RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02934 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Airman’s Medal status be changed to read “Extraordinary” 
rather than “Ordinary.” 

 

2. He be awarded the 10 percent increase in retired pay for 
award of the Airman’s Medal. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He states it is unfortunate the awarded citation cannot 
accurately reflect everything that occurred during the incident. 
There were multiple explosions coming from the vehicle which 
made several rescue attempts futile. 

 

He was burned, suffered inhalation damage, and was traumatized. 
There has not been a day that he has not though about the man 
who burned to death because he could not save him. 

 

The term ordinary has the definition of “usual, not exceptional, 
and common place.” However, extraordinary carries the meaning 
“of beyond what is usual and exceptional in character and 
remarkable.” He believes the difference in ordinary and 
extraordinary was redefined by the rescue attempts while the 
vehicle was exploding. 

 

He was not aware the Airman’s Medal could potentially increase 
his retired pay by 10 percent. 

 

In support of the request, the applicant provides copies of his 
citation, certificate, and Special Order for award of the 
Airman’s Medal. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Available records reflect the applicant is currently serving in 
the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant. 

 

On 31 Oct 93, the applicant was awarded the Airman’s Medal for 
his heroic actions on 27 Feb 93. 

 

The Airman’s Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of 
the United States or foreign military personnel who, while 
serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force, 
distinguish themselves by heroism involving risk of life under 
conditions other than those of actual conflict with an enemy. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends deny. DPSIDR states they are unable 
to verify an injustice exists. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 Sep 10 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 to warrant 
amending his Airman’s Medal to reflect extraordinary heroism. 
While the applicant believes his actions were extraordinary 
rather than ordinary, it is our opinion that the recommending 
officials were in the best position to make this determination. 
Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe 
that their decision was erroneous or unjust. Therefore, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive 


evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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 Docket Number 
BC-2010-02934 in Executive Session on 16 November 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 31 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair