RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03427
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect that he is entitled to a ten
percent increase in his retired pay due to heroism, retroactive
to the effective date of his retirement.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is entitled to a ten percent increase to his retired pay
because he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (with Valor
Device) for Heroism on 10 March 1966. Upon retirement, he was
informed that this pay did not exist. However, through his
recent research, he discovered that he was misinformed about his
retired pay percentage and this error has caused his retired pay
to be miscalculated since his retirement on 1 June 1980.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 26 December 1957.
On 7 July 1966, the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal
with Valor device (BSM w/V) for his heroic actions on 10 March
1966 while serving as a member of a tactical air control party
supporting friendly foreign forces.
On 1 June 1980, the applicant retired from the Air Force and was
credited with 22 years, 5 months, and 5 days of total active
service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. A review of the applicants record
revealed that on 26 June 1969, The Office of the Secretary of
the Air Force disapproved the applicants request for a ten
percent increase to his retired pay for extraordinary heroism.
It is clear the awarding authoritys intent was to recognize the
applicant for his heroism; however, it was determined that
extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of the law (Title 10,
United States Code, Section 8991) was not involved in the
circumstances described in the applicants citation which
awarded this decoration. Nevertheless, his honorable service in
the Air Force is both recognized and appreciated.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 10 October 2012, for review and comment within 30
days (Exhibit D). 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 injustice. We took
notice of the applicants 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
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim or an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the relief sough in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; 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-2012-03427 in Executive Session on 11 April 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 03 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Sep 12, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 12.
Chair
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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05538
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for an additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay. Regarding references to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) and the Chief of Staff, he reiterates that he had no knowledge of whether or not he was approved for the 10 percent retirement entitlement upon approval of the AmnM and his former unit and Air Force personnel officials could find no record of this consideration either. THE BOARD DETERMINES...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 04457
________________________________________________________________ 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 Airmans 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 Airmans Medal have been automatically considered for the additional 10 percent pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05097
A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his argument that he would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant if credited with the Air Medal. As for the applicants request that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), in view of the fact that we have determined there is no basis to recommend granting the AM, we find...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01521
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01521 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded for his actions on 1-2 May 99 be changed from being awarded for extraordinary achievement to being awarded for extraordinary heroism with award of the valor (V) device. There is no documentation in the records to support his characterization of this deployed...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03102
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 Airmens Medal. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) (SAF/MRBP) review and advise whether the applicants award of the Airmans Medal for heroism on 1 Jul 98 qualifies for...