RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03914

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 10% increase in his retired pay based on extraordinary heroism in connection with receiving the Airman’s Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has just recently discovered an attachment to his Airman’s Medal, special order GB----, dated 2 Sep 94, which was completed two days after said order, which states, “The Secretary of the Air Force has considered this individual for an additional 10 percent retirement pay in connection with the act of heroism that warranted this decoration.  The determination was made that the act, while courageous, does not meet the criteria established for the additional retired pay.”  He believes that, after he read his account of the incident, which leads to this award, the Board will agree that indeed the act does warrant an additional 10 percent retirement pay.

In support of his application, he submits a personal letter, a letter from AFPC/DPMASA1 and copies of the citation, special orders and certificate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant.

Special Order GB---- dated 2 September 1994 awarded applicant the Airman’s Medal for heroic action performed on 22 October 1993.  On that date, a Republic of Korea Navy helicopter crashed next to the runway.  While two of the crew members got out of the wreckage safely, another was unable to get out on his own.  The helicopter was leaking fuel and its engine was still running, creating an extreme explosive hazard.  Applicant heard a call over his radio about the crash and immediately drove to the scene.  He parked his vehicle 20 to 30 feet away from the downed aircraft, planning to use it as a shield in case the helicopter exploded.  Without regard for his own safety, he ran towards the helicopter and helped two of the crew  members extricate a Korean airman from the wreckage.  Ignoring the running engine and leaking fuel, he and the two Korean crew members carried the injured airman behind Sergeant ----’s vehicle and rendered first aid until medical personnel arrived and relieved them.

On 6 September 1994, the applicant’s personnel function was notified that the Secretary of the Air Force had determined that the act, while courageous, did not meet the criteria established for the additional 10 percent retired pay.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

Applicant was cited for heroism involving voluntary risk of life, and his citation and orders were forwarded for Secretarial determination.  On 6 September 1994, the applicant’s personnel function was notified that the Secretary of the Air Force had determined that the act, while courageous, did not meet the criteria established for the additional 10 percent retired pay.  In accordance with Section 8991, Title 10, United States Code, the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force is conclusive for all purposes.  

AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jan 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 believe the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we do not recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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-2002-03914 in Executive Session on 6 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 22 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.