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.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant was involved in pulling a Korean pilot out of his crashed
plane.  Live unexploded air-to-air missiles were in the  area,  the
status of the ejection seat of the pilot was unknown, and the  fire
department  was  shooting  foam  all  around  them  to  prevent  an
explosion.  She has  been  told  that  other  personnel  have  been
approved for the 10% with less live (sic) threatening events.

She was not approved for the additional 10%, because  she  did  not
meet the criteria; however, the criteria have never been  explained
to her.

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  submitted   a   personal
statement; a copy of her citation for award of the AmnM and SO  GB-
413, and a copy of HQ AFPC/DPPPR letter, dated 22 Jul 96.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  14  Nov  79.   On
17 Jul 96, she was awarded the Airman’s Medal, effective 17 Jun 95,
for heroism involving voluntary risk of life.

Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, on 22 Jul 96,  the
Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  determined
that  the  act,  while  courageous,  did  not  meet  the   criteria
established for the additional retired pay.

She was progressively promoted to the rank of Chief Master Sergeant
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 04.  Applicant was
honorably retired under the provision of AFI 36-3203 on 1  Aug  06.
She was credited with 26 years, 8 months, and  17  days  of  active
duty service.

Applicant’s package was resubmitted to the SAFPC for  consideration
of the additional 10%; however, on 14 Sep 06, they disapproved  her
package.  They again determined that while the applicant’s  actions
were truly heroic and more than deserving of  the  Airman’s  Medal,
awarding the 10% retirement pay was not appropriate.   In  awarding
the 10%, the determination has to be made that the heroic  act  has
to be deemed as “extraordinary heroism.”  SAFPC states the monetary
award designation for non-combat  related  valor  is  on  par  with
receiving the Medal of Honor for a combat valor event.  As such, it
is strictly limited to those  individuals  who  have  risked  their
lives in situations that they  knew  the  chance  of  survival  was
limited – at best, but they completely disregarded their  own  life
in the act of saving others.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
After a  complete  review  of  the  applicant’s  official  military
records and provided documentation, they were unable to verify  the
applicant being  awarded  an  additional  10%  entitlement  to  her
previously awarded AmnM.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated her original contentions and her request for a
copy of the criteria of the additional 10% for  award  of  Airman’s
Medal.  She disagreed with SAFPC’s findings and  further  explained
the circumstances surrounding her act of heroism which resulted  in
award of the Airman’s Medal.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice.  After a  thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
not persuaded that her retired pay  should  be  increased  10%  for
extraordinary heroism.  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   SAFPC
determined that the increase in pay was not warranted in this case.
 The applicant has not provided evidence  that  would  lead  us  to
believe overturning the Secretarial finding is warranted.  In  view
of the above, we agree with the recommendations of  the  Air  Force
and adopt the rationale expressed as the  basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden  that  she  has
suffered either an error or an  injustice.   Therefore,  we  cannot
recommend granting the relief sought.

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   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-00358 in Executive Session on 7 December  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Sep 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, date 12 Oct 06, w/atchs.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair