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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 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 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.