RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03788 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he is eligible to participate in the Air National Guard (ANG) Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) program for fiscal year 2010 (FY10) with a four-year tour service commitment. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was eligible but not offered the four-year FY10 ACP agreement or the $100,000 bonus due to a wing hiring policy. However, he expected that he would be later offered four-year orders along with the bonus. He applied for the four-year ACP; it was approved, but later denied because of changes in the ACP rules which only allow those with less than fourteen years of service to be eligible. His total active federal military service date exceeded the eligibility by two months and nine days. As a result, he is receiving $40,000 less than his counterparts because of the change in ACP rules. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of major (0-4). On 15 July 2010, the applicant signed a FY10 Pilot Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) Statement of Understanding indicating he understood the effective date of the agreement was 15 July 2010 with a tour service commitment of 2 to 4 years. On 15 July 2010, the agreement was approved by competent authority authorizing the applicant two annual payments of $15,000. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial, indicating that in accordance with the statutory tour service commitment established under the applicant’s Pilot ACP agreement, his ACP was established for the period of time he had orders in hand. The applicant applied and was approved for a two-year agreement which coincided with the effective date of his orders, 15 July 2010 through 14 July 2012. Although the applicant expected to be eligible for a four-year agreement at a later time, his personal qualifications and certain changes that were made to the ANG policy, caused him to be ineligible for a new four-year agreement at the termination of his initial orders. The policy was changed in FY11 to better meet the needs of the Air National Guard rated force and respond to the fiscal constrains that the Air Force and Air National Guard were under. Furthermore, ACP is not an entitlement and may be discontinued or amended at any time based on the needs of the Air National Guard. It is impossible to compare the applicant’s eligibility to other ACP recipients because each ACP case is adjudicated on its own merits and eligibility is based on the individual facts presented in each specific case. In the case of the applicant, he may be eligible for a shorter agreement and, if so, he is encouraged to apply. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 November 2012 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) 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. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-03788 in Executive Session on 23 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 August 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 3 October 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 November 2012.