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 THAT:

When he retired in 1970, with 20 years of service in the Air Force, he
was told he would receive 10 percent pay for his  Airman’s  Medal  for
non-combat related heroism.  It was disapproved for 31 years.  He  has
either been to or sent his request to every congressmen and senator ---
 has had.  He also visited Eglin AFB,  FL  several  times  to  get  it
reevaluated.  He visited every VA,  DVA,  American  Legion  office  he
could find. In 1970, they were giving out so many medals for Viet  Nam
that he did not believe he got a fair shake.  His medal  was  received
for pulling three airmen from a burning C-141 cargo  plane,  two  died
but one lived.  He was credited with saving a life  and  in  doing  so
risked his own.  He used some firefighting equipment  he  had  on  his
small truck to keep the fire from another C-141  cargo  plane  at  the
wing tip of the one burning until help could  arrive.   The  value  of
that plane at that time was in excess  of  $50  million  dollars.   He
truly believes he meet the requirements for heroism and the  extra  10
percent pay.

Applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order --- dated 6 July  1967,  applicant  was  awarded  the
Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on 7  September  1966.   On
that date, he rushed to the area where an aircraft  had  exploded  and
was burning violently.  With complete disregard for  his  own  safety,
and despite the hazard of  exploding  fuel  cells,  he  unhesitatingly
entered the flaming area to  effectively  save  the  life  of  another
airman, then continued his efforts to block a  flow  of  burning  fuel
from reaching another  aircraft  parked  nearby.   By  his  courageous
action and humanitarian regard for his fellow man,  he  has  reflected
great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.

He retired from the Air Force in the grade of  master  sergeant  on  1
September 1970 after 20 years and 16 days of active duty.

The remaining 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP, recommended  denial.   No  irregularities  or  injustices
occurred in the  applicant’s  case.   The  award  was  considered  for
additional retired pay for extraordinary heroism; it was not  approved
and, by law, that determination is final.

Section 8991, Title 10, United  States  Code,  provides  for  the  10%
increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism.   Rather,  the  law
gives  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  the   responsibility   for
determining  what  constitutes  extraordinary  heroism  in  individual
cases.  Accordingly, the Secretary has  determined  that  an  enlisted
member who received the Medal of Honor, the  Air  Force  Cross  or  an
equivalent Army or Navy decoration,  will  automatically  be  credited
with additional retired pay.  Individuals awarded the Silver Star, the
Distinguished Flying Cross  (DFC)  in  a  noncombat  action,  and  the
Airman’s Medal for heroism will receive Secretarial review  for  award
of the increase in retired pay.  The Secretary’s determination  as  to
extraordinary heroism is conclusive for all purposes.

On 28 Aug 70 (Atch 4), the  Secretary  determined  that  extraordinary
heroism, within the meaning of Section 8991, was not involved  in  the
circumstances  described  in  the  citation  awarding  applicant   the
Airman’s Medal.  Therefore, applicant is not entitled to a 10  percent
increase in retired pay.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided  a  response  with
attachments, which is attached as Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________




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 23 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, 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 27 Nov 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 01.
      Exhibit E. Applicant's response, undated.




      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair