RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00960 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be permitted to initiate a new four year contact for Aviator Retention Pay (ARP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 13 with an initial eligibility and start date of 1 Feb 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The delayed release of the Air National Guard (ANG) FY13 ARP policy guidance makes him eligible for the smaller incentive rate of $15,000 per year, pro-rated for 43 months instead of an incentive rate of $25,000 per year for 48 months. The FY13 ARP program, unlike the FY12 Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) program, does not allow for back-dating of contracts to the date of orders issued, nor does it allow extending current orders for those members on probationary tours. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his FY13 ARP Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), orders, ANG FY13 Implementation Policy, FY12 Pilot ACP Agreement SOU, memorandums and various other documents related to his request. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the ANG in the grade of major. According to Special Order A-X000123 dated 22 Jan 13, the applicant was ordered to full time duty from 1 Feb 13 through 31 Jan 17. On 12 May 14, 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 for the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery” (Exhibit C). On 27 Jun 14, 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 D). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial. The ANG FY13 ARP policy was delayed until 7 Jun 13, delaying the submission of his application resulting in orders that did not cover the entire period of the requested agreement. ARP is a retention bonus, which by nature is an incentive intended to modify an officer's future conduct. Regrettably, it is not possible to execute an incentive for past conduct, therefore backdating ARP agreements is not in keeping with Congressional intent as authorized by 37 U.S. Code § 334 - Special Aviation Incentive Pay and Bonus Authorities for Officers. The applicant did not have sufficient time remaining on his orders to support a 4-year ANG FY13 ARP Agreement. He was on an "Initial Tour" order from 1 Feb 13 through 31 Jan 17. In accordance with ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, chapter 6, paragraph 6.1, this order is considered "probationary." Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ANG FY13 ARP Policy states that members on probationary tours must have orders in hand that cover the entire length of the agreement at the time of their application. The applicant was eligible for a FY13 ARP Agreement that covers the period 7 Jun 13 through 31 Jan 17 at $15,000 per year which he is currently receiving. The complete A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 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 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 and adopt the rationale expressed 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 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-2014-00960 in Executive Session on 15 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PF dated 7 May 14. Exhibit C. Letters, Secretary of the Air Force, dated 12 May 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14.