RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00939
INDEX CODE: 107.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her late husband be considered for award of ten percent (10%) increase in
retired pay for his deeds of extraordinary heroism.
_________________________________________________________________
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).
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her husband’s
death certificate, award documents, and retirement documents.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 26 May 1955, the applicant’s husband enlisted in the Regular Air Force
at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.
He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6)
effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1969. The applicant’s
record indicates he was awarded the Airman’s Medal on 14 March 1966 for
heroism involving risk of life on 9 August 1965.
On 31 January 1978, the applicant was released from active duty and retired
effective 1 February 1978 in the grade of technical sergeant. He served 22
years, 8 months, and 5 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
SAF/MRBP recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for 10%
increased retirement pay. MRBP states that after a complete review of the
applicant’s official military record and provided documentation, they found
no documentation to indicate the decedent had pursued consideration for the
10% retirement pay increase following his retirement or before passing away
in January 2006. Although Air Force Instruction 36-3203 directs automatic
consideration of the 10% award (instituted in 1979), it does not direct the
automatic awarding of the additional 10% retirement pay.
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 retired pay.
The MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responds that there were many letters of recommendation for
her husband regarding this incident; however, she is forwarding the only
one she has in her possession that was from someone who was actually on
site at the time of the accident. The letter details her husband’s actions
on the 9-10 August 1965 at the Titan II Missile Complex. Her husband
didn’t pursue consideration for the 10% increase in retirement pay prior to
his retirement because he had always felt that if he was supposed to
receive a reward for anything he did in the Air Force, it would have
happened.
The applicant doesn’t know if there are established criteria to determine
“extraordinary” acts of heroism as opposed to ordinary heroic actions;
however, she knows her husband was an ordinary man who, on 9-10 August
1965, demonstrated extraordinary acts of courage and leadership under
extremely hazardous, life-threatening, conditions. He knew of the real and
potential danger that existed when he volunteered to enter the missile
complex, but he went anyway.
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 28 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01246
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 4 May 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 May 07.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Aug 07, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-01577A
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. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) did not consider him for the additional 10 percent retirement...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03312
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID does not make a recommendation as to whether or not the applicants actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but defers to SAF/MRBP. Recommend the applicants request be denied since the AmM would...
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 | 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-02934
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | 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...