ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01529 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he is eligible to participate in the Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Continuation Pay program (ACP) for fiscal year 2010 (FY10). _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 16 Aug 11, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s initial request. The basis for denial was that he had not provided any of the paperwork normally associated with establishing eligibility to participate in the ANG’s ACP program, i.e., a signed ACP agreement, aeronautical orders, and other pertinent information. The Board noted this lack of evidence and informed the applicant they would be willing to reconsider his appeal upon presentation of the missing paperwork. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s initial request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B. By letter dated 27 Oct 11, the applicant requested reconsideration of his case and provided additional documentation, contending that his New Jersey ANG (NJ ANG) unit intended that he be hired into a two-year Active Guard Reserve (AGR) tour which would enable him to participate in the FY10 ACP program. However, due to faulty hiring practices, which have since been corrected, he was forced to accept a 179-day temporary active duty tour until his AGR orders could be finalized. As a result, the lack of one order spanning a two-year period of active duty rendered him ineligible for the FY10 ACP program. In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of a signed ACP agreement, an ACP unit coordinator certification sheet, his AGR orders, a letter of support from his Group Commander, and pertinent e-mail correspondence. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. The ANG FY10 ACP policy requires that aviator’s wishing to participate in the FY10 program meet the following minimum eligibility requirements: 1. One active duty order spanning a two-year period. Orders cobbled together, patch-worked, or amended to extend in order to meet the two-year requirement are not acceptable. 2. Eligible aviators must begin their active duty tour within 30 days of signing their ACP contract. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that his inability to qualify for ACP constitutes an error or an injustice. In this respect, we note there has been no error, as the applicant did not meet either of the two ACP eligibility requirements, i.e., he was not on orders for a period of two years and did not begin his active duty tour within 30 days of signing his ACP contract. We are also not convinced that he has been the victim of an injustice. The applicant states that his unit intended that he be hired into a two-year AGR tour which would have enabled him to participate in the FY10 ACP program and that but for the NJ ANG’s transitory hiring practices, he was precluded from doing so. While he may have applied for the AGR position and was ultimately selected, we recognize that in accordance with the State’s hiring policies to ensure that all qualified candidates were given equal opportunity to apply for the vacant position and to preclude perceived pre-selection, certain personnel actions were required by the State prior to placing him in the position and offering him a two-year tour, i.e., the position had to advertised, interviews completed, and the best candidate selected. The evidence of record establishes that he was on notice before he decided to accept the 179-day orders that he would not qualify for ACP and chose to do so. Although he now states that he was forced to do so, he provides insufficient evidence to support this contention. The statement from the applicant’s group commander is noted; however, it does not convince us the State’s hiring policies and practices were improper. The ACP program is not an entitlement for service performed but an important recruiting and retention tool designed to ensure the effective force management of each State’s ANG rated force. Thus, the ANG requires a commitment to service up front and does not accept applications for service after-the-fact. The requirement that original orders be cut for sufficient time to qualify for ACP participation without having to amend or cobble additional sets of orders to meet the necessary time requirements to qualify for ACP, has been a requirement of the ANG’s annual ACP policy since FY07 and is thusly a well-known requirement of each unit’s ACP coordinator. Moreover, although the ANG establishes the criteria for the ACP program, given the autonomy of each State and Territory, they have the authority to implement the program within the authorized framework of the program in order to meet their unique needs and requirements. In view of the above, we find no evidence that he has been treated any differently than others who were similarly situated. 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; 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 reconsidered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01529 in Executive Session on 15 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit B. Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Sep 11. Exhibit C. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Oct 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair