RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03651 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His military retired pay be increased by 10 percent for Deeds of Extraordinary Heroism (Airman’s Medal) awarded to him 17 Mar 89.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An oversight was committed when he was not awarded the additional 10 percent increase to his retired pay in accordance with (IAW) Title 10 USC, Section 8991, and AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements. His award citation alone does not do justice to the severity of the event that occurred on 8 Mar 88, and he provides more detailed information that demonstrates extraordinary heroism happened on that tragic day.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Sep 75.

On 17 Mar 89, the applicant was awarded the Airman’s Medal for heroism involving voluntary risk of life near Holland Drop Zone, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on 8 Mar 88.  

On 30 Sep 94, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, retired effective 1 Oct 94 and was credited with 19 years, and 29 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAFPC-Decs recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The application was not filed within three years of the discovery of the alleged error or injustice, or with due diligence, should have been discovered.  Notwithstanding timeliness, the applicant has not provided evidence of an error or injustice in the decision not to credit him with extraordinary heroism and thereby award him an additional 10 percent in retired pay.  In a 24 Mar 89 memorandum (attached), the Secretary of the Air Force considered the applicant for an additional 10 percent retired pay in connection with his act of Heroism that warranted the Airman’s Medal.  However, while courageous, his act of heroism did not meet the criteria established for the additional retired pay.  SAFPC had the applicant’s current submission reviewed by a decorations board on 28 Sep 17.  The decorations board did not find the applicant’s actions supported awarding the additional 10 percent.  

A complete copy of the SAFPC-Decs evaluation w/atch, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Oct 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-03651 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-03651 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Sep 16, w/atch(s).
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAFPC-Decs, dated 3 Oct 17, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Oct 17.
	
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.