RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04979 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His two aviation retention bonuses for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) and 2013 (FY13), both paying $15,000/year, be replaced with one four year Air National Guard (ANG) FY10 Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) Agreement, paying $25,000 per year, effective 15 Sep 10 through 14 Sep 14. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The original Active Guard Reserve (AGR) job announcement for his job was for a period covering from four to six years, but his orders only covered three years in error. His commander assured him he would remain an AGR beyond his initial three year orders. He will be on continuous AGR orders for seven years covering the period 15 Sep 10 through 14 Sep 17, but on two consecutive orders. Because of the error, he was only allowed to apply for the $15,000 per year bonus, but having completed four continuous years as an AGR, he met the requirement for the higher four year pilot retention bonus of $25,000 per year. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Air National Guard (ANG) during the matter under review. According to the documentation provided by the applicant: a.  On 10 Sep 10, he was issued Special Order A-X000314, assigning him to a full-time AGR initial tour with the 214 Recon Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ during the period 15 Sep 10 through 14 Sep 13. b.  On 15 Sep 10, the applicant signed a FY10 ACP Statement of Understanding, agreeing to Option B ($15,000/year for from 2 to 4 years) annual continuation pay. c.  On 26 Aug 13, he was issued Special Order A-X000303, assigning him to the same unit during the period 15 Sep 13 through 14 Sep 17. d.  On 15 Sep 13, the applicant signed a FY13 ACP Statement of Understanding, agreeing to Option B ($15,000/year for from 2 to 4 years) annual continuation pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The ANG FY10 ACP Implementation Policy details eligibility requirements for ANG members, and states, “ACP agreements will only be offered for the period of time for the orders in hand. ACP agreements will not be extended if the orders are extended. “Cobbling”, “Patching” or amending orders to create the minimum period of duty required for ACP eligibility is not permitted”. In addition, it states “Agreement lengths are authorized only for the length of orders “in-hand.” Promises of longer tours will not be used as a basis for longer length agreements”. Although the applicant provided documentation in his selection letter that “AGR orders are projected to be cut between 4-6 years;” ultimately, he did not provide evidence of an orders error. His special order A-X000314, dated 10 Sep 10, was an AGR Initial Tour, which is a probationary tour in accordance with (IAW) ANGI 36-101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program, and DoDI 1205.18, Full-Time Support (FTS) To The Reserve Components. ANGI 36-101 states “6.1.1.3. Rated AGR officers eligible for ACP agreements must have AGR orders to match the length of their ACP agreement (i.e. To be eligible for a 4-year ACP agreement, the Airman must have at least a 4-year order.) ACP agreements will be IAW the current fiscal year ACP policy for initial or renewal eligibility”. The applicant’s request should be denied. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request, the applicants submitted a personal statement in which he takes exception to the NGB/A1PF advisory recommendation, and cites the Arizona ANG Supplement to ANGI 36-101, which states “Initial AGR tours will not exceed 3 years. EXCEPTION: Those individual entitled to Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) will have order end dates that coincide with current NGB policy for ACP entitlement.” He contends this reference clearly states there is an exception for individuals entitled to ACP, and he should have received four year orders for his initial AGR tour, qualifying him for the four year bonus (Exhibit E). 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, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of NGB/A1PF and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we note the applicant’s reference to the exemption authorized in ANGI 36-101, the Board does not believe the referenced ANGI establishes a firm requirement to issue every ACP qualified individual orders covering a period of four years. The applicant was issued and willingly accepted three-year orders and the associated three-year ACP, which is fully authorized under the governing regulations. Further, the purpose of ACP is to incentivize members to serve for a set period of time in the future. After the applicable period of time has passed, back dating orders in order to increase incentive payments cannot motivate a member to serve the period of time which has already been contracted for or previously served. ACP is not a reward for past performance. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 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-2014-04979 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PF, dated 22 Sep 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Oct 15, w/atchs. 4 5