Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03312
Original file (BC-2008-03312.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-03312
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive an  additional  10  percent  retirement  pay  for  award  of  the
Airman's Medal (AM) for heroism.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was presented the Airman's Medal by  General  Jumper,  he  was  told
that he would automatically receive an additional       10  percent  in  his
retirement pay.  He states that many other senior  officials  told  him  the
same thing.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of the citation for award  of  the  AM,  and
several news articles.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant received a permanent medical retirement after serving 28 years  of
satisfactory service in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in the grade  of  senior
master sergeant (E-8).  His Total Active Military Service Date (TAMSD) is  6
May 1996.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  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 C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  2
December 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice.  After our review of the evidence  of
record, we believe favorable consideration of  the  applicant’s  request  is
warranted.  The applicant received the AM for heroism when according to  the
citation, without regard for his own safety, and despite the intense  smoke,
burning and falling debris, and the likelihood of secondary  explosions,  he
without a second thought entered the attacked  area  and  instantly  started
helping people to safety.  The determining factor as to whether  or  not  he
should receive the extra 10 percent in retirement pay is whether or not  his
actions  meet  the  criteria  of  being  ”extraordinary.”     Although   the
Secretary of the Air Force  Personnel  Council  recommends  disapproval;  we
believe reasonable doubt exists in this case as to whether his actions  were
extraordinary.  In this respect, what is clear, according  to  the  citation
provided, is that the applicant placed himself into a position  putting  his
life at risk to ensure the safety of  personnel  who  were  trapped  in  the
burning building and set-up a medical response area  that  was  critical  in
caring for injured victims.  Accordingly, we believe that any doubt in  this
matter should be  resolved  in  his  favor  and  recommend  his  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the award of the  Airman’s  Medal  on
15 April 2002 for his actions of  saving  lives  while  entering  a  burning
building  was  for  “extraordinary  heroism”  rather  than   “heroism”   and
competent authority        determined  he  was  entitled  to  a  10  percent
increase in retired pay pursuant to U.S.C., Section 8991.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2008-
03312 in Executive Session on 6 January 2009, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Audrey Y. Davis, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2008-03312 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 September 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 20 November 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 December 2008.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00417

    Original file (BC-2008-00417.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03312

    Original file (BC-2012-03312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but defers to SAF/MRBP. Recommend the applicant’s request be denied since the AmM would...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01721

    Original file (BC-2008-01721.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 03102

    Original file (BC 2014 03102.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03102 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a 10 percent increase in retirement pay for award of the Airmen’s Medal. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) (SAF/MRBP) review and advise whether the applicant’s award of the Airman’s Medal for heroism on 1 Jul 98 qualifies for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02981

    Original file (BC-2001-02981.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02981 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay (retroactive to his date of retirement) based on extraordinary heroism in connection with receiving the Airman’s Medal. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-01577A

    Original file (BC-2006-01577A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-00690.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03562

    Original file (BC-2012-03562.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Airman’s 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-00939

    Original file (BC-2007-00939.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 04457

    Original file (BC 2012 04457.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His records do not indicate that his retirement pay was considered for a 10 percent increase at the time he was awarded the Airman’s Medal. Per AFI 26-3203, Service Retirements, “Since 1979, enlisted members who have been awarded the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism in a noncombat action, or the Airman’s Medal have been automatically considered for the additional 10 percent pay...