Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800955
Original file (9800955.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00955
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 128.14

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of a ten percent increase in
retired pay based on extraordinary  heroism  in  connection  with  his
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) recognition.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records were not reviewed nor submitted for review by the 1606 MSS
Consolidated Base  Personnel  Office  (DPMQS)  at  Kirtland  AFB,  New
Mexico.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the
certificate, citation, and orders for award  of  the  DFC,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  initially  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force   on
18 Oct 67.  He entered his last enlistment on 4 Apr 88, on which date,
he reenlisted for a period of two years.  During his service on active
duty, the applicant was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  master
sergeant.

By Special Order G-1709, dated 7 Aug 72, the applicant was awarded the
DFC for heroism while  participating  in  aerial  flight  as  a  UH-1N
Helicopter Aerial Gunner near Dak To, Republic of Vietnam, on  10  Mar
72.

On 30 Nov 90, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 Dec 90, in the grade of master sergeant.  He was  credited
with 26 years and 18 Days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Retirements Branch,  AFPC/DPPRR,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  DPPRR noted that the applicant  was  awarded  the
DFC for heroism while engaged in combat action.  DPPRR indicated that,
while the applicant’s actions were clearly heroic, he was not eligible
for Secretarial review for  award  of  the  10  percent  pay  increase
because the DFC  was  awarded  for  heroism  in  a  combat  situation.
Secretarial review only applies if a DFC is awarded for  action  while
not in combat.  Although it appears that another member was, in  fact,
awarded the 10 percent increase for a similar action, this  fact  does
not alter the requirements for consideration.  Basing the granting  of
the increased retired pay on these grounds would be patently unfair to
all previous members not receiving the increased retired  pay  because
their DFC  was  awarded  for  heroism  occurring  in  combat  actions.
Although  the  applicant  provided  documentation   awarding   another
individual the 10  percent  increase  in  retired  pay  under  similar
circumstances,  DPPRR  indicated  that  they  can  only  presume  this
determination was by mistake since  the  award  is  not  eligible  for
determination.  Upon reviewing the additional names listed on  Special
Order G-1709, dated 7 Aug 72, they have discovered that,  besides  the
applicant and the other person  mentioned  in  his  application,  five
additional individuals have retired from the Air Force.   Neither  the
applicant nor the five  other  individuals  received  the  10  percent
increase in retired pay.

A complete copy of the  DPPRR  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  15
Jun 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, absent clear and convincing evidence that the applicant met
the established criteria for award of a ten percent  increase  in  his
retired based on his receipt of the DFC, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 Nov 98, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 6 May 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00955

    Original file (BC-1998-00955.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRR indicated that, while the applicant’s actions were clearly heroic, he was not eligible for Secretarial review for award of the 10 percent pay increase because the DFC was awarded for heroism in a combat situation. A complete copy of the DPPRR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 98 for review and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00010

    Original file (BC-2005-00010.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although we find the applicant's actions which led to award of the Airman's Medal and two DFCs for his acts of heroism to be truly commendable, we find no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case. In this regard, we note that the SAFPC considered the aforementioned decorations for award of an additional 10 percent in retired pay and found that, while heroic, his actions did not measure up to the standard required for an "extraordinary" determination. Novel, Member The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-02742A

    Original file (BC-1995-02742A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-02742 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Counsel requests consideration for a ten percent increase in the applicant’s retired pay, retroactive to his retirement date, due to the award of the Silver Star through AFBCMR action in July 1996. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9502742A

    Original file (9502742A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-02742 COUNSEL: VFW HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Counsel requests consideration for a ten percent increase in the applicant’s retired pay, retroactive to his retirement date, due to the award of the Silver Star through AFBCMR action in July 1996. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01203

    Original file (BC 2014 01203.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council approved the award of the AmnM to the applicant for his action, at which time they also considered and disapproved award of the ten...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01762

    Original file (BC-2009-01762.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C & G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. The DFC may be awarded to any person who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the US Armed Forces, distinguished themselves by heroism or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900953

    Original file (9900953.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the alternative, his records be corrected to show he was retired because of physical disability with a compensable rating of 30% effective 8 Jul 97. In support of his application, the applicant provided a brief by counsel expanding on the foregoing contentions; his performance records; records associated with his participation in the Weight Management Program (WMP) and the demotion action; and extracts from his medical records. The board recommended that the applicant’s case be referred...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01651

    Original file (BC-2005-01651.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for issuance of the PH, DFC and BSM to her late husband be denied, and states, in part, that no official documentation has been provided to show the member was recommended for, or awarded the DFC, BSM, and PH. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXX,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02871

    Original file (BC-2004-02871.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In November 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a 10% increase in retirement pay based on receiving the SS and DFC for heroism. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), the approval authority, determined that the increase in pay was not warranted in this case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00903

    Original file (BC-2009-00903.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00903 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with First Oak Leaf Cluster (1 OLC). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 Jul 26 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial...