RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02298
INDEX CODE: 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reconsidered for award of the additional 10 percent retirement pay
authorized for Airman's Medal (AM) recipients.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was awarded the AM by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) for his
heroism after he responded to an operational accident involving the
explosion of a nuclear-tipped Inter-continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).
The accident involved a wide spectrum of dangers that included nuclear
weapons, toxic rocket fuels, explosions, 21 injuries (including himself)
and death. He risked his life and went into an area thought to have been
saturated with radiation and poisonous gases.
Upon applying for retirement he submitted the paperwork requesting the
additional 10 percent retirement pay authorized for those who received the
AM for extraordinary acts of heroism. He was told that his request was
disapproved by the vice Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Air Command
(CINCSAC). The decision to deny his request does not rest with the
CINCSAC, rather, the SecAF, who was never presented that option
In support of his request, applicant provided recommendation letters,
photographs of the accident scene, copies of newspaper articles pertaining
to the accident, a copy of special order GB-178, his AM citation, a copy of
Senate Resolution 529, and an excerpt from "Into the Mouth of the Cat."
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 2
Jan 68. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 8
Nov 85. He was voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 88. He
served 20 years, 6 months, and 29 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed this application and recommends denial. 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. The law gives the SecAF the responsibility for determining
what constitutes extraordinary heroism in individual cases. On 26 Mar 81,
the SecAF Personnel Council considered his case and determined that
extraordinary heroism was not involved in the circumstances described in
the citation awarding him the AM. Therefore he is not entitled to a 10
percent increase in retired pay. By law, that determination is conclusive
for all purposes. The DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Dec
01, for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
Although we find his actions which led to his award of the Airman's Medal
commendable, we see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this
case. In this regard, we took note that the SecAF Personnel Council
previously considered him for award of the additional 10 percent retired
pay prior to his retirement from the Air Force. It is our opinion that the
SecAF Personnel Council, who is authorized to make decisions in these
matters on behalf of the Secretary, is 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 their 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 compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
We feel compelled to inform the applicant that he may submit an application
to the SecAF Personnel Council requesting a one-time reconsideration of
their decision and we highly encourage him to do so.
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 issue 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 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 31 Jan 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Edward Parker, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 13 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Dec 01.
EDWARD PARKER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00506
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Mar 03 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-01126
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02772
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02772 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 MAR 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the additional 10% in retired pay authorized for Airman's Medal (AM) recipients. On 10 Dec 04, The Personnel Council determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of...
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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03914
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01203
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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-02981
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...
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
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 | CY2009 | BC-2009-01762
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...