RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01797
            INDEX CODE: 107.00

      XXXXXX     COUNSEL: None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM  1OLC),
be upgraded to the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the  records  to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in  support  of  the  appeal  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, Promotions, Eval &  Recognition  Div,
AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed the application and states that  although  there
is no  supportive  documentation  showing  the  applicant  applied  in
writing through administrative channels, it is clear that he  did  not
receive  proper  guidance  from  his  unit,  commander,  or   military
personnel flight.  His commander (subsequent to the incident)  delayed
taking any action for over a year, thus  exceeding  the  timeline  for
requesting reconsideration  within  one  year.   The  actions  of  the
applicant clearly meet the criteria for award of the  Airman’s  Medal.
They recommend: (a) The case be present to  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Council  Awards  Board  for  determination.   (b)  Approval   of   the
applicant’s request for upgrade of the AFCM 1OLC for 6 September  1995
be upgraded to the  Airman’s  Medal,  with  consideration  for  a  10%
increase in retired pay.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Director, SAF Personnel Council, SAFPC, reviewed  the  application
and states that the Secretary of the Air Force Awards and  Decorations
Board unanimously voted to approve the award of the Airman’s Medal for
the applicant.  However, he did not meet the criteria for award of the
10% increase in retired pay.  Therefore,  the  Board  denied  the  10%
increase in retired pay.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  he  does  not
understand the  denial  of  10%  increase  in  retired  pay.   He  has
researched the Air Force Instructions (AFIs) and asked several  people
that are knowledgeable in the Awards and Decorations criteria and  has
not discovered exactly what the criteria is.  To  the  best  of  their
accumulated knowledge, it  appears  to  be  subjective  to  the  board
members and may be justified by the degree of risks involved.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director, SAF Personnel Council, SAFPC, reviewed  the  application
and states that the criteria used for award of  the  10%  increase  in
retired pay stipulates “Extraordinary  Heroism.”   Examples  of  cases
where the SAFPC has determined  that  extraordinary  heroism  occurred
dealt with military aircraft accidents with explosions/fire or with  a
combat activity or unusual situations with actions beyond  the  normal
experienced by others in  similar  incidents.   In  these  situations,
there was normally bodily injury to the nominee.  The Secretary of the
Air Force Awards and Decorations Board, which is comprised  of  senior
officers, unanimously agreed that  the  applicant  did  not  meet  the
requirements for 10%  increase  in  retired  pay.   He  satisfied  the
requirements for the Airman’s Medal due  to  his  “voluntary  risk  of
life” while attempting to save the lives of other.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and thanks  the  board
for clarifying the requirements for receiving 10%  additional  retired
pay with the Airman’s Medal.  He  does  not  wish  to  submit  further
documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant  awarding  the
Airman’s Medal to the applicant.  The Board notes that  the  applicant
went to the assistance of two divers (on  a  charter  cruise  off  the
coast of Florida) then, not only returning the original two divers  to
the boat against strong currents, but also the  other  diver  who  had
gone to help the two divers.   The  Air  Force  has  stated  that  the
actions of the applicant clearly meets the criteria for award  of  the
Airman’s Medal.  Therefore, we recommend his record  be  corrected  as
indicated below.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting  10%  increase
in retired pay.  The Board notes that the criteria used for  award  of
the 10% increase in retired pay  stipulates  “Extraordinary  Heroism”.
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) states he did
not meet the criteria for award of the 10% increase  in  retired  pay.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief on this  portion  of
his application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the
Airman’s Medal, rather than the Air Force  Commendation  Medal,  First
Oak Leaf Cluster, for outstanding achievement for 6 September 1995.
_________________________________________________________________


The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Panel Chairman
      Member
      Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 22 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 30 Jun 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jul 99.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Jul 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 20 Aug 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 99.
   Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Response, undated.




                       Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-01797




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXX, XXXXX, be corrected to show that he was
awarded the Airman’s Medal, rather than the Air Force Commendation
Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for outstanding achievement for 6
September 1995.





            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency