RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04587 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be allowed to backdate his application for Reserve Aviator 
Continuation Pay (ACP) to 10 June 2011, while he was still 
serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

When he was selected for an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position 
and his orders were issued, the Reserve ACP benefit was neither 
briefed nor offered to him as is required and is standard 
practice. Had he been notified, he would have applied during his 
window of eligibility (serving in the grade of lieutenant 
colonel); however, he was not made aware of the benefit until 
after he was promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6) which 
rendered him ineligible. 

 

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 applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel, 
was ordered to a colonel AGR extended active duty tour on 2 May 
2011 with an effective reporting date of 10 June 2011. He was 
subsequently promoted to the grade of colonel effective 15 June 
2011. 

 

The applicant submitted an ACP Agreement on 21 October 2011 
stating he agreed to continue as a Reserve AGR Pilot/Instructor 
Pilot for a period of 24 months with a $15,000 per year ACP 
Bonus. His supervisor endorsed the ACP Agreement on 27 October 
2011. 


 

The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records are contained in the Air Force advisory 
opinion at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1A recommends denial. A1A states the applicant was not 
notified of his eligibility for ACP in part because he was hired 
into a colonel position, which, in accordance with the ACP 
implementation message, states members serving in the grade of 
colonel are not eligible for ACP. The applicant’s AGR order 
indicates his position is for the rank of colonel. There was a 
delay of five days in his promotion order from 10 June 2011 (when 
he started his AGR tour), to his promotion order dated 15 June 
2011. 

 

A1A indicates the purpose of the ACP program is as a retention 
tool. 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 ACP 
bonus. 

 

The complete A1A evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Being selected for promotion to the grade of colonel is not a 
disqualifier for the ACP program. The eligibility criteria for 
the Fiscal Year 2011 ACP Program simply states pilots must be in 
the grade of lieutenant colonel or below, which he was on 10 June 
2011, at the start of his AGR tour. He also met all other 
criteria on that date as well. His promotion order date of 
15 June 2011 was not a five day delay in his promotion. In fact, 
his promotion effective date was an accelerated date of his 
official promotion increment date, which should have been 
1 August 2011, or later. 

 

He was not the only AGR member at that time to begin a tour which 
was managed by AFRC/A1A, and who was not notified of his 
eligibility for ACP. At least one other AGR member was allowed 
to have his Fiscal Year 2011 ACP agreement backdated for the same 
reason. 

 

When he queried AFRC/A1A about submitting an ACP application, 
their office suggested he appeal to the AFBCMR, so he is a little 
astonished that their office recommended disapproval in their 
advisory opinion. 


 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachment, 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 an error or an injustice. We note 
the ACP program is used as a retention tool. The Air Force 
office of primary responsibility indicates this retention tool 
was not offered to the applicant as he had already been selected 
and had accepted an assignment in a colonel’s AGR position in 
April 2011; therefore, this retention tool did not apply at the 
time of his entry into his AGR position. When the applicant 
submitted an ACP Agreement on 21 October 2011, he was not 
eligible to receive ACP based on his grade of colonel. We also 
note the applicant’s assertion, in his rebuttal, that there was 
another AGR member that was allowed to have his Fiscal Year 2011 
ACP agreement backdated to the start of his AGR tour; however, 
after further investigation, the member in question was recalled 
to active duty in a lieutenant colonel position and was; 
therefore, eligible to receive ACP. Based on the aforementioned, 
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 the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04587 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04587: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1A, dated 22 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair