RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-03848

XXXX X. XXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Correct the terms of his FY13 Aviator Retention Pay agreement to reflect Option A (4 years/$25K) vice Option B (3 years/$15K).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His Force Support Flight (FSF) failed to follow the applicable regulations and polices when placed on Active Guard Reserve (AGR) orders.   He filled an indefinite AGR position following the departure of the incumbent to a National Guard Bureau (NGB) stat tour.  He asked and got his leadership approval to sign a 6-year order should the former incumbent not return in order to carry into sanctuary upon order completion. The FSF cut his AGR order to match the former incumbent’s order who had return rights but was unlikely, at best, to return.  The former incumbent extended his orders at NGB and subsequently he has been on continuous orders from 1 Feb 13 to present (orders to 14 Nov 20).  There was no ability to place the former incumbent back into his original position number following his promotion to lieutenant colonel.  Since he has now signed a FY17 ARP agreement for $15K, it leaves open the opportunity of the FY13 Option A reinstatement.       

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a currently serving Air Force lieutenant colonel with the Alaska (AK) Air National Guard.  

On 2 Jul 13, according to the documents provided by the applicant, he signed a FY13 ARP agreement under Option B, with a two to four year service commitment.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1P recommends denying the application since there is no evidence of an error.  His AFR order did not cover the minimum length of four years in order to qualify for the higher ARP rate. The ARP coordinator and AK Human Resources Office (HRO) followed appropriate procedure by limiting the indefinite tour to the original NGB statutory tour dates as indicated on the former incumbent’s orders.  While the applicant asserts, and was ultimately correct that the former incumbent would extend his NGB tour, the policy is to cut the indefinite order to match the former incumbent’s projected return date.  This fact, paired with the FY13 ARP policy, renders the applicant’s request invalid.       

The complete advisory opinion, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

A copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant on 12 Mar 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 10 Apr 20 requesting to administratively close his case in order to gather more evidence (see Exhibit E).  On 22 Apr 20, the applicant requested to reopen his case.   In his response, the applicant provides an Alaska National Guard Bureau Human Resources Office (AK HRO) and the 176 WG/CC indorsements.  The AK HRO states that had the 176 WG/FSF HRO liaison consulted with his office prior to deciding to shorten the applicant’s orders, they would have been advised to not restrict the length of the order and he would have qualified for the higher ARP rate.  Additionally, the 176 WG/CC states there is evidence of an error since he received a 176 WG/FSF HRO email without justification that the orders would not match the agreement between him and the applicant.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of NGB/A1P and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Specifically, we find the FSF and HRO followed the appropriate policy in cutting the applicant’s orders to match the former incumbent’s projected return date; thereby rendering the applicant ineligible for the higher FY13 ARP rate.  The Board notes the applicant’s wing commander states there is evidence of an error since the applicant’s orders did not match the agreement between he and the applicant.  However, the Board finds their agreement was contrary to the appropriate policy.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2019-03848 in Executive Session on 17 Jul 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 5 Jul 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, NGB/A1P, w/atchs, dated 7 Jan 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Mar 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 10 Apr 20.  
Exhibit F:	Applicant’s memorandum, dated 22 Apr 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.