ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-01901-2

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request that he be authorized Aviation Bonus (AvB) for Fiscal Years 2019 (FY19) and 2020 (FY20).

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a currently serving Air National Guard lieutenant colonel (O-5).

On 14 April 2021 and 27 April 2022, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that he be authorized AvB for FY19 and FY20.   In the alternative, he requested his FY18 AvB be extended to three years, to include 2018-2021.  The Board determined the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. 

On 23 June 2022, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request.  He again contends he completed all terms and conditions of bonus requirements and respectfully requests payment of his rightfully earned bonus.  Additionally, he interacted with personnel at the Force Support Squadron (FSS) regarding the AvB processes/application and did not receive notification of any irregularity with his application.

In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant submitted a letter from the FSS AvB coordinator, dated 17 June 2022, as new evidence.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1P recommends denying the application.  The applicant initiated a one-year agreement on 13 April 2019 through 12 April 2020 at the $15,000 annual rate.  At the time of initiation, he was on a Voluntary Contingency Order Military Personnel Appropriations (MPA) Title 10.  The applicant could have set the dates of the agreement for up to two years, but only set the term for one year.  The applicant believes since his orders were extended his AvB should be extended as well, without the requirement of accomplishing a new contract.  He acknowledged being briefed and understood the terms of the FY19 AvB policy by initialing the original AvB contract. 

Based on the original documentation as well as the additional documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts there is no indication that an error or injustice has occurred.  In accordance with FY19 AvB Policy, paragraphs 2 and 3, the agreement cannot be extended due to an extension of orders.  To be eligible to receive follow-on AvB payments, a new agreement must be entered under the following FY policy.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 1 September 2022 for comment (Exhibit I, and the applicant replied on 11 September 2022.  In his response, the applicant again contended as a Drill Status Guardsmen (DSG) on MPA 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) orders, interpretations of AvB language are critical to keep pilots like himself in service.  His CMS case 12619340 states “Agreement was for one year at $15K.  Cannot extend due to extension of orders.”  Conversely, the advisory states, “The applicant could have signed a two-year agreement, but only set a term of one-year.”  This conflicting interpretation of AvB guidance is problematic and does not address the fact that a DSG on MPA cannot serve greater than 366 days/FY.  DSG status and MPA limits impede members’ ability to sign an AvB agreement greater than one FY, unlike AGR/Stat Tour officers who serve across FY boundaries.  The advisory does not address the fact that he was not notified as required by the FY19 program by the AvB coordinator.  This requirement of the coordinator is codified in the FY19 AvB Policy “3.6.4., Notify each eligible member 30 days prior to date of eligibility.”  He believes the lack of notification is the reason why he is entitled to the AvB payment.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

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 remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The applicant provides a letter from the FSS AvB coordinator indicating he was not notified he was eligible for the AvB for FY 20; however, the applicant acknowledged being briefed and understanding the terms of the FY19 AvB policy. In accordance with the FY19 AvB Policy, paragraphs 2 and 3, the agreement cannot be extended due to an extension of orders. In order to be eligible to receive follow-on AvB payments a new agreement must be entered under the following fiscal year policy.  Therefore, 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.  Accordingly, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2020-01901-2 in Executive Session on 20 October 2022:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit F:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 1 June 2022. 
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 23 June 2022.
Exhibit H:	Advisory Opinion, NGB/A1P dated 10 August 2022.
Exhibit I:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 1 September 2022.
Exhibit J:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 11 September 2022.

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.