RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04587 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to backdate his application for Reserve Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) to 10 June 2011, while he was still serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was selected for an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position and his orders were issued, the Reserve ACP benefit was neither briefed nor offered to him as is required and is standard practice. Had he been notified, he would have applied during his window of eligibility (serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel); however, he was not made aware of the benefit until after he was promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6) which rendered him ineligible. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AGR Order, Aeronautical Order, the Fiscal Year 2011 Reserve ACP Program Implementation Message, a supporting letter from Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command AGR Management Office, his promotion order to the grade of colonel, and his ACP Agreement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, while serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel, was ordered to a colonel AGR extended active duty tour on 2 May 2011 with an effective reporting date of 10 June 2011. He was subsequently promoted to the grade of colonel effective 15 June 2011. The applicant submitted an ACP Agreement on 21 October 2011 stating he agreed to continue as a Reserve AGR Pilot/Instructor Pilot for a period of 24 months with a $15,000 per year ACP Bonus. His supervisor endorsed the ACP Agreement on 27 October 2011. The remaining relevant facts extracted from the applicant’s military service records are contained in the Air Force advisory opinion at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1A recommends denial. A1A states the applicant was not notified of his eligibility for ACP in part because he was hired into a colonel position, which, in accordance with the ACP implementation message, states members serving in the grade of colonel are not eligible for ACP. The applicant’s AGR order indicates his position is for the rank of colonel. There was a delay of five days in his promotion order from 10 June 2011 (when he started his AGR tour), to his promotion order dated 15 June 2011. A1A indicates the purpose of the ACP program is as a retention tool. The fact the applicant may not have been aware of the ACP program, the five day delay in his promotion order does not justify backdating his ACP Agreement to pay him a 24-month ACP bonus. The complete A1A evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Being selected for promotion to the grade of colonel is not a disqualifier for the ACP program. The eligibility criteria for the Fiscal Year 2011 ACP Program simply states pilots must be in the grade of lieutenant colonel or below, which he was on 10 June 2011, at the start of his AGR tour. He also met all other criteria on that date as well. His promotion order date of 15 June 2011 was not a five day delay in his promotion. In fact, his promotion effective date was an accelerated date of his official promotion increment date, which should have been 1 August 2011, or later. He was not the only AGR member at that time to begin a tour which was managed by AFRC/A1A, and who was not notified of his eligibility for ACP. At least one other AGR member was allowed to have his Fiscal Year 2011 ACP agreement backdated for the same reason. When he queried AFRC/A1A about submitting an ACP application, their office suggested he appeal to the AFBCMR, so he is a little astonished that their office recommended disapproval in their advisory opinion. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachment, is at 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 an injustice. We note the ACP program is used as a retention tool. The Air Force office of primary responsibility indicates this retention tool was not offered to the applicant as he had already been selected and had accepted an assignment in a colonel’s AGR position in April 2011; therefore, this retention tool did not apply at the time of his entry into his AGR position. When the applicant submitted an ACP Agreement on 21 October 2011, he was not eligible to receive ACP based on his grade of colonel. We also note the applicant’s assertion, in his rebuttal, that there was another AGR member that was allowed to have his Fiscal Year 2011 ACP agreement backdated to the start of his AGR tour; however, after further investigation, the member in question was recalled to active duty in a lieutenant colonel position and was; therefore, eligible to receive ACP. Based on the aforementioned, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale 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. 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 issues 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 Docket Number BC-2011-04587 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04587: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1A, dated 22 Feb 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 12.