RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01177
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 OCTOBER 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given an additional 10 percent retirement pay for receiving the
Airman’s Medal.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 4 May 1990, he intervened in an armed robbery in the Republic of
Panama. He witnessed the assault, stopped, and diverted the
assailant’s attention to himself in order to save the woman. He also
subdued and disarmed the assailant. The assailant swung two knives at
him several times before he manged to wrestle him down to the ground.
The slightest mistake on his behalf would have definitely been fatal.
He strong-armed the suspect and escorted him on foot to the nearest
law enforcement authorities where he was incarcerated. The assailant
was a fugitive for a murder he had committed a few weeks prior to this
incident.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the
Airman’s Medal certificate and special order. Applicant’s submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) as 29 August 1985. Applicant is currently serving on active
duty in the grade of master sergeant, with an effective date and date
of rank of 1 February 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council determined the
heroism exhibited by the applicant for which he was awarded the Basic
Airman’s Medal, does not rise to such a level as to be credited with
extraordinary heroism for purposes of an additional 10 percent
retirement pay. The SAFPC states had the applicant been able to
include additional justification (e.g., the narrative justication and
any other evidence submitted with the original nomination package;
newspaper accounts; police records/reports) to further substantiate
the level of risk he took in providing assistance to the victim, SAFPC
may have considered his request favorably. 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. Without
these documents the Airman’s Medal would have never been approved.
The applicant requests the newspaper article he submits be accepted as
proof that he committed a heroic act by saving another human life with
a total disregard to his own life. Applicant’s letter is at 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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, the Board majority is
not persuaded that his retired pay should be increased 10% for
extraordinary heroism. The applicant’s actions were undoubtedly
heroic; however, 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. A 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.
We took note of the newspaper article submission; however, the Board
majority believes this document alone is not sufficient to support
overturning the Secretarial finding. In view of the above, the Board
majority agrees with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopts
the rationale expressed as the basis for the Board majority’s decision
not to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-
01177 in Executive Session on 10 January 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Chair
Ms. Janet I Hassan, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Collier voted to grant the applicant’s request but elected not to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Memorandum, SAF/PC, undated.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00010
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00358
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-2012-00001
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00001 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) instead of the Air Force Commendation Medal for saving the life of an active duty dependent. _______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-01126
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-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 | 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...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FEB 2 4 I999 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) he was awarded for his actions on 20 October 1987, be upgraded to the Airman's Medal (AmnM) . Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits C and D. The SAF Personnel Council reviewed this application and states that the Air Force Awards and Decorations Board recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03562
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03562 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a ten percent increase in his retired pay for being awarded the Airmans Medal (AmnM), effective 1 Mar 85. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air...
The actions of the applicant clearly meet the criteria for award of the Airman’s Medal. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Director, SAF Personnel Council, SAFPC, reviewed the application and states that the Secretary of the Air Force Awards and Decorations Board unanimously voted to approve the award of the Airman’s Medal for the applicant. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) states he did not meet the criteria for award of the...