RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03427 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect that he is entitled to a ten percent increase in his retired pay due to heroism, retroactive to the effective date of his retirement. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is entitled to a ten percent increase to his retired pay because he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (with “Valor” Device) for Heroism on 10 March 1966. Upon retirement, he was informed that this pay did not exist. However, through his recent research, he discovered that he was misinformed about his retired pay percentage and this error has caused his retired pay to be miscalculated since his retirement on 1 June 1980. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 December 1957. On 7 July 1966, the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “Valor” device (BSM w/V) for his heroic actions on 10 March 1966 while serving as a member of a tactical air control party supporting friendly foreign forces. On 1 June 1980, the applicant retired from the Air Force and was credited with 22 years, 5 months, and 5 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. A review of the applicant’s record revealed that on 26 June 1969, The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force disapproved the applicant’s request for a ten percent increase to his retired pay for extraordinary heroism. It is clear the awarding authority’s intent was to recognize the applicant for his heroism; however, it was determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of the law (Title 10, United States Code, Section 8991) was not involved in the circumstances described in the applicant’s citation which awarded this decoration. Nevertheless, his honorable service in the Air Force is both recognized and appreciated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 October 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim or an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sough in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-03427 in Executive Session on 11 April 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 03 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Sep 12, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 12.