RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00915
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	 		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be permitted to initiate a four year contact for Aviator 
Retention Pay (ARP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 with initial 
eligibility and start date of 1 February 2013.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The delayed release of the Air National Guard (ANG) FY 2013 ARP 
policy guidance only makes him eligible for the smaller incentive 
rate valued at $15,000 per year, pro-rated for 43 months instead 
of an incentive rate of $25,000 per year for 48 months.  The FY 
2013 ARP program, unlike the FY 2012 Aviator Continuation Pay 
(ACP) program, does not allow for back-dating of contracts to the 
date of orders issued, nor does it allow extending current orders 
for those members on probationary tours.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his FY 2013 ARP Agreement Statement of 
Understanding (SOU), orders, ANG FY 2013 Implementation Policy, FY 
2012 Pilot ACP Agreement SOU, memorandums and various other 
documents related to his request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Special Order A-X000122 dated 22 January 2013, the 
applicant was ordered to active duty from 1 February 2013 through 
31 January 2017.

The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) 
in the grade of major.

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 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 for the program for a given year cannot become 
the basis for a retroactive recovery” (Exhibit C).

On 27 June 2014, the AFBCMR staff forwarded the applicant a copy 
of the noted SECAF decision for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends denial.  The ANG FY 2013 ARP policy was 
delayed until 7 June 2013, delaying the submission of his 
application resulting in orders that did not cover the entire 
period of the requested agreement.  ARP is a retention bonus, 
which by nature is an incentive intended to modify an officer's 
future conduct.  Regrettably, it is not possible to execute an 
incentive for past conduct, therefore backdating ARP agreements is 
not in keeping with Congressional intent as authorized by 37 U.S. 
Code § 334 - Special Aviation Incentive Pay and Bonus Authorities 
for Officers.  The applicant did not have sufficient time 
remaining on his orders to support a 4-year ANG FY 2013 ARP 
Agreement.  He was on an “Initial Tour” order from 1 February 
2013 through 31 January 2017.  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 the time of their application.  The 
applicant was eligible for a FY 2013 ARP Agreement that covers the 
period 7 June 2013 through 31 January 2017 at a rate of 
$15,000 per year which he is currently receiving.

The complete copy of the A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 June 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of 
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 12 February 2015, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
00915 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 February 2014, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1PF dated 7 May 2014. 
      Exhibit C.  Letters, Secretary of the Air Force, dated
                  12 May 2014.
      Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 June 2014.