RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03608
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	  		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
  
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) agreement eligibility effective 
date be 15 May 13 instead of 7 Jun 13.   

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His opportunity to apply for the $25,000 yearly bonus was void 
due to the delayed release date of the annual ARP agreement 
policy.  Had the agreement been released in the standard time 
frame he would not be penalized $40,000 over the next 4 years.

In support of his request, he provides copies of his ARP 
Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), Extended Active Duty 
(EAD) order and various other documents associated with his 
request.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to National Guard Bureau (NGB) Special Order AA-
0000457 dated 15 May 13, the applicant was placed on statutory 
EAD tour for the period of 15 May 13 to 14 May 17.
 
The applicant’s ARP agreement is for $15,000 per year for 2 to  
4 year active duty tour effective 7 Jun 13 to 14 May 17.

On 12 May 14, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) denied 
relief to two applicants making similar arguments to the AFBCMR.  
Her memorandum stated, in part, that “Aviator Continuation Pay 
(ACP) is an incentive program, not an entitlement.  The intent 
of Congress (and therefore the purpose of the statute) was to 
provide an incentive that would encourage aviation service 
officers not to leave active duty.  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.  Doing so would depart from the purpose 
of the statute.  Furthermore, because the decision whether or 
not to offer ACP in any given year is entirely at the discretion 
of the Secretary, any delay in approval of the program for a 
given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery.”

The complete SecAF decision is at Exhibit F.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends denial.  The applicant’s request for ARP 
eligibility is incomplete as he did not provide a signed ARP 
agreement (all signatures, initials, blocks completed), ARP 
coordinator spreadsheet showing all required data signed by the 
ARP coordinator and documentation explaining why the Aviation 
Service Date (ASD) falls after the Undergraduate Flying Training 
(UFT) graduation date.  A1PF advised they would reassess the 
case should the applicant provide the required documents.

The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his request, the applicant provides a 
letter of support from the Air National Guard Readiness Center 
(ANGRC) Commander, completed SOU and various other documents 
associated with his request.

The complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
  
________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends approval.  Upon further review of the 
documents provided, A1PF concludes he should be permitted to 
request, execute and be paid for a FY13 ARP agreement effective 
for the period of 15 May 13 through 14 May 17 at $25,000 per 
year.  According to Special Order AA-0000457 dated 15 May 13, he 
was ordered to active duty from 15 May 13 to 14 May 17 and this 
period would have allowed him to enter into an FY13 ARP 
Agreement for $25,000 per year for 4 year period.  However, the 
FY13 ARP policy was delayed until 7 Jun 13 which prevented him 
from applying at the beginning of his eligibility period.  
  
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 Jun 14, the copies of the SecAF decision and the Air Force 
evaluation were forwarded to the applicant for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  As of this date, this 
office has not received a response.
  
________________________________________________________________

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 
Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) recommends 
approval; however, their recommendation preceded and was made 
without the knowledge that two similar cases had been denied.  
The FY13 ARP program was not announced as of 15 May 13; 
therefore, the applicant could not have applied for ARP at 
$25,000 per year for 4 year period effective 15 May 13.  The 
evidence of record reflects the applicant’s ARP agreement was 
for payment of $15,000 per year for 2 to 4 year active duty tour 
effective on  7 Jun 13 for the period of 7 Jun 13 to 14 May 17.  
As stated in the SecAF decision, in all retention programs there 
are some who meet the eligibility criteria and others who miss 
eligibility by only a few days.  These programs operate without 
regard to individual cases and are equitable for all similarly 
situated individuals.  Thus, changing the applicant’s records as 
requested would provide him a benefit not afforded to others 
similarly situated.  We note that ARP is an incentive program, 
not an entitlement.  The intent of Congress (and therefore the 
purpose of the statute) was to provide an incentive that would 
encourage aviation service officers not to leave active duty.  
True incentives influence decisions about the future.  
Backdating an ARP 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.  Doing 
so would depart from the purpose of the statute.  Furthermore, 
because the decision whether or not to offer ARP in any given 
year is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary, any delay 
in approval of the program for a given year cannot become the 
basis for a retroactive recovery.  Therefore, in the interest of 
justice and 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; 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 BC-2013-
03608 in Executive Session on 29 Jul and 29 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member
       

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-03608:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 9 Sep 13.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 14, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 29 Apr 14.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SecAF, dated 12 May 14.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.