RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04149
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive an additional 10 percent retirement pay for award of
the Airman's Medal (AmnM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would like the Board to look closer at his award and
reconsider awarding him the 10 percent incentive pay. He knows
fellow enlisted members who received the additional 10 percent
incentive pay for being awarded the same medal. Although he was
awarded the AmnM for a non-combat situation, he feels his
accomplishments should reflect he was supporting the war efforts
in Thailand. Specifically, the T-28 aircraft had a MK-24 flare
pod that accidently ignited along with a 100 pound white
phosphorous bomb on the wing which went low order and started
arching; he received the AmnM for controlling the fire which
prevented the fire from spreading to other aircraft in the
vicinity.
The applicant does not provide any supporting documentation.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in
this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the applicant has
made two previous unsuccessful attempts in getting the additional
10 percent awarded. DPSIDR notes there is a letter in the
applicants official records that states Based on the
Evaluation, the Secretary has determined that extraordinary
heroism, within the meaning of the law (10 U.S.C. 8991), was not
involved in the circumstances described in the citation awarding
this decoration. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to 10%
increase in retired pay. Consequently, without official
documentation or special order awarding the additional
10 percent, DPSIDR cannot support his request to be awarded the
additional retired pay.
The DPSIDR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
14 Jan 11 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 careful
consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence
of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to
warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions stated in the
advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and
have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. Absent
persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2010-04149 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 4 Jan 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02167
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial since they were not provided the applicants military record, nor did he provide copies of the award elements and special order. We note the applicants request to be awarded an additional 10 percent in retired pay based on extraordinary heroism; however, he received the AmnM for heroism. In order to even be considered to receive an additional 10 percent increase in...
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 | 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-2008-01113
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant on 9 May and 16 Jun 08, respectively, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01034
Had the squadron followed through with the AmnM processing, the former commander would have seen and approved the awards. One of the approved citations actually states "voluntary risk of life," which is what all of their original citations read before citations were changed to the AFCM for “acts of courage.” The AFI states that the AmnM will not be awarded for "normal performance of duties." Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 2012, w/atch.
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02936
He be awarded the Airmans Medal (AmnM). After performing CPR on the man, the man responded, but was in a weakened state due to not having any food or water. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...