RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03396
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be entitled to the Reserve Officer Affiliation Bonus under 
the provisions of Title 37, United States Code (USC) Section 
308j.  

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be entitled to a Reserve Officer Affiliation Bonus 
since his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 64PX/Contracting, was 
listed on the 13 Jan 12, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Fiscal 
Year 2012 (FY12) Critical Skills Officer Incentive Eligible 
Skills memo.

He left the Air National Guard (ANG) and was affiliated with the 
United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) in a 64PX Individual 
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position.

On 25 Sep 12, he submitted the AFRC Affiliation Bonus Agreement 
to the Base IMA Administrator (BIMAA); on 23 Apr 13, the BIMAA 
indicated that despite a year's satisfactory service, he was not 
eligible for the bonus since he had joined the USAFR from the 
ANG instead of active duty.

On 30 May 13, he received an email from AFRC/AlKP indicating 
that their denial was based on interpretation of Title 37 USC 
308j. 

AFRC/CC made a determination in January 2012 that 64P officer 
billets were critically short of manning and in need of an 
incentive bonus to help restore required end strength.  
AFRC/AlKP appears to have interpreted Title 37 USC Section 308j 
in a manner that allowed them to add a caveat to the Commander's 
program that removed a population of eligible personnel from 
consideration for the bonus.  /AlKP's caveat does not appear to 
be consistent with the AFRC/CC's overall intent.

AlKP's interpretation of Title 37 USC Section 308j needs to be 
reviewed by an attorney for legal sufficiency.

AlKP does not have the authority to limit implementation of the 
Commander's directive without obtaining from the Commander a 
revision of the original implementing guidance.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Jan 90, the applicant was commissioned as a Regular 
officer in the Air Force and entered active duty as a second 
lieutenant.  

On 31 Oct 06, he resigned his commission and was appointed as a 
major in the Kentucky ANG (KYANG).  

On 5 Apr 12, he was relieved from his assignment with the KYANG 
and transferred to the Air Force Reserve as an IMA in the grade 
of lieutenant colonel.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial stating, in part, that after a 
careful review of the documentation provided by the applicant he 
is ineligible for an affiliation incentive because he 
transferred from the ANG.  Therefore, the Command's 
recommendation of disapproval is established.

In accordance with Air Force Reserve Officer Incentive Policy, 
affiliation incentives are paid to members transferring directly 
from the Regular Air Force into the Air Force Reserve without a 
break in service and have less than 20 years of military service 
from pay date, or for members who affiliate from the IRR while 
serving the remainder of their Military Service Obligation 
(MSO).

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion recommends disapproval of his application 
based on their "Air Force Reserve Officer Incentive Policy" that 
excludes ANG transferees from affiliation incentives.  In 
AFRC/AlK's 30 May 13 message to him entitled “FW: IG Complaint 
Reply,” the policy in question was said to have been based on an 
interpretation of Title 37 USC Section 308j.

However, the advisory opinion simply re-states the policy 
without indicating whether the office's interpretation of 
Title 37 USC 308j has been reviewed by a USAF attorney for legal 
sufficiency.  This question of legal sufficiency is the core of 
his application to the Board.  Additionally, he seek the Board’s 
review of AFRC/AlKP's authority to limit implementation of the 
AFRC/CC's 13 Jan 12 Critical Skills Officer Incentive Eligible 
Skills directive without obtaining a revision of the 
implementing guidance from the Commander.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 note the 
applicant questions the legal sufficiency of AFRC’s authority to 
limit implementation of the AFRC/CC's FY12 Critical Skills 
Officer Incentive Eligible Skills directive, dated 13 Jan 12 and 
seeks the Board’s opinion.  However, after thoroughly reviewing 
the available evidence, specifically the contract that states 
that the AFRC Incentive office would have final approval of 
eligibility for the Affiliation Bonus; we find no basis to 
question AFRC’s authority.  Therefore we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of 
proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Absent persuasive evidence that he was treated differently than 
others similarly situated or that he was denied rights to which 
he was entitled; 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; 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-2013-03396 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 1 Oct 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13.  
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 13, w/atchs.




                                   Panel Chair