RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01912
INDEX CODE: 128.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he signed a one-year Aviation
Continuation pay (ACP) contract with the Air National Guard (ANG)
under the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) ANG ACP program.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was eligible for the FY06 ACP while on active duty from 31 May 2005
through 29 May 2007. The Wing commander was responsible for
appointing an ACP coordinator but did not do so until 21 March 2008.
Therefore, he was not informed of his entitlement as instructed in the
FY06 ANG ACP program implementation policy. He is therefore seeking
restitution. Had he known of his eligibility, he would have signed a
one-year ACP contract and received $15,000.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his active
duty orders, the FY06 Implementation Policy, letters from his wing
commander, and an individual data summary.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a former member of the Rhode Island ANG (RIANG), was
ordered to active duty via Manpower Authorization (MPA) days from 31
May 2005 through 30 May 2006. The orders were amended on 12 May 06
extending his tour to 29 May 2007. The FY06 program required at least
one year of uninterrupted active duty service (no amendments) as a
full-time Active Guard Reserve (AGR – Title 32) pilot or a pilot on
Statutory tour (Title 10). Those aviators on MPA days were not
eligible for the FY06 ANG ACP.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The National Guard Bureau received this application for an advisory
opinion on 21 May 2008. To date, they have failed to provide one.
_________________________________________________________________
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 note the ANG FY06 ACP guidelines required aviators to be
either on full-time AGR orders or on a statutory tour (Title 10). He
submitted Manpower Authorization (MPA) orders to indicate his
eligibility for FY06 ACP. Unfortunately, he does not qualify for FY06
ACP under MPA orders. 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-
2008-01912 in Executive Session on 29 July 2009, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence with regard to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2008-01912 was considered:
Exhibit: DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2008, w/atchs.
JOSEPH D. YOUNT
Panel Chair
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. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02191
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 1 Oct 10, he became eligible for ACP when he received his initial AGR tour orders. The applicant was initially ordered to extended active duty from 1 Oct 10 to 30 Sep 13. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03788
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he is eligible to participate in the Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) program for fiscal year 2010 (FY10) with a four-year tour service commitment. He applied for the four-year ACP; it...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05545
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05545 COUNSEL: NONE INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His ten-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void. The applicant contends he never signed a service commitment agreement upon entry to initial pilot training. The FY13 ACP program implementation instructions included a criterion that in order to be...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02234
The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicants military service records are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. This would make his initial date of eligibility start on 13 December 2011. 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...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-01529 ADDENDUM
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that his inability to qualify for ACP constitutes an error or an injustice. The requirement that original orders be cut for sufficient time to qualify for ACP participation without having to amend or cobble additional sets of orders to meet...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00277
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his ACP Agreement, his aeronautical order and extracts from the FY07 ACP Implementation Policy and Special Orders R-B00027, R-C000269 and R-C000164. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application...