RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01020 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be increased by 10% and he receive all associated back-pay for receiving the Airman’s Medal (AM). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He recently became aware that he should have been receiving increased retirement pay since he was awarded the AM on 1 Sep 92. DoD 7000.14-R, Volume 7B, Financial Management Regulation: Military Pay Policy – Retired Pay, Chapter 1 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, Attachment 9, state that recipients of the AM for Heroism are entitled to the 10% increase in retired pay as long as it does not exceed 75%. He provides a copy of the award, the citation and a news article in support of his application. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Jun 69, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 16 Feb 90, by Special Order (SO) GB-248, he was awarded the AM for Heroism. On 31 Aug 92, the applicant relieved and retired, effective 1 Sep 92. He was credited with 23 years, 2 months and 20 days of actives 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: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no indication or statement on the SO that an additional 10% increase in retired pay for “extraordinary heroism” is authorized, as stated by 10 USC §8991. Because the law is not restrictive with regard to the types of decorations that may qualify an individual for this increase in retired pay, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) has the authority to evaluate the heroic actions that have earned the Silver Star (SS), Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)(non- combat), and the AM to determine if extraordinary heroism was involved which would entitle the applicant to the increase in retired pay. The SecAF recognizes there could be broad variances in individual opinions as to what constitutes “extraordinary heroism” and relies on the recommendations of the SAF Personnel Council (SAFPC) in this regard. If the applicant were approved for the additional 10% increase in retirement pay, his SO approving the decoration will include a statement to that fact. Absence of a statement on the SO may indicate that it was not approved by the SAFPC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. SAFPC recommends denial indicating concurrence with DPSOR’s justification for disapproval of the applicant’s request for entitlement to a 10% increase in retirement pay for award of the AM. Without the narrative or witness statements, and the fact the citation only contains limited information, there is no basis for entitlement to the 10% increase in retirement pay for extraordinary heroism. In addition, it has been the practice of the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) to determine at the time of the award of the AM whether the member’s actions met the criteria for entitlement to the 10% increase in retirement pay. This award would have been reviewed and a determination made on the 10% increase during the AFDB proceedings. A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; 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, including attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to increase his retirement pay due to receiving the AM, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice as compared to others in his similar situation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01020 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 Sep 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 15.