RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03914

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay based on extraordinary
heroism in connection with receiving the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

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.
The determination was made that the act, while  courageous,  does  not
meet the criteria established for the  additional  retired  pay.”   He
believes that, after he read his account of the incident, which  leads
to this award, the Board will agree that indeed the act  does  warrant
an additional 10 percent retirement pay.

In support of his application, he submits a personal letter, a  letter
from AFPC/DPMASA1 and copies  of  the  citation,  special  orders  and
certificate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of technical sergeant.

Special Order GB---- dated 2  September  1994  awarded  applicant  the
Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on  22  October  1993.   On
that date, a Republic of Korea Navy helicopter  crashed  next  to  the
runway.  While two of the crew members got out of the wreckage safely,
another was unable to get out on his own.  The helicopter was  leaking
fuel and its engine was still running, creating an  extreme  explosive
hazard.  Applicant heard a call over his radio  about  the  crash  and
immediately drove to the scene.  He parked his vehicle 20 to  30  feet
away from the downed aircraft, planning to use it as a shield in  case
the helicopter exploded.  Without regard for his own  safety,  he  ran
towards the helicopter and helped two of the crew  members extricate a
Korean airman from the wreckage.   Ignoring  the  running  engine  and
leaking fuel, he and the two Korean crew members carried  the  injured
airman behind Sergeant ----’s vehicle and  rendered  first  aid  until
medical personnel arrived and relieved them.

On 6 September 1994, the applicant’s personnel function  was  notified
that the Secretary of the Air Force had determined that the act, while
courageous, did not meet the criteria established for  the  additional
10 percent retired pay.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

Applicant was cited for heroism involving voluntary risk of life,  and
his citation and orders were forwarded for Secretarial  determination.
On 6 September 1994, the applicant’s personnel function  was  notified
that the Secretary of the Air Force had determined that the act, while
courageous, did not meet the criteria established for  the  additional
10 percent 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.

AFPC/DPPRRP 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 31 Jan 03, 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 an 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 believe the applicant has failed to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Therefore, we do not recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-2002-
03914 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
                 Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 22 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.





      ROSCOE HINTON,JR.
      Panel Chair