MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           29 August 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070643

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Posser       		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his Soldier's Medal qualifies him for a 10% increase in his retired pay, and that he be paid the 10% increase retroactive to the date of his retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  He has never received any additional retired pay based upon his Soldier's Medal.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

While serving as a sergeant in a Psychological Operations Battalion in Saigon, Vietnam, on 20 January 1967, he was awarded the Soldier's Medal "For heroism not involving actual conflict with an armed enemy in the Republic of Vietnam" when he repeatedly entered a burning building to locate and remove personnel and ammunition.

The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant and was honorably released from active duty on 31 January 1983 and placed on the Retired List the following day.  While the applicant was processing for retirement, he submitted a request to receive a 10% increase in his retired pay based upon his Soldier's Medal.  On 6 July 1982 the (then) Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) denied his request, stating that the circumstances surrounding the award of the Soldier's Medal to the applicant did not fulfill the requirement for entitlement to a 10% increase in retired pay as set forth in Army Regulation 635-200.

Army Regulation 635-200, 1 October 1982, paragraph 12-4c, states that enlisted soldiers who retire for years of service who have been awarded the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, or Navy Cross for Extraordinary heroism are entitled to have his or her retired pay increased 10 percent.  Enlisted soldiers who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Soldier's Medal, or equivalent Navy decoration may be credited with extraordinary heroism.  The Secretary of the Army must determine that the heroism was equivalent to that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross.

Army Regulations 600-8-22 provides that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving conflict with the enemy.  The action must have involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life.  Awards are not to be based solely upon the saving of a life.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant had requested a 10% increase in his retired pay, based on extraordinary heroism, when he was in the process of retiring.  The MILPERCEN determined that the actions taken by the applicant which constituted the basis for his Soldier's Medal did not meet the extraordinary heroism requirement for a Distinguished Service Cross.

2.  The Board agrees with the MILPERCEN that the applicant's actions, while certainly heroic, were not in keeping with the extraordinary heroism required for award of the Army's second highest award, the Distinguished Service Cross.

3.  As such, the applicant's retired pay is properly calculated and there is no reason to change his pay.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___hbo __  ___mkp__  ___cjp__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070643	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.