RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00010
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 Jul 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect an increase of 10 percent in
retired pay based on his receipt of the Airman’s Medal and two
Distinguished Flying Crosses (DFCs) awarded for heroism.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was never informed that he may have been entitled to an increase of
10 percent in retired pay based on the decorations he received for
heroism.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided documentation
pertaining to the decorations he was awarded for heroism.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 20 Jul 51 for a period of four years.
By Special Order GB-72, dated 24 Feb 67, he was awarded the Airman’s
Medal for heroism involving risk of life on 13 May 66.
By Special Order G-199, dated 15 Nov 65, he was awarded the DFC for
heroism while participating in aerial flight on 2 Mar 65.
By Special Order G-5250, dated 22 Dec 69, the applicant was awarded
the DFC, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), for heroism while participating
in aerial flight on 12 Nov 69.
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Jul 77 and retired,
effective 1 Aug 77, in the grade of master sergeant. He was credited
with 26 years and 11 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial indicating that after a complete review
of the applicant’s records and the submitted documentation, they were
unable to verify the applicant was awarded or considered for an
additional 10 percent in retired pay. Furthermore, they noted the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) disapproved such
a request on 21 Apr 05.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29
Apr 05 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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. We believe the SAFPC, having access to
prior cases for comparison, is in the best position to make this
determination. In our view, its prerogative to render such
determinations should be usurped only under extraordinary
circumstances. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommending granted 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00010 in Executive Session on 28 Jun 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Dec 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Apr 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 05.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02772
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. On 10 Dec 04, The Personnel Council determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00413
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00478
On 4 November 2002, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal 4th OLC for heroism while participating in aerial flight on 23 June 1944. AFPC/DPPPR states that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the award recommendation package and disapproved the DFC, but approved award of the Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters for heroism. The applicant has provided no evidence that was unavailable to SAFPC at the time they considered his case and we are unpersuaded by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00244
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the following awards: Good Conduct Medal (GCM); Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFHRA admits they missed finding records on four of his fathers missions, one of those missing recorded...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02826
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The SAFPC recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that while there is little doubt the applicant demonstrated some extraordinary airmanship, decisive leadership, and heroism on 6 June 1972, for which he was awarded the DFC, the degree of heroism exhibited does not rise to the level required to merit the award of the SS. However, after a careful review and consideration of all factors...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02178 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 January 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mission on 26 September 1944, be considered a combat mission and he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02871
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...
AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for the DFC because of the classified nature of his mission. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A representative of the Rustic FAC Association states that a number of interpreters having similar duties were awarded the DFC based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02989
DPPPR states on 11 February 2006, the applicant’s package was forwarded to the approval authority, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for consideration. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 06. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-02989 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat...