RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03760
		COUNSEL:  NONE
	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His initial eligibility and start date for Aviator Retention Pay 
(ARP) be 15 February 2013.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The delayed release of the Air National Guard (ANG) Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2013 ARP policy guidance resulted in his not being allowed 
to renew his two-year ARP agreement.  A renewal ARP agreement is 
a significant factor in his decision to remain in an Air Guard 
Reserve (AGR) status and he is being denied eligibility due to 
circumstances beyond his control.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
ARP Case Management System Checklist, Pilot ARP Agreement 
Statement of Understanding, orders, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force ARP Program ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy, 
Individual Data Summary and numerous other documents related to 
his request.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the ANG in the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col).  His Primary and Duty Air Force 
Specialty Code (AFSC) is T11U3B, Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) 
Pilot, Formal Training Instructor.

On 12 May 2014, 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.”

On 24 June 2014, the AFBCMR staff forwarded the applicant copies 
of the noted SECAF decisions for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office.  (Exhibit H).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends denial.  A1PF states that the applicant is 
ineligible and should not be permitted to request, execute, or 
be paid for a FY 2013 ARP Agreement.  According to the FY 
2013 ANG ARP Policy, paragraph 2.1.7, each aviator must: “Be 
eligible for at least two continuous years of full time duty 
upon acceptance of an ARP Agreement."  He would not have 
sufficient time remaining on Special Order A-000223, dated 
23 February 2012, to be eligible for at least two continuous 
years of full time duty at the time of application for an ARP 
Agreement. Therefore, did not meet the intent of the paragraph 
above and is ineligible to apply for ARP.

The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

There were several errors on his special order and application 
package that contributed to NGB/A1PF’s recommendation to deny 
his request.  A1PF obtained a corrected contract from his ARP 
coordinator and advised him they would rescind the previous A1PF 
recommendation.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends approval.  Due to an administrative 
oversight concerning the applicant’s Primary Air Force Specialty 
Code (PAFSC) and Duty (AFSC) and further review of his 
application, A1PF concludes the applicant should be permitted to 
request, execute, and be paid for a FY 2013 ARP agreement 
effective 15 February 2013 through 14 February 2015 at 
$15,000 per year.  According to paragraph 2.1 of the FY 2013 ANG 
ARP Policy “Only actively flying RPA (11U ONLY) pilots currently 
restricted to 1 year orders are eligible to apply for 2 year 
agreements with a 1 year order and an MFR signed by the Wing/CC, 
showing intent for follow-on orders.”  According to Special 
Order A-A000223 dated 23 February 2012, he was ordered to duty 
from 15 February 2009 through 14 February 2014.  As a RPA pilot, 
this period would allow him to enter into an FY 2013 ARP 
Agreement per paragraph 2.1.10 of the ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy.  
However, the release of the FY 2013 ARP policy was delayed until 
7 June 2013.  Because of this delay, he was unable to submit his 
application for ARP until after 7 June 2013 which is outside of 
the 30 day processing window allowed per paragraph 1.7.3 of the 
ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy.  Based upon the published policy 
guidance, the fact that the applicant met all eligibility 
requirements and that the policy delay was through no fault of 
his own, A1PF recommends approval of the applicant’s request.

The complete A1PF evaluation 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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; and note the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility’s recommendation to grant the applicant’s request 
because the release of the FY 2013 ARP Policy was delayed until 
7 June 2013.  Because of this delay, the applicant was unable to 
submit his ARP application until after 7 June 2013, which was 
outside of the 30-day processing window allowed, per the ANG FY 
2013 ARP Policy.  We disagree with their recommendation.  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 absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief.

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 issue(s) 
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 this application 
in Executive Session on 4 March 2014 and 2 September 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

    , Panel Chair
    , Member
    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-03760:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 August 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 27 September 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 October 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 7 November 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 November 2013.
    Exhibit G.  Letters, Secretary of the Air Force, dated
                12 May 2014.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 June 2014





8

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
8

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974