RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-01126
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the additional 10 percent retirement pay authorized for Airman's Medal (AM) recipients.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was previously advised that his request for the additional 10 percent in retirement pay was denied because his request was not within the meaning of the law to warrant the increase.  10 U.S.C. 8991 states that the Secretary's determination as to extraordinary heroism is conclusive for all purposes, but does not elaborate as to how that determination is made.  His citation describes his act of heroism as "voluntary risk of life."  Further, by his actions, several vital aircraft were saved from destruction allowing his unit's mission to continue.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his AM; AFPC/DPPPR letter, dated 18 Jun 99; AFMPC/DPMARB letter, dated 29 Nov 71; and, an extract of 10 U.S.C. 8991.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant retired from the Air Force on 30 Jun 72, in the grade of technical sergeant, after serving 20 years and 20 days on active duty.  He was awarded the AM for heroism involving risk of life on 18 Mar 66.  On 29 Nov 71, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council, considered and denied his request for additional 10 percent retired pay authorized for AM recipients.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPRRP states that the 10 percent increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism is not automatic to all retiring members who have been awarded a decoration for heroism.  The law gives the Secretary the responsibility for determining what constitutes "extraordinary heroism."  On 29 Nov 71, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council considered his case and determined that the act did not meet the criteria established for the additional 10 percent retired pay.  By law, that determination is conclusive for all purposes.  The DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  Although we find his actions, which led to his award of the Airman's Medal commendable, we see no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case.  In this regard, we took note that the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council (SAFPC) previously considered him for award of the additional 10 percent retired pay prior to his retirement from the Air Force.  It is our opinion that SAFPC, who is authorized to make decisions in these matters on behalf of the Secretary, is in the best position to make this determination.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that their decision was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-1999-01126 in Executive Session on 9 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 10 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 02.