RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02393

            INDEX CODE:  108.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay based on his receipt of  the
Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Last year he discovered through a military magazine that his Airman’s  Medal
might allow him an additional percentage on his retired  pay.   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.  He was advised that he should  send  proof  of  his
receipt of the Airman’s Medal to the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service
in Cleveland (DFAS).  DFAS advised him that he needed to apply to the  Board
for issuance of orders authorizing him to receive adjustment of his  retired
pay and directing DFAS to adjust his account accordingly.

In support of his request, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  copies
of his DD Form 214, a copy of  the  citation  for  the  Airman’s  Medal  and
documents associated with his retired pay.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army of the United States on 27 December  1948
and  entered  active  duty  on  same  date.   The  applicant  was  honorably
discharged in the grade of staff sergeant on 16 August 1952.  The  applicant
enlisted in the United States Air Force on 20 July  1953  and  continued  to
enlist and serve until 30 June 1977, when he was retired  in  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant.  He was credited with 27  years,  6  months  and  29
days of total active duty service.
By Special Order GB-315 dated 6 November 1964,  applicant  was  awarded  the
Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on 1 November 1963.

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.  DPPRRP  states  that  the
applicant was cited for heroism  involving  voluntary  risk  of  life.   His
citation,  orders  and  additional  documentation  were  forwarded   for   a
Secretarial determination as to whether the heroism was  extraordinary.   On
23 August 2002, the  SAF/PC  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.

The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he does not know  what  the  term  “extraordinary  heroism”
signifies.  As he thinks back to the time  of  the  incident  for  which  he
received the Airman’s Medal, he reacted as he did because he  knew  that  if
the burning fuel tank  was  allowed  to  continue  to  burn,  the  resulting
explosion would destroy the civil engineer’s building where he worked  along
with the thirty-five other people.   His  command  was  grateful  enough  to
recommend  him  for  the  Airman’s  Medal;  however,  neither   SAF/PC   nor
AFPC/DPPRRP appear to be impressed with his heroism.

Applicant’s letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his  retired
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  evidence  that  would  lead  us  to   believe
overturning the Secretarial finding is warranted.  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 19 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 18 Oct 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Oct 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 02 w/atchs.




      ROSCOE HINTON JR
      Panel Chair