RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04149 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive an additional 10 percent retirement pay for award of the Airman's Medal (AmnM). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He would like the Board to look closer at his award and reconsider awarding him the 10 percent incentive pay. He knows fellow enlisted members who received the additional 10 percent incentive pay for being awarded the same medal. Although he was awarded the AmnM for a non-combat situation, he feels his accomplishments should reflect he was supporting the war efforts in Thailand. Specifically, the T-28 aircraft had a MK-24 flare pod that accidently ignited along with a 100 pound white phosphorous bomb on the wing which went low order and started arching; he received the AmnM for controlling the fire which prevented the fire from spreading to other aircraft in the vicinity. The applicant does not provide any supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states the applicant has made two previous unsuccessful attempts in getting the additional 10 percent awarded. DPSIDR notes there is a letter in the applicant’s official records that states “Based on the Evaluation, the Secretary has determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of the law (10 U.S.C. 8991), was not involved in the circumstances described in the citation awarding this decoration. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to 10% increase in retired pay.” Consequently, without official documentation or special order awarding the additional 10 percent, DPSIDR cannot support his request to be awarded the additional retired pay. The DPSIDR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Jan 11 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record. _________________________________________________________________ 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 that 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-2010-04149 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 4 Jan 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.