RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-02033 INDEX CODE: 102.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be eligible for the Fiscal Year 2004 Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never notified by the Air Force that he was eligible to apply for the initial ACP. His application was denied because he applied too late. After requesting clarification, he was told that the Air Force does not specifically notify individuals; however, the information is provided through media outlets, messages and command channels. He believes there should be a better system in place to notify individuals at the beginning of their eligibility period for ACP.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal letter, an unsigned letter from his commander, background material on the ACP, and excerpts from AFI 36-3004, Aviator Continuation Pay.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 January 2002.

On 5 April 1995, the applicant completed Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and was awarded the Pilot Aeronautical Rating. On
4 April 2004, the applicant completed his UPT active duty service commitment (ADSC) and met the minimum nine pilot years of aviation service (YAS) on 5 April 2004.

Although the applicant became eligible for ACP on 5 April 2004, he could have submitted his application beginning on 19 November 2003.  Depending on when the applicant submitted his application,

the effective date would have been somewhere between 5 April 2004 through 30 September 2004.

On 10 March 2006, AFPC/DPAOT reviewed the applicant's ACP waiver request and recommended disapproval because there were no extenuating circumstances that would have precluded him from applying for ACP via the web during his window of opportunity. On
18 May 2006, AF/A1PP disapproved the applicant's waiver request based on AFPC/DPAOT's recommendation. The applicant appealed the decision through AF/A1PPR. A1PPR disapproved his appeal and closed his case.

On 12 March 2007, he filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint with AFPC/IG. On 16 May 2007, the IG concluded that his complaint did not disclose any recognizable wrong, or violation of law, regulation or policy.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAOT recommends denial and states there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant failed to apply for ACP in the fiscal year he was eligible, and he submitted an ACP waiver request to the AFPC  ACP program Manager. The ACP manager processed the waiver package and AF/AF1PP denied the applicant's request, providing a thorough explanation of why the request was denied.

AFPC/DPAOT's complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that when attempting to determine whether or not an individual was aware of a specific piece of information, it is important to understand that proving this knowledge is much more straightforward than proving that the knowledge did not exist. In fact it is inherently impossible to prove the latter. It is up to the court system, or boards such as this, to apply a reasonable person approach to find a just resolution.

His task, on the other hand was to demonstrate that he did not have knowledge of his program eligibility. A much more difficult task in and of itself, yet he has clearly established, through a letter from his commander, that he was not notified of his initial eligibility, which is a clear violation of commander's responsibility criteria established by AFPC.

The information he has provided clearly reveals that it is both unreasonable and unjust to assume that he was aware of his

eligibility for this program.	The erroneous decision to deny his ACP should be corrected.

Applicant's complete response 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 showing 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 its 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 a 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-2008-02033 in Executive Session on 13 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member

The	following	documentary	evidence	pertaining	to	Docket	Number BC-2008-02033 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 May 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAOT, dated 29 Jul 08, w/atchs. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 29 Aug 08.
Exhibit D.	Applicant's Response, dated 1 Nov 08