RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00461
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be approved for the Fiscal Year (FY) 13 Aviator Retention Pay
(ARP) program effective 1 Oct 12.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was on Title 10 orders for all of the FY.
He was disapproved for ARP because he did not have orders for a
full year when ARP was looked at in Jul.
If the ARP had been issued on time in Oct, he would have had a
full year of orders. He is on orders through Oct 14.
Orders are issued in 6 month blocks to support the MQ1 mission
in the Air National Guard (ANG). He is being penalized because
the ARP was issued late.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a member of the Ohio ANG.
According to Special Order R-B000180 dated 27 Sep 12, the
applicant was placed on Military Personnel Appropriations (MPA)
orders from 1 Oct 12 thru 30 Sep 13.
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/she 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 12 Sep 14, SAF/MRBR forwarded the applicant copies of the
noted SecAF decisions for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a
response.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PF states they cannot support the request since the
package submitted was incomplete as presented and did not
provide a complete picture of his eligibility. Additional
documents and corrections are required in order to provide a
reevaluation. Should the applicant decide to provide the
required documents, A1PF can reassess the request.
The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 4 Oct 14, the copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). 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 an error or injustice. We note
that AIPF states the applicants ARP application is incomplete
and additional documents and corrections are required for
reevaluation. However, 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. Moreover, 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 applicants 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 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 BC-2014-
00461 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 14, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 14 Apr 14.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00475
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00475 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) contract be changed to reflect he is on a four-year Air Guard Reserve (AGR) tour. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03832
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03832 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His initial eligibility and start date for Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) be 11 Feb 13. 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 complete copy of the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00946
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00946 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) eligibility date of 7 Jun 13 be changed to 1 Feb 13 to make him eligible for a four-year Air National Guard (ANG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 ARP Agreement. Furthermore, because the decision whether or not to offer ACP in any given year is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary, any...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03760
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." We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; and note the Air Force office of primary responsibilitys recommendation to grant the applicants request because the release of the FY 2013 ARP Policy was delayed until 7 June 2013. Exhibit G. Letters, Secretary of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00915
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. In accordance with ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, chapter 6, paragraph 6.1, this order is considered probationary. Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY 2013 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00616
We note that in light of the SecAFs decision to deny relief to two applicants making similar arguments to the Board, the Air Force OPR recommended the applicants request be denied. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00960
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. Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY13 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at the time of their application. The applicant was eligible for a FY13 ARP Agreement that covers the period 7 Jun 13 through 31 Jan 17 at $15,000 per year...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01030
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. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Therefore,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03525
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 12 Jul 14, SAF/MRBR forwarded the applicant copies of the noted SecAF decisions for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit I). APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 11 Mar 14, the applicant requested his application be re-opened....
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03608
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. Upon further review of the documents provided, A1PF concludes he should be permitted to request,...