A very pretty problem! Under the hypotheses stated, we will conclude that
$f(x) = A e^{bx}+B$ with $A, B\ge0$. The amplitude of $B$ cannot be restricted.
Since $f$ is continuous, the integral is differentiable and by the OP's calculation,
$$
\frac{d}{dx}(e^{ax} f(x)) = e^{ax}(f'(x)+a f(x)) = e^{ax} a f(x+1)\ .
$$
It follows $u(x)=e^{ax}f(x)$ is nonnegative and
satisfies
$$
u'(x) = c u(x+1) , \quad c=a e^{-a}.
$$
By a simple induction argument, $u$ is infinitely differentiable with
all derivatives nonnegative on $\mathbb R$. Thus its reflection $v(x)=u(-x)$
is completely monotone,
meaning all its even derivatives are nonnegative and all its odd derivatives are nonpositive.
By Bernstein's theorem on completely monotone functions,
there is a unique Borel measure $d\mu$ on $[0,\infty)$ such that
$$
v(x) = u(-x) = \int_0^\infty e^{-tx}\,d\mu(t)
$$
for all $x>0$. But then, since $v'(x)=-u'(-x)=-c v(x-1)$, we find that for $x>1$,
$$
c v(x) = -v'(x+1) = \int_0^\infty e^{-tx} e^{-t}t\,d\mu(t).
$$
By uniqueness of the representing measure, $c\,d\mu(t)=te^{-t} d\mu(t)$
as measures on $[0,\infty)$. Hence $(c-te^{-t})d\mu(t)=0$, and
the support of $d\mu$ must lie in the set of $t$ such that $c=te^{-t}$.
Since $t\mapsto te^{-t}$ increases on $(0,1)$
and decreases on $(1,\infty)$, this set consists of two points:
the number $a\in(0,1)$ and the unique
$\hat a>1$ such that $ae^{-a}=\hat a e^{-\hat a}$. Therefore $d\mu$ is a nonnegative combination of delta masses at $a$ and $\hat a$:
$$
d\mu(t) = B\,\delta(t-a) + A\, \delta(t-\hat a)
$$
where $B, A\ge0$. Consequently, for all $x>1$,
$$
v(x) = B e^{-ax} + A e^{-\hat a x} = e^{-ax}f(-x),
$$
hence $f(x) = B + A e^{bx}$ where $b=\hat a-a>0$ satisfies $a e^b = \hat a = b+a$
as desired.
The argument above actually applies for any translate $v(x-k)$. Consequently the desired representation of $f$ holds for all $x$.
I am wondering if using a numerical integration technique might work instead of making the reduction to ODE.
Where did the question arise from? Is there any clues as to what methods might be necessary?
– kleineg Mar 19 '14 at 14:31