RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-01126
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the additional 10 percent retirement pay authorized for
Airman's Medal (AM) recipients.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was previously advised that his request for the additional 10 percent in
retirement pay was denied because his request was not within the meaning of
the law to warrant the increase. 10 U.S.C. 8991 states that the
Secretary's determination as to extraordinary heroism is conclusive for all
purposes, but does not elaborate as to how that determination is made. His
citation describes his act of heroism as "voluntary risk of life."
Further, by his actions, several vital aircraft were saved from destruction
allowing his unit's mission to continue.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his AM; AFPC/DPPPR
letter, dated 18 Jun 99; AFMPC/DPMARB letter, dated 29 Nov 71; and, an
extract of 10 U.S.C. 8991. His complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant retired from the Air Force on 30 Jun 72, in the grade of
technical sergeant, after serving 20 years and 20 days on active duty. He
was awarded the AM for heroism involving risk of life on 18 Mar 66. On 29
Nov 71, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council, considered and
denied his request for additional 10 percent retired pay authorized for AM
recipients.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant's request. 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 Secretary the responsibility for
determining what constitutes "extraordinary 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. 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 20 Dec
02 for review and comment 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 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 Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council
(SAFPC) 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 SAFPC, 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 Docket Number BC-1999-01126
in Executive Session on 9 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 10 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01973
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01973 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 February 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He retroactively receive a 10% increase in retired pay effective 1 January 1991, based on award of the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for heroism. How can anyone determine the...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05538
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants 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...
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. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-00417
MRBP states Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 3203 states deeds of "extraordinary heroism" may entitle an enlisted member to received 10 percent additional retired pay. Noting that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility are unable to make a determination based on the limited evidence provided and considering the fact that "extraordinary" determinations are somewhat subjective, we believe reasonable doubt exists in this case as to whether his actions were extraordinary. B J...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01177
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...