RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00008 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded two years Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) for her orders dated 1 Oct 11 – 20 Sep 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In spite of being eligible for ACP, due to the ad hoc nature of her orders and the uncertainty about the amount of time she would be activated, she never received ACP. She accepted long-term Title 10 orders in expectation of receiving ACP. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the matter in question the applicant was serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) as a MQ-1 Predator pilot, in the grade of major (O-4), promoted to lieutenant colonel (O-5) with a date of rank (DOR) 1 Oct 12, effective 5 Oct 12. On 23 Sep 11, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she received Title 10 USC 12301, active duty orders in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM for the period of 1 Oct 11 through 30 Sep 12. On 1 Oct 12, according to documents submitted by the applicant, she received Title 10 USC 12301, active duty orders in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM for the period of 1 Oct 12 through 30 Sep 13. 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 of the program for a given year cannot become the basis for a retroactive recovery.” On 17 Nov 15, the AFBCMR staff forwarded the decisional documents related to a recent Secretary of the Air Force determination regarding Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP), now known as Aviator Retention Pay (ARP), to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 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. In review of the two sets of orders provided by the applicant, which were Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) and Partial Mobilization orders, neither covered the entire length of ACP agreement the member wished to execute, nor the minimum of two years required to meet eligibility requirements. In accordance with the FY 2012 ACP Implementation policy, para 2 outlines ACP program elements and states “No agreements will be authorized or payments made for retroactive periods due to compiling multiple orders”. In addition, para 2.1.6 ACP Entry/Initial Eligibility states “ANG rated officer must be assigned to an ANG or Title 10 Statutory Tour position, regardless of API code, and eligible for at least two continuous years of duty upon acceptance of ACP agreement. Retroactively compiling multiple orders or amendments or modifications to reach the mandatory two-year minimum period is not authorized.” Additionally, had the applicant’s orders covered the two year period, the FY12 ACP program was not authorized until 24 Feb 12, therefore, applications prior to that date would be denied. 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 5 Oct 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 of injustice. While we note the applicant’s contention that she accepted long-term Title 10 orders in expectation of receiving ACP, other than the applicant’s contention, there is no supporting evidence that the 2-year ARP agreement influenced her decision to accept her original AGR orders covering the period from 1 Oct 11 – 20 Sep 13; therefore, we are not convinced the applicant is the victim of an injustice. In this respect, we note that ARP is an incentive program, not an entitlement, and true incentives influence decisions about the future. Therefore, correcting the applicant’s records to reflect a backdated 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. 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 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-2015-00008 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00008 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 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, AFBCMR, dated 17 Nov 15, w/atchs.