RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01129
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay reflect award of a 10 percent increase - retroactive to  his
date of retirement (based on extraordinary heroism in  connection  with  the
award of the Soldier’s Medal).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Payment discontinued in error and was unjust.  The  order  to  stop  payment
was incorrect since he had received payment from  date  of  reenlistment  in
August 1948.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided General Orders Number  359,
awarding  the  Soldier’s  Medal,  dated  28  September   1945,   and   other
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 April 1943, the applicant was inducted into the  Army  of  the  United
States.

On 28 September 1945, the applicant was  awarded  the  Soldier’s  Medal  for
heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.

Section 8991, Title 10, United States Code,  provides  for  the  10  percent
increase in retired pay for extraordinary  heroism.   The  increase  is  not
automatic to all retiring members who have been  awarded  a  decoration  for
heroism.  The law gives the Secretary of the Air  Force  the  responsibility
for determining what constitutes extraordinary heroism in individual  cases.
 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 be automatically  credited  with  additional  retired  pay.
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 Secretary’s determination as to extraordinary heroism is conclusive  for
all purposes.

On 1 May 1964, the applicant  requested  to  be  considered  for  additional
retired pay for the Soldier’s Medal.

On 15 May 1964, the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)
determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of  Section  8991,
was not involved in the circumstances described  in  the  citation  awarding
the applicant the Soldier’s Medal.

On 20  May  1964,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  his  application  for
entitlement to an additional 10 percent retired pay for having been  awarded
the Soldier’s Medal was denied.

On 31 August 1964, the applicant retired in the grade  of  master  sergeant.
He served 20 years, 8 months, and 3 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial.  They indicated that  no  irregularities  or
injustices occurred in the applicant’s case.  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 evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates that if a  determination
in reference to extraordinary heroism was made on 15 May 1964 by SAFPC  this
was before his retirement and he was not informed.   If  this  determination
was made and if it was decided that he was not  eligible  for  compensation,
he believes this is an error and unjust.  He received compensation of  $2.00
per month from August 1946 until sometime in 1947 when he was informed  that
this stipend was  eliminated  due  to  economics.   He  contends  that  full
research has not been accomplished or reflected in  the  correspondence  and
this is unjust.  He states that he does not understand the process that  the
reviewing  officer  used  to  establish  a  requirement  in  the  award  for
extraordinary heroism other than a document that appears  to  be  after  the
fact and should not be applicable.  The award should be  considered  on  the
basis of the regulation and action performed at that time.

Applicant’s complete response 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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
the  applicant’s  retirement  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
recommendation 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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
01129 in Executive Session on 10 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 16 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 June 2003.





                       WAYNE R. GRACIE
                       Panel Chair