RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01418 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a 10 percent increase in his retired pay, effective to his 1974 retirement date, because he was awarded the Airman’s Medal for “extreme heroism.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1970, he received the Airman’s Medal for extreme heroism. He was informed at the time, that upon retirement he would receive a 10 percent increase in his retirement pay. This was not initiated upon his retirement, and he believes that he should receive this money dating back to his retirement in 1974. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 16 December 1953. Special Order GB-280, dated 21 April 1970, reflects the applicant was awarded the Airman’s Medal for heroism involving the risk of life on 10 July 1969. On 31 May 1974, the applicant retired in the grade of master sergeant and was credited with 20 years, 2 months, and 23 days of active service and credited with 2 years, 11 months 21 days of foreign and/or SEA 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 evidence of an error or an injustice. The Secretary determined that enlisted members who receive the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, or equivalent Army or Navy decoration will be automatically credited with additional retired pay. When enlisted members are awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (non-combat for heroism only), the Silver Star, or the Airman’s Medal, or equivalent Army or Navy decoration, a Secretarial determination that the heroism was extraordinary is required. As stated in the law, the Secretary’s determination as to extraordinary heroism is conclusive for all purposes. On 22 April 1970, the Secretary of the Air Force considered the applicant for an additional 10 percent retired pay in connection with the act of heroism that entitled him to the decoration. However, the determination was made that the act, while courageous, does not meet the criteria established by law for the additional retired pay. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating they concur with the recommendation from AFPC/DPSOR-RET to disapprove the applicant’s request, since the applicant’s award has been previously reviewed and denied for the 10 percent increase in retirement pay. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he disagrees with the OPR’s recommendation and believes this to be an injustice and unfair. He was not informed of the 10 percent he could have received upon retirement due to him being awarded the Airman’s Medal. He further states - during the time period in question, if the Secretary of the Air Force felt it worthy and awarded him a medal for such actions and now the Air Force is recommending it not so – then the Secretary of the Air Force was wrong in 1970. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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 his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Secretary of the Air Force previously considered the applicant for an additional 10 percent retired pay in connection with the act of heroism that entitled him to the decoration. However, the determination was made that the act, while courageous, does not meet the criteria established by law for the additional retired pay. 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01418 in Executive Session 16 February 2016 and 11 April 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01418 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 April 2016, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 July 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 3 December 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 December 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 January 2016. 3