RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00475
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) contract be changed to reflect he 
is on a four-year Air Guard Reserve (AGR) tour.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is eligible for ARP but was denied due to the delay in the 
release of the fiscal year guidance which was no fault of his own.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the California Air National 
Guard (ANG) in the grade of major (O-4).  

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) 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.  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.”


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PF recommends approval.  AlPF states they concluded that the 
applicant should be permitted to request, execute, and be paid for 
a Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 ARP agreement effective 15 Feb 13 through 
14 Feb 17 at $25,000 per year.

      a.  According to Special Order A-0000017 dated 10 Feb 13, the 
applicant was ordered to active duty from 15 Feb 13 through 14 Feb 
17.  This period allows him to enter into an FY13 ARP agreement.  
However, the release of the FY13 ARP policy was delayed until 7 
Jun 13.  Because of this delay, the applicant was unable to submit 
his application for ARP until after 7 Jun 13, which was outside of 
the 30 day processing window allowed in accordance with ANG FY13 
ARP Policy, paragraph 1.7.3.  

      b.  Based upon the published policy guidance, the fact that 
the applicant met all eligibility requirements and that the delay 
in release of the FY13 ACP policy was through no fault of his own, 
they recommend approval of the applicant' s request.

The complete 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 29 Sep 14 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 note that 
NGB/A1PF recommends approval; however, we note that in the 
Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF) memorandum dated 12 May 2014, 
she denied relief to two applicants making similar arguments to 
the AFBCMR noting the ARP is an incentive program, not an 
entitlement.  As pointed out in the memorandum, 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 ARP 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.  Moreover, 
because the decision whether or not to offer ARP 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.  In view of the above, the applicant 
has failed to sustain his burden that he has 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 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-2014-00475 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	        , Panel Chair
	        , Member
	        , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 25 Mar 14.
      	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 14.