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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should receive a 10% increase in his retired pay since he was awarded
the AmnM for heroism on 27 April 1981. He was not aware of this at the
time of separation
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 February 1981, the applicant was awarded the AmnM for heroism on
27 April 1980. On that date, he entered a burning apartment and rescued an
elderly man. He voluntarily retired for years of service on 1 January
1990, in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).
On 27 February 1981, the Secretary of the Air Force determined that he
would not be credited with an additional 10% retired pay for extraordinary
heroism (Exhibit B).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the Secretary considered the applicant for an additional 10% in retired pay
for extraordinary heroism and determined that, while courageous, the act
does not meet the criteria by law for the additional retired pay.
The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
The Director of the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council recommends
the application be denied and states, in part, that the Secretary found the
applicant’s heroic actions did not rise to the “extraordinary” level. He
has also reviewed the available documents and concurs. Further, had this
action occurred more recently, with a subsequent nomination for the AmnM,
the same determination would have been made.
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
He was unaware that a decision had been made regarding the 10% retired pay
in 1981, and feels that he should have been afforded the opportunity to
respond to the decision. As stated in the AmnM citation, he voluntarily
risked his own life to save another. How can anyone determine the risk of
his life is not as heroic as others who have been awarded the AmnM and
received to 10% increase in retired pay. He meets the requirements stated
in law and should be awarded the increase.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.
________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2005-01973
in Executive Session on 22 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 26 Jan 06, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAFPC, dated 24 Feb 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 06.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03887
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 1 November 1977 to 30 June 1998. DPSIDR states the Department of the Air Force Special Order GB- 110, dated 15 November 1991, does not indicate the applicant was awarded a ten percent increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01203
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council approved the award of the AmnM to the applicant for his action, at which time they also considered and disapproved award of the ten...
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 | 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01837 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) he was awarded for his actions on 20 October 1987, be upgraded to the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). An enlisted member who has been awarded the AmnM for heroism may request a 10% increase in retired pay. Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits C and D. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00690
On the member’s citation it does not state “extraordinary” heroism, it just states “heroism.” A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS advisory is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating that there is no evidence of an error or injustice. A determination that extraordinary heroism was or was not involved is made by the Secretary of the Air Force at the time the award is processed.” Since the applicant was a member of the ANG at the time of his act, his AmnM was not evaluated for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03419
He did not realize at the time that he could receive a 10 percent increase in his retirement pay for receiving the AmnM and now humbly requests the increase. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determines entitlement to a 10 percent increase in retirement pay for the AmnM when awarded to enlisted members for extraordinary heroism upon approval of the award. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered...