RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01731
		INDEX CODE:  128.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Bonus for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not notified of his eligibility for the bonus in accordance with Air Force policy directives and instructions.  After discovering the eligibility criteria had changed, he inquired with the Air Force point of contact (POC) who determined that he was, in fact, eligible under the new criteria.  When he asked for back pay for the first year he was eligible (but did not know he was because he was not notified of his new eligibility), his request was denied because the Air Force would gain no retention benefit for the year he had already served, and because uncited “rules” did not allow it.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documentation pertaining to the ACP, including a statement provided in his behalf from the Commander, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Southwest Region, and his Inspector General complaint concerning this matter.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 95.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 6 Jun 73.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAOY recommended denial.  They noted that during FY00, the Air Force implemented an expanded ACP program.  Notification of eligible pilots was accomplished through official message traffic and normal publicity channels including the Air Force Times.  Commanders/ACP supervisors were explicitly charged with reviewing the personnel records for eligible members under their command/supervision and notifying them of their eligibility.  These responsibilities were clearly delineated in the FY00 ACP Implementation Message.

According to AFPC/DPAOY, the applicant failed to sign an ACP agreement during FY00 even though he was eligible, as did many pilots.  The FY00 ACP Program was highly publicized and implementation messages and instructions were disseminated from both the Air Staff and the Air Force Personnel Center.  The question of what constituted notification has been addressed at the highest levels of Air Force leadership & General Counsel.  It has been upheld that their current procedures using official message traffic to commanders and Air Force media outlets has been deemed sufficient and constitutes “due diligence.”  To compliment these procedures, the Air Force Personnel Center also developed a website that describes the ACP program in great detail, including eligibility dates, rules, and agreement effective date guidelines.  The applicant also stated he was not notified in accordance with AFPD 36-30, Military Entitlements.  With this statement, he mistakenly characterizes the ACP bonus as an entitlement when it is clearly listed as a Special/Incentive Pay, not an entitlement.  His argument to apply the same standards of notification that cover entitlements is false.

AFPC/DPAOY indicated that following a thorough review of the applicant’s request, the findings and recommendations of the office of the Air Force Inspector General, Air Force Rated Force Policy, and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, they find no further information to support this request.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAOY evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, the applicant indicated that the notification process for the expanded ACP program lacked robust visibility for those who were eligible and rigorous command and control in the implementation of the program.  He believes that He is not requesting a backdated agreement, but simply asks that the Air Force provide retroactive payment of the bonus for which he was eligible and entitled.  He strongly recommends that the Board correct the injustice by directing the Air Force to comply with the governing Air Force directive and provide him his FY00 ACP bonus.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence the Air Force did not exercise due diligence in regard to their notification procedures, or that the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling 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 02-01731 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, dated 18 Jun 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Jul 02, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair