RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            20 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040007509


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests a 10 percent increase in retirement pay based on
his award of the Soldier's Medal.

2.  The applicant states that he has tried every other course of action to
resolve his issue and has come to a dead end.  He states that when he was
awarded the Soldier's Medal, it came with a letter denying the 10 percent
pay increase.  He states that he submitted an appeal to this Board with a
short videotape of the crash, picture of the plane as it impacted the Fort
Bragg drop zone, and copies of all documents that he could find relating to
the crash.  He states that this Board disapproved his request stating that
he did not prove that his actions constituted extraordinary heroism as to
merit award of the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).  He states that in
order to be awarded the DSC there has to be a conflict with enemy of the
United States and he asks, "How do you prove to someone that you are
heroic".  He goes on to state that he has requested all of the sworn
statements that were made by others and himself when the award was
submitted through Department of the Army and that he has been unsuccessful.
 He states that he spoke with individuals involved in the wreckage and that
he has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain additional
documentation in support of his appeal.  He states that he would have
started his appeal process prior to 1 year ago; however, he was told to
wait until he was ready to retire before he submitted his appeal.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his appeal an undated chronology
of the events that occurred on 1 July 1987; copies of different sections of
Title 10, United States Code, which governs increased retired pay based on
decorations and award of the DSC, Distinguished Flying Cross and Soldier's
Medal; a copy of the general orders awarding him the Soldier's Medal; a
copy of his certificate for the award of the Soldier's Medal; a copy of the
citation for award of the Soldiers Medal; a copy of a memorandum approving
the recommendation to award him the Soldier's Medal; a copy of a letter
that he received from an Army Board for Correction of Military Records
staff analyst regarding his previous application to this Board; and
newspaper clippings regarding a C-130 plane crash.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 7 November 1984, he enlisted in the Army in Columbus, Ohio, for 4
years, in the pay grade of E-3.  He successfully completed his training as
a light wheel vehicle mechanic and on 22 February 1985, he was transferred
to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He remained on active duty through
continuous reenlistments and extensions.
2.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 28 April 1985 and to the pay
grade of E-5 on 21 March 1987.

3.  In an undated memorandum from the Acting Chief, Military Awards Branch,
the applicant's commanding officer (CO) was notified that his
recommendation for award of the Soldier's Medal to the applicant had been
approved.  The CO was informed that, although the applicant's actions were
truly courageous and may have resulted in the saving of a life, the Army
Decorations Board concluded that his actions did not constitute
extraordinary heroism as defined in paragraph 1-37h, of Army Regulation 672-
5-1.  The CO was further informed that the applicant would not be entitled
to a 10 percent increase in retired pay should he retire with 20 or more
years of active Federal service.  The memorandum explains that the
applicant's ineligibility for the increase in retired pay in no way
detracts from nor reflects adversely on his outstanding performance and
personal courage, which resulted in award of the Army's highest peacetime
award for heroism.

4.  On 1 July 1987, the applicant was awarded the Soldier's Medal for
heroism.  The citation for the Soldier's Medal indicates that, while
participating in a Capabilities Exercise, the applicant observed a C-130
aircraft crash on Sicily Drop Zone and immediately exited his vehicle
parked on the drop zone.  Disregarding his own safety, he proceeded to the
crash site looking for survivors. The applicant spotted one man asking for
help who was bleeding, severely burned and disoriented.  The applicant
located the man and assisted in his removal from the burning wreckage as
medical personnel arrived to administer first aid.

5.  The applicant was honorably retired in the pay grade of E-7 on 30
November 2004 due to his having sufficient service for retirement.  He had
completed 20 years and 24 days of net active service.

6.  In the undated chronology of the events that the applicant submitted in
support of his appeal to this Board he explains how he walked through a
wall of flames and over and around all of the burning debris until he found
a soldier on the ground.  He states that he picked the Soldier up and he
saw an officer walking toward him in a daze with his head covered in blood.
 He states that while carrying the Soldier he grabbed the officer and moved
through the flames to an unburned area in a slight depression.  The
applicant goes on to explain how he administered first aid until medics
arrived on the site and his condition after the heroic save.



7.  In an advisory opinion to this Board dated 20 August 2003, the Chief,
Appeals and Corrections Branch, indicated that the applicant applied to the
Army Decorations Board for a 10 percent increase in his retired pay.  That
board denied his appeal on an unknown date.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Soldier's Medal is awarded
to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly
foreign nation who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the
United States, distinguished himself or herself by heroism not involving
actual conflict with an enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as
for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have
involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under
conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.  Awards will not be
made solely on the basis of having saved a life.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based on the information contained in his official records, it is clear
that the applicant's actions on 1 July 1987 were truly heroic, as he
voluntarily risked his own life in order to assist others.

2.  Awarding him the Soldier's Medal was proper considering all of the
facts in his case.  However, in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, his actions, although heroic, do not entitle him to a 10
percent increase in his retired pay.

3.  The applicant's CO properly recommended him for the Soldier's Medal
based on heroic actions that did not involve actual conflict with an enemy.
 The applicant's desire to receive a 10 percent increase in his retired pay
has been noted.  However, in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22 and a
review by the appropriate review board, he does not meet the requirements
for increased retired pay.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JH ___  ___TO___  ___PM __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ______James Hise________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004007509                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HONORABLE                               |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/11/30                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |RETIREMENT                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  283  |128.0000/PAY AND ALLOWANCES             |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]