RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01790 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be approved for the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) retroactive to 1 Jul 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Even though the announcement of the FY13 ANG ARP policy was delayed, he was still able to submit his application, on or before 1 Jul 13. However, because of a lack of understanding of the process, several corrections had to be made by his ARP coordinator, resulting in his application being denied just one day after his eligibility for ARP had expired. He submitted an appeal to his Wing Inspector General’s (IG) office; however, his complaint was referred the Texas Air National Guard (TX ANG) IG’s office and he was advised to contact the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Subject Matter Expert (SME) for resolution. Subsequently, his application was denied because he did not have sufficient time left before reaching 18 years of TAFMS. He believes had it not taken five months of coordination to verify his eligibility and get materials submitted three times, he would not have missed the cutoff. Further, the IG’s methodology of asking the key figure in his complaint to “look at it again” was somewhat questionable, seeing that he came to the same conclusion as before. Two other members of his unit, who submitted their applications around the same time, were approved for the ARP, because they had more eligibility (Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) for the program left. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the TX ANG, as an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) member, in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O- 5). On 12 May 2014, 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) (now 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 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 of the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery. Every year, in every retention program, some Air Force members do not meet the criteria for obtaining the bonus. Some may miss eligibility by only a few days. In all such cases those who do not meet eligibility have no claim in equity since these programs operate without regard to individual cases.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial, indicating that after a thorough review of the applicant’s request, he is ineligible for the FY13 ARP agreement. A1PF notes the applicant submitted three separate ARP contracts; each one did not meet eligibility requirements for one or more reasons. The parameters that allow A1PF to determine eligibility for ARP are spelled out in, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the FY13 ANG ARP Policy. A1PF notes, of particular concern, to ensure that no member or unit manipulates the orders system for the sole purpose and intent of receiving bonus monies. The ARP program is an ANG recruiting and retention tool used to encourage rated officers to serve in an active status in the ANG in aviation service and is not considered an entitlement. ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, para 6.1.1.3., states "Rated AGR officers eligible for ARP agreements must have AGR orders to match the length of their ARP agreement." According to ANGI 36-101, the initial probationary tour for an AGR member "will not exceed six years", it further establishes that the unit has the ability to extend the members orders at any point in time in para 6.4.1. "Extension of the current tour or selection for subsequent tours is based on the mission needs of the unit, Airman's performance, and authorized force structure. An AGR Airman will be considered career status upon completion of the initial AGR tour and order renewal." As the office of primary responsibility for ARP, A1PF does not have the ability to correct member's dates to make them eligible retroactively. Nor can A1PF predate an order to make the member eligible, i.e., make the order issue date FY13 instead of FY14. The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation, including the SAF Memoranda (redacted), was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jan 15, 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 an 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 National Guard Bureau office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-01790 in Executive Session on 14 Apr 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PF, 7 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jan 15, w/atchs.