Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04457
Original file (BC 2012 04457.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
	RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04457

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His retirement pay be considered for a 10 percent increase due 
to the award of the Airman’s Medal.

________________________________________________________________

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.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his Airman’s 
Medal, the special order and citation.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who served 
from 20 September 1990 through 28 February 2013.

The applicant was awarded the Airman’s Medal on 8 September 1998 
for distinguishing himself by voluntarily risking his life on 
14 April 1997 in Brazzaville, Congo.  While serving as a 
surgical services craftsman, he was one of the first responders 
on the scene after a cargo airplane crashed at the end of a 
runway.  The applicant helped pull a trapped crew member from 
the wreckage and returned to the burning aircraft to rescue 
another crew member from the smoke filled fuselage.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID defers to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC) for a recommendation.  AFPC/DPSID was unable to 
verify the applicant was ever considered for the additional 10 
percent retirement pay.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  The Airman’s Medal is awarded for 
voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of 
conflict with an armed enemy of the United States.  The saving 
of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not 
essential.  Do not award for normal performance of duties.

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 increase.  If they were approved for the 
additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay, the special 
order approving the decoration will include a statement to that 
fact.  The absence of a statement on the special order 
authorizing the additional 10 percent retirement pay may 
indicate that it was not approved by SAFPC.  If the member 
believes consideration was not made at the time the medal was 
awarded, they may ask for a Secretarial decision.

The assumption of regularity would indicate that the process in 
effect since 1979 was followed:  upon approval of the Airman’s 
Medal, the applicant was considered for the additional 
10 percent retired pay and did not meet the criteria and 
therefore, it was not approved.

Additionally, the applicant’s Airman’s Medal citation was 
reviewed and it was determined that his level of heroism, while 
noteworthy, did not meet the level needed for the award of the 
additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay.  That 
determination was based on a review of previously awarded 
Airman’s Medals and the 10 percent increase.

The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 October 2013 and 15 October 2013, for review and 
comment within 30 days (Exhibits E and 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's 
complete submission, we are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted that the applicant should receive a ten percent 
increase in his retirement pay.  The applicant’s heroism is 
noted and our decision in no way lessons the value of his 
contributions while in service.  However, a review by SAFPC 
determined that an increase in pay is not warranted.  We agree.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to grant the relief sought 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-2012-04457 in Executive Session on 3 December 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 12, w/atchs.
      	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 11 Feb 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 9 Oct 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Oct 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13.



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04685

    Original file (BC 2013 04685.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04685 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to a 10 percent increase in retired pay due to his being a recipient of the Airman's Medal (AmnM). The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he only recently discovered that all members who receive the AmnM...

  • 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-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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 05538

    Original file (BC 2013 05538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02021

    Original file (BC 2014 02021.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02021 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded an additional 10 percent increase in his retired pay as a result of receiving the Silver Star for gallantry. On 1 Sep 04, the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry per Special Order G-306. Based on the policy in place at the time, the applicant was considered for the additional 10...

  • 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-2012-03312

    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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03887

    Original file (BC-2011-03887.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-00001

    Original file (BC-2012-00001.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...