RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03887 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded ten percent additional retirement pay for his award 
of the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He feels he is entitled to a ten percent increase in retirement 
pay by virtue of being awarded the AmnM for heroism. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
and his AmnM Citation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. He 
received the AmnM for heroism involving voluntary risk of life 
near Subic Bay Naval Base, Republic of the Philippines, on 
15 June 1991. The applicant was released from active duty on 
20 June 1998 and retired effective 1 July 1998 in the grade of 
senior master sergeant (E-8). He served 20 years and 8 months on 
active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the AmnM is awarded 
to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a 
friendly nation who, while serving in any capacity with the 
United States Air Force after the date of the award’s 
authorization (6 July 1960), distinguished himself or herself by 
a heroic act, usually at the voluntary risk of his or her own 


life, but not involving actual combat. The saving of a life or 
the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. 

 

DPSIDR indicates the applicant was awarded the AmnM for actions 
on 15 June 1991 by leading a door-to-door alert in a four-story 
hotel during a typhoon and volcanic eruption. The walls of the 
hotel were crumbling from the effects of the volcano Mount 
Pinatubo. The applicant was credited in saving an unknown number 
of lives by risking his own. 

 

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 complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He feels he is deserving of the additional ten percent retired 
pay due to the situation he had to go through. The 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
to deny his request is a stab in the back after all of his hard 
work and sacrifice. He appreciates the Board’s consideration of 
his case. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAFPC recommends denial. SAFPC states it is clear the applicant 
was appropriately recognized for his heroic actions on 15 June 
1991. The Secretary of the Air Force or his designee determined; 
however, that awarding the applicant the additional ten percent 
in retired pay was not warranted. At the time, the Awards and 
Decorations Board had the opportunity to review all available 
documentation, including the commander’s recommendation and 
witness statements, and make an informed decision based on the 
facts provided. The board determined the applicant’s actions did 
not rise to the level of extraordinary heroism required for award 
of the additional ten percent in retirement pay. 

 

The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the SAFPC evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 
16 February 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
F). 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 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 opinions and 
recommendations of AFPC/DPSIDR and SAFPC and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. While we respect and 
honor the applicant’s actions leading to award of the AmnM, the 
decision to not award him the additional retirement pay was made 
by the appropriate authority and the evidence provided does not 
support that their decision was in error or unjust. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

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 issues 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 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-2011-03887 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03887 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 3 Nov 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 15 Feb 12. 

Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair