ADDENDUM TO 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01529 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to show that he is eligible to 
participate in the Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Continuation 
Pay program (ACP) for fiscal year 2010 (FY10). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESUME OF CASE: 

 

On 16 Aug 11, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s 
initial request. The basis for denial was that he had not 
provided any of the paperwork normally associated with 
establishing eligibility to participate in the ANG’s ACP program, 
i.e., a signed ACP agreement, aeronautical orders, and other 
pertinent information. The Board noted this lack of evidence and 
informed the applicant they would be willing to reconsider his 
appeal upon presentation of the missing paperwork. For an 
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
applicant’s initial request and the rationale of the earlier 
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B. 

 

By letter dated 27 Oct 11, the applicant requested reconsideration 
of his case and provided additional documentation, contending that 
his New Jersey ANG (NJ ANG) unit intended that he be hired into a 
two-year Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tour which would enable him to 
participate in the FY10 ACP program. However, due to faulty 
hiring practices, which have since been corrected, he was forced 
to accept a 179-day temporary active duty tour until his AGR 
orders could be finalized. As a result, the lack of one order 
spanning a two-year period of active duty rendered him ineligible 
for the FY10 ACP program. 

 

In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant 
provides a personal statement and copies of a signed ACP 
agreement, an ACP unit coordinator certification sheet, his AGR 
orders, a letter of support from his Group Commander, and 
pertinent e-mail correspondence. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit C. 


 

The ANG FY10 ACP policy requires that aviator’s wishing to 
participate in the FY10 program meet the following minimum 
eligibility requirements: 

 

 1. One active duty order spanning a two-year period. Orders 
cobbled together, patch-worked, or amended to extend in order to 
meet the two-year requirement are not acceptable. 

 

 2. Eligible aviators must begin their active duty tour within 
30 days of signing their ACP contract. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. 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. In this respect, we note there has been no 
error, as the applicant did not meet either of the two ACP 
eligibility requirements, i.e., he was not on orders for a period 
of two years and did not begin his active duty tour within 30 days 
of signing his ACP contract. We are also not convinced that he 
has been the victim of an injustice. The applicant states that 
his unit intended that he be hired into a two-year AGR tour which 
would have enabled him to participate in the FY10 ACP program and 
that but for the NJ ANG’s transitory hiring practices, he was 
precluded from doing so. While he may have applied for the AGR 
position and was ultimately selected, we recognize that in 
accordance with the State’s hiring policies to ensure that all 
qualified candidates were given equal opportunity to apply for the 
vacant position and to preclude perceived pre-selection, certain 
personnel actions were required by the State prior to placing him 
in the position and offering him a two-year tour, i.e., the 
position had to advertised, interviews completed, and the best 
candidate selected. The evidence of record establishes that he 
was on notice before he decided to accept the 179-day orders that 
he would not qualify for ACP and chose to do so. Although he now 
states that he was forced to do so, he provides insufficient 
evidence to support this contention. The statement from the 
applicant’s group commander is noted; however, it does not 
convince us the State’s hiring policies and practices were 
improper. The ACP program is not an entitlement for service 
performed but an important recruiting and retention tool designed 
to ensure the effective force management of each State’s ANG rated 
force. Thus, the ANG requires a commitment to service up front 
and does not accept applications for service after-the-fact. 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 the necessary time requirements 
to qualify for ACP, has been a requirement of the ANG’s annual ACP 
policy since FY07 and is thusly a well-known requirement of each 
unit’s ACP coordinator. Moreover, although the ANG establishes 
the criteria for the ACP program, given the autonomy of each State 
and Territory, they have the authority to implement the program 
within the authorized framework of the program in order to meet 
their unique needs and requirements. In view of the above, we 
find no evidence that he has been treated any differently than 
others who were similarly situated. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 reconsidered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01529 in Executive Session on 15 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit B. Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair