Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101173
Original file (0101173.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01173
            INDEX CODE 107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay  (retroactive  to  his
date of retirement) based on extraordinary heroism in connection  with
his receiving the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It was not until attending a Retiree Appreciation Day  event  held  in
August  2000  at  the  Air  Force  Academy  that  he  learned  of  his
eligibility for the additional 10% entitlement.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order G-21 dated 3 March 1961, applicant  was  awarded  the
Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on 2  September  1960.   He
retired from the Air Force in the grade of  technical  sergeant  on  1
March 1974 after 20 years and 26 days of active service.

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 Retirement Programs and Policy Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed  the
applicant’s request and recommended denial.  Section 8991,  Title  10,
United States Code, provides for the 10% increase in retired  pay  for
extraordinary heroism.  The increase is not automatic to all  retiring
members who have been awarded a decoration for heroism.   Rather,  the
law gives the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  the  responsibility  for
determining what constitues “extraordinary heroism.”  Accordingly, the
Secretary has determined that an  enlisted  member  who  received  the
Medal of Honor, the Air  Force  Cross,  or  equivalent  Army  or  Navy
decoration, will be automatically  credited  with  additional  retired
pay.  When enlisted members are awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
(noncombat for heroism only), the Silver Star or the Airman’s Medal, a
Secretarial  determination  that  the  heroism  was  extraordinary  is
required.

The applicant was cited for heroism involving voluntary risk of  life,
and  his  citation  and  orders   were   forwarded   for   Secretarial
determination.   On  18  September  1973,  the  applicant’s  personnel
function was  notified  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  had
determined that the act did not meet the criteria established for  the
additional 10% retired pay.  In accordance with  Section  8991,  Title
10, United States Code, the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force
is conclusive for  all  purposes.   No  irregularities  or  injustices
occurred in the applicant’s case.  The award was  considered  for  the
additional retired pay for extraordinary herosim; it was not  approved
and, by law, that determination is final.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 15 June 2001, for review and comment within 30 days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that applicant’s retirement pay should be increased 10%  for
extraordinary  heroism.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly   noted;
however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force. The  applicant’s  actions  were  undoubtedly  heroic;  however,
heroism is the basic criteria for the Airman’s Medal. To  receive  the
10% increase in pay, Title 10, USC, Section 8991, requires the heroism
to be deemed “extraordinary.” The law gives  the  service  secretaries
the responsibility for determining  what  constitutes  “extraordinary”
heroism. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force determined that  the
increase in pay was not warranted in this case. The applicant has  not
provided sufficient evidence to compel us to overturn that Secretarial
finding. In view of the above, we agree with  the  recommendations  of
the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an  injustice.  Therefore,  we  cannot
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 July 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 31 May 01.
      Exhibit D. AFR 900-48, dated 15 Mar 82.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated.






      Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02981

    Original file (BC-2001-02981.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02981 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay (retroactive to his date of retirement) based on extraordinary heroism in connection with receiving the Airman’s Medal. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03914

    Original file (BC-2002-03914.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has just recently discovered an attachment to his Airman’s Medal, special order GB----, dated 2 Sep 94, which was completed two days after said order, which states, “The Secretary of the Air Force has considered this individual for an additional 10 percent retirement pay in connection with the act of heroism that warranted this decoration. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force determined that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0202393

    Original file (0202393.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He believes that this extra percentage for receipt of the Airman’s Medal for heroism might have been available at the time of his retirement but the medal was not on his DD Form 214. On 23 August 2002, the Personnel Council, Air Force Decorations Board, reviewed and denied applicant’s request for 10% increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01129

    Original file (BC-2003-01129.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Individuals awarded the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in a noncombat action, and the Airman’s Medal/Soldier’s Medal for heroism will receive Secretarial review for award of the increase in retired pay. The award was considered for the additional retired pay for extraordinary heroism, by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council; it was not approved and, by law, that determination is final. The award should be considered on the basis of the regulation and action...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-01126

    Original file (BC-1999-01126.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRRP states that the 10 percent increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism is not automatic to all retiring members who have been awarded a decoration for heroism. On 29 Nov 71, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council considered his case and determined that the act did not meet the criteria established for the additional 10 percent retired pay. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05538

    Original file (BC 2013 05538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay. Regarding references to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) and the Chief of Staff, he reiterates that he had no knowledge of whether or not he was approved for the 10 percent retirement entitlement upon approval of the AmnM and his former unit and Air Force personnel officials could find no record of this consideration either. THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00690

    Original file (BC-2012-00690.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On the member’s citation it does not state “extraordinary” heroism, it just states “heroism.” A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS advisory is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating that there is no evidence of an error or injustice. A determination that extraordinary heroism was or was not involved is made by the Secretary of the Air Force at the time the award is processed.” Since the applicant was a member of the ANG at the time of his act, his AmnM was not evaluated for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01721

    Original file (BC-2008-01721.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of his DD Form 214; Citation to Accompany the Award of the Soldier’s Medal; and General Orders Number 34, dated 31 August 1953, awarding him the Soldier’s Medal. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority determined he was entitled to a 10 percent increase in his retired pay pursuant to Section 8991 (a)(2), Title 10, United States Code, effective 1...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00358

    Original file (BC-2006-00358.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00358 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 128.14 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 AUG 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded an additional 10% retirement pay for receiving the Airman’s Medal (AmnM), awarded 17 Jun 95 for heroism. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01177

    Original file (BC-2005-01177.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant requests favorable consideration be given to his request based on the fact that the original written documents referred to in the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council memorandum existed and were submitted in original form to a General Officer. We took note of the newspaper article submission; however, the Board majority...