RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01129
		INDEX CODE:  128.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay reflect award of a 10 percent increase - retroactive to his date of retirement (based on extraordinary heroism in connection with the award of the Soldier’s Medal).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Payment discontinued in error and was unjust.  The order to stop payment was incorrect since he had received payment from date of reenlistment in August 1948.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided General Orders Number 359, awarding the Soldier’s Medal, dated 28 September 1945, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 April 1943, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.

On 28 September 1945, the applicant was awarded the Soldier’s Medal for heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.

Section 8991, Title 10, United States Code, provides for the 10 percent increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism.  The increase is not automatic to all retiring members who have been awarded a decoration for heroism.  The law gives the Secretary of the Air Force the responsibility for determining what constitutes extraordinary heroism in individual cases.  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 be automatically credited with additional retired pay.  Individuals awarded the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in a noncombat action, and the Airman’s Medal/Soldier’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 1 May 1964, the applicant requested to be considered for additional retired pay for the Soldier’s Medal.

On 15 May 1964, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of Section 8991, was not involved in the circumstances described in the citation awarding the applicant the Soldier’s Medal.

On 20 May 1964, the applicant was advised that his application for entitlement to an additional 10 percent retired pay for having been awarded the Soldier’s Medal was denied.

On 31 August 1964, the applicant retired in the grade of master sergeant.  He served 20 years, 8 months, and 3 days of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial.  They indicated that no irregularities or injustices occurred in the applicant’s case.  The award was considered for the additional retired pay for extraordinary heroism, by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council; it was not approved and, by law, that determination is final.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates that if a determination in reference to extraordinary heroism was made on 15 May 1964 by SAFPC this was before his retirement and he was not informed.  If this determination was made and if it was decided that he was not eligible for compensation, he believes this is an error and unjust.  He received compensation of $2.00 per month from August 1946 until sometime in 1947 when he was informed that this stipend was eliminated due to economics.  He contends that full research has not been accomplished or reflected in the correspondence and this is unjust.  He states that he does not understand the process that the reviewing officer used to establish a requirement in the award for extraordinary heroism other than a document that appears to be after the fact and should not be applicable.  The award should be considered on the basis of the regulation and action performed at that time.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s retirement 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 recommendation 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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01129 in Executive Session on 10 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 16 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 June 2003.

				
				Panel Chair