ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01577
INDEX CODE: 128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the additional 10 percent retirement pay for an act of
extraordinary heroism.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 May 08, the applicant submitted an application requesting that he be
awarded the Medal of Valor (MOV), for an act of heroism in which he saved
another airman's life during World War II. He also requested he be awarded
the Prisoner of War (POW) medal. His records were administratively
corrected to include the POW medal. On 8 Nov 06, the Board did not agree
that the MOV was warranted, but did approve award of the Airman's Medal
(AM) for his heroic act.
Through his congressman, the applicant is now requesting he be considered
for the extra 10 percent in retired pay which is authorized for deeds of
extraordinary heroism. His complete submission, with attachments is at
Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
SAF/MRBP recommends the requested relief be denied. MRBP states the
applicable Air Force Instruction (AFI) reflects that deeds of extraordinary
heroism may entitle an enlisted member to receive 10 percent additional
retired pay, but is only automatic for recipients of the Medal of Honor,
the Air Force Cross or an equal Army or Navy decoration. There are three
other awards that the Secretary can consider an individual for a 10 percent
increase in retirement pay based on extraordinary heroism: the Silver Star,
the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism in a noncombat action, and the
AM.
The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) did not
consider him for the additional 10 percent retirement pay when reviewing
his application. Table 2.1 in the governing AFI reflects the AM is awarded
strictly for heroism and must meet the criteria highlighted in note 10
"Involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of
conflict with an armed enemy of the US. The saving of a life or the
success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. Do not award for
normal performance of duties."
Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, the Air Force
Decorations Board would not have considered the applicant for the AM
because his actions did not meet the criteria for the award. This event
was clearly under conditions involving conflict with an armed enemy.
Additionally, while Mr. B--- may consider the applicant a hero for saving
his life, the Air Force bases heroism on an individual voluntarily risking
their own life to save another. There is no documentation contained in the
submission that asserts he was in any additional danger or risk of death by
pushing Mr. B--- out the door of their crippled aircraft, before he jumped
out himself. Just pushing someone out an airplane door certainly does not
rise to the level of "extraordinary" heroism required to warrant a 10
percent increase in retirement pay.
SAF/MRBP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded stating that on 24 Dec 44, his group was on a
bombing mission over Germany and encountered enemy ground fire. The
aircraft was hit and the bail out bell was sounded, the engine and bomb bay
were on fire. There was smoke was everywhere. The waist gunner had
already bailed out and R. B. was down from his position with his chute on.
He was stumbling around with his hand over his bloodied face and
disoriented. When a bomber with full payload is on fire, and the bell to
bail out has sounded, a soldier knows that his life may last seconds. He
supposed he could have bailed out and left R. B. to find the exit. But he
had to try to save R. B. before the bomb bay exploded, the aircraft was hit
again or they hit the ground. He remembers grabbing R. B. and pushing him
out, then jumping. They all got separated and he ended up as a POW/MIA.
His complete response is at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the
documentation submitted in support of his appeal, we find it insufficient
to warrant additional relief. The 10 percent increase in retirement pay is
authorized for awards received for acts of "extraordinary" heroism. In
previous consideration of this case we believed his actions to be heroic.
However, we found no substantive evidence before us then, and are not
persuaded by his assertions or the evidence provided along with his current
submission that his actions on the day in question rose to the level of
"extraordinary," as required for award of the 10 percent increase in
retired pay. Therefore, it is our determination that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or
injustice requiring further correction to his military records. In view of
the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
01577 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Jan 07, w/exhibits.
Exhibit G. Congressional Letter, dated 29 Jan 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 7 Apr 08.
Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Apr 08.
Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 May 08.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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 | CY2008 | BC-2008-00417
MRBP states Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36- 3203 states deeds of "extraordinary heroism" may entitle an enlisted member to received 10 percent additional retired pay. Noting that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility are unable to make a determination based on the limited evidence provided and considering the fact that "extraordinary" determinations are somewhat subjective, we believe reasonable doubt exists in this case as to whether his actions were extraordinary. B J...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01721
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of his DD Form 214; Citation to Accompany the Award of the Soldier’s Medal; and General Orders Number 34, dated 31 August 1953, awarding him the Soldier’s Medal. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority determined he was entitled to a 10 percent increase in his retired pay pursuant to Section 8991 (a)(2), Title 10, United States Code, effective 1...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00939
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her husband was not considered for the additional 10% retirement for his actions on 9 August 1965 for which he was awarded the Airman’s Medal (AM). MRBP states while the applicant’s husband clearly earned the AM through his heroic actions, there is insufficient additional documentation or evidence to support the contention that his action rose to the “extraordinary” level to warrant 10% increased...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01577
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01577 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 NOVEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Medal of Valor and the Prisoner of War (POW) Medal. DPPPR states recommendations must be submitted as soon as possible...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03312
MRBP states that they reviewed the applicant's request for an additional 10 percent retirement pay in December 2001 for award of the Airman's Medal and his act of heroism; however, the Board denied his request stating that it did not rise to the level to meet the criteria of "extraordinary heroism.” The applicant has not provided any new evidence in support of his request. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit...
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 | 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...
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that the reason in the delay in the decoration recommendation is that none of his crew were debriefed after they were repatriated from German POW c no one had any knowledge of decorations. The following members of the Board considered this...
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...