decision he has already made and provides a retention bonus for a period of service already served. In accordance with ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, chapter 6, paragraph 6.1, this order is considered probationary. Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02941
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. Based upon the published policy guidance, the fact that the applicant met all eligibility requirements and that the delay in release of the FY12 ACP policy was through no fault of his, they recommend approval of the applicant's requests. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03941
As stated in the ACP guidelines, his eligibility date rendered him ineligible to complete an entire period of agreement under the policy as released. 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 was ineligible for the Aviator Continuation Pay Program during Fiscal Year...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04058
This period allows him to enter into a 4-year FY12 ACP agreement per paragraph 2.1 of the Air National Guard FY12 ACP Policy. Based upon the published policy guidance, the fact that the applicant met all eligibility requirements and that the delay in release of the FY12 ACP policy was through no fault of his, they recommend approval of the applicant's request. The majority of the Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00960
Backdating an ACP agreement essentially offers an incentive to an officer for a decision he has already made and provides a retention bonus for a period of service already served. Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY13 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at the time of their application. The applicant was eligible for a FY13 ARP Agreement that covers the period 7 Jun 13 through 31 Jan 17 at $15,000 per year...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04502
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was the victim of an injustice because the Air Force did not release the FY12 ACP Program in time for FY12. Because of the delay in the release of the FY12 ACP Program, when the program was implemented he no longer had the minimum agreement period of two-years remaining on his orders to receive ACP. Given that the applicant was a fully qualified member of a career field which the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04689
He was also told that there was a delay with FY 12 ACP (as there had been in years past) but that the delay would not have an effect on his receiving ACP. While we note the comments of the SAF/MRB Legal Advisor indicating an applicant must prove by sufficient evidence that he or she is the victim of a serious injustice not shared by other, similarly situated officers, it is the opinion of the Board, that because the applicants AGR advisor told him that he met all eligibility requirements,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03760
According to the FY 2013 ANG ARP Policy, paragraph 2.1.7, each aviator must: Be eligible for at least two continuous years of full time duty upon acceptance of an ARP Agreement." We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and note the Air Force office of primary responsibilitys recommendation to grant the applicants request because the release of the FY 2013 ARP Policy was delayed until 7 June 2013. Exhibit G. Letters, Secretary of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04158
Based upon the published policy guidance, the fact that he met all eligibility requirements and that the delay in release of the FY12 ACP policy was through no fault of the member, we recommend approval of the above member's request. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 October 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04158
Based upon the published policy guidance, the fact that he met all eligibility requirements and that the delay in release of the FY12 ACP policy was through no fault of the member, we recommend approval of the above member's request. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 October 2012.