RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05538 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded an additional 10 percent increase in his retired pay as a result of receiving the Airman’s Medal (AmnM) for heroism. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded a 10 percent increase in his retirement pay as a result of his heroic actions for which he received the AmnM. He was advised that when the AmnM is approved, simultaneous disposition on whether or not the actions meet the criteria of “extraordinary heroism,” for the 10 percent increase is supposed to be performed. He never received notification that the 10 percent increase in retirement pay was considered at the time he was awarded the AmnM. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Nov 03, the applicant was awarded the AmnM for heroism per Special Order G-023. Section 8991, Title 10, United States Code, provides for the 10 percent increase in retired pay for extraordinary heroism. The law gives the Secretary of the Air Force the responsibility for determining what constitutes extraordinary heroism in individual cases. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determines entitlement to an additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay, upon approval of the AmnM for enlisted members for extraordinary heroism. According to the original award approval authority, SAFPC, the applicant was considered and disapproved for the extra 10 percent increase in retirement pay upon their approving of the Airman's Medal for his heroism on 27 November 2000. It appears at the time the applicant's AmnM was approved, the policy in place was only to indicate if the additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay was approved on the special order. If the additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay was disapproved, no indication was made on the special order. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his original contention that he was not aware that he had been previously considered for the additional 10 percent increase in retirement pay for the AmnM. The specific DoDM guidance noted in the advisory opinion reflects no specific criteria references other than to say individual military departments have their own respective medal to recognize acts of heroism not involving actual combat. Regarding references to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) and the Chief of Staff, he reiterates that he had no knowledge of whether or not he was approved for the 10 percent retirement entitlement upon approval of the AmnM and his former unit and Air Force personnel officials could find no record of this consideration either. The applicant noted the extraordinary actions he performed and believes that he should be entitled to the additional 10 percent in retirement pay. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. 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 complete submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s retirement should be increased to 10 percent for extraordinary heroism. The 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 AmnM. To receive the 10 percent increase in pay, Title 10, USC, Section 8991, requires the heroism to be deemed “extraordinary.” The law gives the Secretary of the Air Force the responsibility for determining what constitutes “extraordinary” heroism. A Review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 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 the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or injustice. Therefore, we cannot recommend granting the relief sought. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; 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-2013-05538 in Executive Session on 9 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 14, w/atchs.