RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03715

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Aviation Retention Pay (ARP) Agreement reflect $25,000 per year, instead of $15,000 and he receive back pay.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed pilot training in Sep 04.  His 10 year active duty service commitment (ADSC) for pilot training expired on 23 Sep 14.  He planned on accepting ARP in FY14 but was ineligible as the program for FY13 to FY15 excluded aviators with more than 15 years and 364 days total active federal military service (TAFMS) and he reached 16 years TAFMS on 8 Jun 12.  

In FY16, the restriction was lifted and he became eligible under the Uncommitted Eligible Category.  He should have been eligible for the $25,000 ARP agreement since FY16 was the first year he was actually eligible; however, his request for the $25,000 bonus was denied.  

It is an injustice pilots in the years before and two years after his ADSC could receive the $25,000 per year bonus while he is ineligible.  If he had applied for an exception to policy in 2016, his ADSC would have expired two years earlier and although he is not requesting his ADSC be changed, he requests the same compensation as others receive.  He is eligible to retire but  will serve five more years for ARP.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force.

In an e-mail dated 7 Apr 16, AFPC informed the applicant his ARP agreement should state for $15,000 instead of $25,000 because he was in Category 4-Uncommitted Eligible Pilot.  The applicant was requested to have his commander re-sign the corrected agreement.  

On 7 Apr 16, the applicant and his commander signed his ARP Agreement for annual value of $15,000 for 5 years with an ADSC of 4 Apr 21.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial.  To grant relief would be contrary to Air Force policy in effect during the FY14 to FY15 ARP Program Cycles.   The applicant incorrectly believes he should have been categorized as an Initial Eligible Pilot in FY16 instead of an Uncommitted Eligible Pilot since he was not eligible for ARP in FY14 and FY15 due to the 16-year TAFMS restriction.

Aviation Bonus (AvB), formally called ARP is a retention/force-shaping tool and not an entitlement.  As a strategic force management tool, AvB is modified annually to decisively and deliberately shape the rated force while practicing fiscal responsibility.  The Air Force was not obligated to include an Uncommitted Eligible category in FY16 when he became eligible.  If there was not an Uncommitted Eligible Category in FY16, he would not have been eligible for any retention pay money.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 20 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  As pointed out by AFPC/DP2SSM, ARP is an incentive program and not an entitlement. Changing the applicant’s ARP agreement and providing back pay essentially offers an incentive to an officer for a decision already made and provides a retention bonus for a period of service already served.  In view of this, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-03715 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 18:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 30 Aug 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, w/atchs, dated 26 Apr 17.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Aug 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.