2. The applicant requests correction of his military records by authorizing him a 10 percent increase in retirement pay based on receipt of the Soldier’s Medal. 3. He states that the Army Decorations Board determined that the circumstances surrounding the award of the Soldier’s Medal to him did not meet the requirements for entitlement to a 10 percent increase in retired pay. He believes that the increase in retirement pay was denied because the award recommendation did not sufficiently portray the seriousness and personal danger of the situation that resulted in his receiving the Soldier’s Medal. 4. His military records show that he retired in pay grade E-8 on 31 January 1994 after completing over 20 years of active Federal service. 5. He received the Soldier’s Medal for an event that occurred on 17 October 1985 when he came to the rescue of an Oklahoma City Police officer who was being assaulted by a robbery suspect. As he was passing a convenience store late one evening, he observed a police officer being beaten unconscious by an assailant. The applicant stopped his car and went to the aid of the officer by placing the assailant in a choke hold until the injured police officer could recover and call for assistance. He was injured in the encounter and subsequently hospitalized for treatment of those injuries. 6. Citations from the city council, the district attorney and from the police officer involved indicate that the applicant put his own life at risk by involving himself in subduing the suspect and may have prevented the death of the police officer. 7. On approving the award of the Soldier’s Medal on 28 April 1986, the US Total Army Personnel Command determined that the circumstances surrounding the award did not fulfill the requirements for entitlement to a 10 percent increase in retired pay. 8. Section 3991, title 10, U.S. Code, provides that any enlisted man who is credited with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty who retires after 20 or more years active Federal service, is entitled to 10 percent increase in retired pay, subject to the 75 percent limit on total retired pay. 9. Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides that an enlisted awardee of the Distinguished Flying Cross awarded for non-combat related heroism, or the Soldier’s Medal may be credited by the Secretary of the Army with extraordinary heroism only if it is determined that the heroism displayed was equivalent to that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross. 10. Paragraph 3-7 of the awards regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor. The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades. 11. The same regulation provides that the Soldier’s Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Clearly, the Army Decorations Board determined that the applicant’s actions warranted award of the Soldier’s Medal. At the same time, however, the board obviously did not believe that the risk of life to the soldier and to other persons was equivalent to the heroism that would be expected for award of the Distinguished Service Cross. Thus, the board denied the 10 percent increase in his retirement pay. 2. It is not the intent of this Board to second-guess the Army Decorations Board but rather to view the events surrounding the award recommendation in the context of information that may not have been reviewed by that board. The determination of the degree of heroism displayed by the applicant is after all a subjective determination by the reviewers. 3. In reviewing the documents and circumstances in this case, it is this Board’s determination that the applicant knowingly placed his life in jeopardy when he came to the rescue of the police officer. It appears also that without his intervention the police officer would have been seriously injured or possibly killed. Understanding the inherent risks involved, his decision to engage an enraged assailant in a hand-to hand struggle appears to meet the criteria for award of the 10 percent increase in retired pay. 4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded a 10 percent increase in his retirement pay effective as of the date these Board proceedings are approved. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON