RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02981

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay (retroactive to his date of retirement) based on extraordinary heroism in connection with receiving the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he retired in 1970, with 20 years of service in the Air Force, he was told he would receive 10 percent pay for his Airman’s Medal for non-combat related heroism.  It was disapproved for 31 years.  He has either been to or sent his request to every congressmen and senator --- has had.  He also visited Eglin AFB, FL several times to get it reevaluated.  He visited every VA, DVA, American Legion office he could find. In 1970, they were giving out so many medals for Viet Nam that he did not believe he got a fair shake.  His medal was received for pulling three airmen from a burning C-141 cargo plane, two died but one lived.  He was credited with saving a life and in doing so risked his own.  He used some firefighting equipment he had on his small truck to keep the fire from another C-141 cargo plane at the wing tip of the one burning until help could arrive.  The value of that plane at that time was in excess of $50 million dollars.  He truly believes he meet the requirements for heroism and the extra 10 percent pay. 

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order --- dated 6 July 1967, applicant was awarded the Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on 7 September 1966.  On that date, he rushed to the area where an aircraft had exploded and was burning violently.  With complete disregard for his own safety, and despite the hazard of exploding fuel cells, he unhesitatingly entered the flaming area to effectively save the life of another airman, then continued his efforts to block a flow of burning fuel from reaching another aircraft parked nearby.  By his courageous action and humanitarian regard for his fellow man, he has reflected great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.

He retired from the Air Force in the grade of master sergeant on 1 September 1970 after 20 years and 16 days of active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP, recommended denial.  No irregularities or injustices occurred in the applicant’s case.  The award was considered for additional retired pay for extraordinary heroism; it was not approved and, by law, that determination is final.  

Section 8991, Title 10, United States Code, provides for the 10% increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism.  Rather, the law gives the Secretary of the Air Force the responsibility for determining what constitutes extraordinary heroism in individual cases.  Accordingly, the Secretary has determined that an enlisted member who received the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross or an equivalent Army or Navy decoration, will automatically be credited with additional retired pay.  Individuals awarded the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in a noncombat action, and the Airman’s Medal for heroism will receive Secretarial review for award of the increase in retired pay.  The Secretary’s determination as to extraordinary heroism is conclusive for all purposes.

On 28 Aug 70 (Atch 4), the Secretary determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of Section 8991, was not involved in the circumstances described in the citation awarding applicant the Airman’s Medal.  Therefore, applicant is not entitled to a 10 percent increase in retired pay.  

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response with attachments, which is attached as Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that applicant’s retirement pay should be increased 10% for extraordinary heroism.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The applicant’s actions were undoubtedly heroic; however, heroism is the basic criteria for the Airman’s Medal.  To receive the 10% increase in pay, Title 10, USC, Section 8991, requires the heroism to be deemed “extraordinary.” The law gives the service secretaries the responsibility for determining what constitutes “extraordinary” heroism.  Review by the Secretary of the Air Force determined that the increase in pay was not warranted in this case.  The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to compel us to overturn that Secretarial finding.  In view of the above, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we cannot recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 23 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Vice Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 27 Nov 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 01.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant's response, undated.