RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03887 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded ten percent additional retirement pay for his award of the Airman’s Medal (AmnM). _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He feels he is entitled to a ten percent increase in retirement pay by virtue of being awarded the AmnM for heroism. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and his AmnM Citation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 1 November 1977 to 30 June 1998. He received the AmnM for heroism involving voluntary risk of life near Subic Bay Naval Base, Republic of the Philippines, on 15 June 1991. The applicant was released from active duty on 20 June 1998 and retired effective 1 July 1998 in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). He served 20 years and 8 months on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the AmnM is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly nation who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force after the date of the award’s authorization (6 July 1960), distinguished himself or herself by a heroic act, usually at the voluntary risk of his or her own life, but not involving actual combat. The saving of a life or the success of the voluntary heroic act is not essential. DPSIDR indicates the applicant was awarded the AmnM for actions on 15 June 1991 by leading a door-to-door alert in a four-story hotel during a typhoon and volcanic eruption. The walls of the hotel were crumbling from the effects of the volcano Mount Pinatubo. The applicant was credited in saving an unknown number of lives by risking his own. DPSIDR states the Department of the Air Force Special Order GB- 110, dated 15 November 1991, does not indicate the applicant was awarded a ten percent increase in retired pay. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels he is deserving of the additional ten percent retired pay due to the situation he had to go through. The recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility to deny his request is a stab in the back after all of his hard work and sacrifice. He appreciates the Board’s consideration of his case. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAFPC recommends denial. SAFPC states it is clear the applicant was appropriately recognized for his heroic actions on 15 June 1991. The Secretary of the Air Force or his designee determined; however, that awarding the applicant the additional ten percent in retired pay was not warranted. At the time, the Awards and Decorations Board had the opportunity to review all available documentation, including the commander’s recommendation and witness statements, and make an informed decision based on the facts provided. The board determined the applicant’s actions did not rise to the level of extraordinary heroism required for award of the additional ten percent in retirement pay. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the SAFPC evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 February 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DPSIDR and SAFPC and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we respect and honor the applicant’s actions leading to award of the AmnM, the decision to not award him the additional retirement pay was made by the appropriate authority and the evidence provided does not support that their decision was in error or unjust. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 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-2011-03887 in Executive Session on 8 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03887 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 3 Nov 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 15 Feb 12. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 12.