Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02772
Original file (BC-2004-02772.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02772
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 MAR 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the additional 10% in retired pay authorized for  Airman's  Medal
(AM) recipients.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the AM for heroism for action he took on 5 Jul  68.   He  was
not informed of the consideration process for the increase  in  retired  pay
until recently.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214,  an
NA Form 13059, Transmittal of and/or  Entitlement  to  Awards,  and  special
orders and citations for his Distinguished  Flying  Crosses.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  22
Dec 48.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Apr  53.
He voluntarily retired on 30 Apr 69, having served 20 years, 3  months,  and
7 days on active duty.

On 22 Jul 68, applicant was awarded the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)
for extraordinary achievement  during  a  rescue  mission  on  8 May  68  in
Southeast Asia.  On 5 Feb 69, his request for increase in  retired  pay  for
extraordinary heroism was considered by the Personnel  Council  and  it  was
determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of  the  law,  was
not involved in the circumstances described and that he was not entitled  to
a 10% increase in retired pay.

On 31 Mar 69, he was  awarded  the  Airman's  Medal  for  heroism  involving
voluntary risk of life during a rescue mission on 5 Jul 68.  On 10  Dec  04,
The Personnel Council determined  that  extraordinary  heroism,  within  the
meaning of the law, was not involved  in  the  circumstances  described  and
that he was not entitled to a 10% increase in retired pay.

Applicant's request that his DD Form 214 be amended to include award of  the
AM has been corrected administratively.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of his request.  DPPPR states the Secretary  of
the Air  Force  Personnel  Council  considered  his  request  for  increased
retired pay on 21  Dec  04  and  determined  he  was  not  entitled  to  the
additional retired pay.  The  DPPPR  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 11  Feb
05 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 an error  or  injustice.   Although  we  find  the  applicant's
actions, which led to 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 note that the SecAF Personnel Council considered the Airman's  Medal  for
award of an additional 10 percent in  retired  pay  and  found  that,  while
heroic, his actions did not measure up  to  the  standard  required  for  an
"extraordinary"  determination.   We  believe  that  the   SecAF   Personnel
Council, having access to  prior  cases  for  comparison,  is  in  the  best
position to make this determination  and  its  prerogative  to  render  such
determinations should only be  usurped  under  extraordinary  circumstances.
Therefore, in the  absence  of  more  clear-cut  evidence,  we  believe  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence  of
either an error or injustice warranting favorable action on his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
02772 in Executive Session on 31 May 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:


      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair


      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, not dated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.




                             CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00010

    Original file (BC-2005-00010.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although we find the applicant's actions which led to award of the Airman's Medal and two DFCs for his acts of heroism to be truly commendable, we find no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case. In this regard, we note that the SAFPC considered the aforementioned decorations for award of an additional 10 percent in retired pay and found that, while heroic, his actions did not measure up to the standard required for an "extraordinary" determination. Novel, Member The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102298

    Original file (0102298.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00413

    Original file (BC-2005-00413.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive the DFC and SS with 9 battle stars based on his successful completion of 50 combat missions and since he was shot down 3 times. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of applicant’s request for the DFC and states, in part, that in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00613

    Original file (BC-2005-00613.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, one team member received an additional 10% retired pay for actions similar to his in conjunction with receipt of the SS. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the special order awarding the other team member an additional 10% retired pay, several statements of support for the applicant, and the original submission for the award of the Air Force Cross. DPPPR states Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) would have awarded the additional...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-01126

    Original file (BC-1999-01126.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02871

    Original file (BC-2004-02871.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In November 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a 10% increase in retirement pay based on receiving the SS and DFC for heroism. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), the approval authority, determined that the increase in pay was not warranted in this case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00358

    Original file (BC-2006-00358.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00358 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 128.14 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 AUG 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded an additional 10% retirement pay for receiving the Airman’s Medal (AmnM), awarded 17 Jun 95 for heroism. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05538

    Original file (BC 2013 05538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03814

    Original file (BC-2004-03814.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03814 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 APRIL 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and the Soldier’s Medal (SM) as recognition for taking charge of surviving military personnel after their C-47 airplane crashed. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01973

    Original file (BC-2005-01973.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...