RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00616 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The start date for his Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) agreement be changed from 7 June 2013 to 1 April 2013. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was eligible for the FY 2013 ARP on 1 April 2013; however due to the delay of the 2013 ARP guidance release, he was unable to sign a contract until 7 June 2013. The delay was not his fault; therefore, he is entitled to the prorated amount of $2,794.52. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his FY 2013 ARP Case Management Checklist, ARP Agreement/Statement of Understanding (SOU), orders, FY 2009 Pilot Aviator Continuation Agreement and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to Special Order A-0000023 dated 21 February 2013, the applicant was ordered to active duty from 1 April 2013 through 31 March 2017. The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of major. On 12 May 2014, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) denied relief to two applicants making similar arguments to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (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 SecAF, any delay in approval for the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery.” On 12 July 2014, the AFBCMR staff forwarded the applicant a copy of the noted SecAF decision for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends approval. The applicant should be permitted to adjust the effective date of his current FY 2013 ARP Agreement from 7 June 2013 to 1 April 2013. This adjustment would not change the annual amount ($15,000/year). It would add the period 1 April 2013 to 6 June 2013, the period he was not able to submit his application due to the delay in the FY 2013 Policy release. The adjustment is to the start date only. Accordingly, the effective dates would be changed to 1 April 2013 to 8 July 2016 to reflect the new period of eligible service. The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 April 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After querying the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) regarding the applicant’s case, NGB/A1PF stated that in light of the SecAF’s overturn decision, their recommendation would be to deny the applicant’s request to change the start of his ARP. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 March 2015, a summary of the communication between the AFBCMR and NGB/A1PF was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). 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 injustice. We note that in light of the SecAF’s decision to deny relief to two applicants making similar arguments to the Board, the Air Force OPR recommended the applicant’s request be denied. We further note that ARP 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. 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. Furthermore, 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. 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 15 January and 20 April 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00616 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PF, dated 10 April 2014. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 July 2014. Exhibit D. Letters, Secretary of the Air Force, dated 12 May 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 July 2014 Exhibit F. Email, AFBCMR, dated 20 March 2015.