RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03010 INDEX CODE:	128.14
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded a ten percent (10%) increase in retired pay based on his award of the Silver Star (SS).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was awarded the SS for his actions in Iraq and believes his action warrants the 10% increase. Title 10, Section 8991, provides for the 10% increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism.

He suffered permanent physical injuries trying to keep his small element from being over-run. They were surrounded by the enemy and were in direct contact through fire fights for over 72 hours. He not only had to engage the enemy with his own personal weapon, but simultaneously direct air strikes onto their positions.

He was unable to sleep for four (4) days due to being the only Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) with the element. His element ran low on ammunition and the only thing that kept the enemy from advancing was the air strikes. He controlled over 365 air strikes during a four-day fire fight.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the citation, certificate, and Special Order awarding him the SS.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) approved the applicant’s award of the SS for gallantry on 1 Sep 04. However, his request for a 10% increase in retired pay was denied.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIAR recommends denial. DPSIAR states they are unable to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the additional 10% increase and defer to the approval authority, SAFPC’s decision.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIAR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Sep 08 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response.

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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale of the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-03010 in Executive Session on 13 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request. Ms. voted to grant the applicant’s requests and submitted a minority report which is at Exhibit E. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 5 Aug 08. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 27 Aug 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 08.
Exhibit E.	Minority Report.

Panel Chair

Office of the Assistant Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of

I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.

Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:	Minority Report
On November 13, 2008, the Board considered an application for correction of military records pertaining to subject applicant.	The Board majority voted to deny the applicant’s request to grant a ten (10) percent increase in retired pay based on his award of the Silver Star.

The applicant’s original submission for award of the Silver Star was downgraded to a Bronze Star with a V device; however, upon resubmission and with witness statements to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, the Silver Star was awarded on September 1, 2004.

Although the submission for the Silver Star states he distinguished himself by ‘‘gallantry in connection with military operations,’’ I believe his actions were of extraordinary heroism as evidenced by the following statements contained in his citation, ‘‘Throughout the next 72 hours, he, in complete disregard for his own safety, moved to the most forward vantage points exposing himself to the intense artillery barrage while simultaneously directing as many as 17 aircraft at one time, beating the enemy back.	Undaunted after being blown into the air by an exploding artillery shell, he continued to move forward without cover to control air strikers against the relentless enemy.	As a result of his courage and calmness under extremely adverse conditions, he was responsible for more than 200 enemy casualties and destruction of 20 tanks, 10 155
millimeter artillery, 20 mortar tubes, 10 military vehicles, 15 buildings, two boats, and a radar dish.	His skill and situational awareness were decisive in the battle and ensured mission success and the safety of 152 rangers.’’

It is my opinion, that even after a second review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council; they failed to recognize the applicant’s direct impact on the mission.	I believe had the applicant been awarded the Airman’s Medal he more than likely would have been awarded the increase in retired pay.

Panel Member