ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  93-00230
            INDEX NUMBER:  128.00;133.03;
            129.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay be computed based on the years of  service  for  basic
pay versus years of  active  service  for  retirement,  and  that  his
retired  grade  be  changed  from  airman  first  class  to  technical
sergeant.

___________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 3 May 1993, the  AFBCMR  considered  an  application  submitted  by
applicant requesting that his retired pay be  computed  based  on  the
years of service for basic pay versus years of  active  service.   The
Board rejected the application as untimely.  (Exhibits A through E)

Between 8 May and 4 August 1993,  the  applicant  provided  additional
copies of documents previously submitted with his initial appeal.   On
31 August 1993, he was advised that the  documents  provided  did  not
meet the criteria for reconsideration.  He was  further  advised  that
his  issues  concerning  the  computation  of  his  retired  pay  were
appropriately addressed in the 29 January 1992 letter to him from  the
Directorate of Retired Pay Operations, Defense Finance and  Accounting
Service - Denver Center (a copy of which was included with his initial
application).  (Exhibit F)

On 2 December 1995, applicant submitted an application requesting  his
retired pay be computed based on 22 years and 26 days of  service,  as
an E-5, and at least E-6 after 30 years.  He contends he was illegally
demoted; the demotion was unjust; and he should receive retired pay as
an E-6.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies  of  orders  from
his  military  personnel  records  pertaining  to   his   enlistments,
assignments, and retirement, with his annotations.  (Exhibit G)

___________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to enlisting in  the  Air  Force,  applicant  had  prior  active
service in the US Army from 5 September 1942 to 28 October  1945,  and
inactive service in the Enlisted Reserve Corps from 28 October 1945 to
13 October 1947.

On 14 October 1947,  he  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Army  (Air  Force
component).  He served on continuous active duty,  entering  his  last
enlistment on 14 October 1963.  He attained the rank of staff sergeant
effective 15 March 1951.

On 25 August 1952, he was demoted from the grade of staff sergeant (E-
5) to airman first class (E-4), for misconduct.

On 1 June 1954, he was promoted back to the grade of staff sergeant.

On 10 July 1958, he was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to airman
first class (E-4), under the  provisions  of  Article  15,  UCMJ,  for
behaving with disrespect toward a superior officer, by grasping him by
the arm and saying to him, “Come on outside and we  will  settle  this
right now.”  Applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  of
reduction in grade on 16 July 1958; he did not appeal the punishment.

On 30 September 1964, he was released from active duty and transferred
to the Reserve of the Air Force, and retired effective 1 October 1964,
under the provisions of Title 10, USC, 8914, in the  grade  of  airman
first class.  At the time of his retirement, he was credited  with  20
years and 27 days of active service for retirement, and 22  years  and
26 days of service for basic pay.  Effective 4 September 1974, he  was
advanced to the grade of staff sergeant on the USAF  Retired  List  by
reason of completing 30 years service on 3 September 1974 (IAW 10  USC
8964 and 8992).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Promotion  Management   Section,   AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial of applicant’s request to have  his
administrative demotion in 1952 overturned and also his request to  be
retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  Their comments,  in
part, follow.

DPPPWB stated that documentation contained in the applicant’s  records
reflect that he was properly notified by his commander  on  11  August
1952 of a proposed reduction in grade under the provisions of AFR  39-
30 for failure  to  demonstrate  ability  to  exercise  the  necessary
leadership required of  an  airman  serving  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant.  He acknowledged receipt of the  proposed  reduction  on  11
August 1952 and requested  a  personal  hearing  before  the  Demotion
Board.  The  Demotion  Board  met  on  21 August  1952  and  made  the
determination  that  the  applicant  was  absent  from  duty   without
authority in three separate instances; that he was not fully cognizant
of the duties and responsibilities of an noncommissioned  officer  and
that he had never received formal training in this respect.  They also
recommended he be demoted to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  in
accordance with AFR 39-30, para 15a(1), for demonstrated inability  to
exercise the necessary leadership required for an airman of his grade.
 The reason for the  administrative  demotion  was  later  changed  to
reflect  misconduct.   The  demotion  action  was  approved   by   his
commanding officer and the applicant was reduced accordingly.   DPPPWB
opined that the demotion action taken against the applicant under  the
provisions of AFR 39-30 was procedurally  correct  and  in  accordance
with the governing directive during that time period.

Further review of applicant’s records reflect  that  he  was  promoted
back to the grade of staff sergeant  on  1  June  1954.   However,  on
10 July 1958, he was reduced back to the grade of airman  first  class
per Article 15 action and was eventually retired in this grade.  Based
on this fact, there is no way that he should be allowed to  retire  in
the grade of technical sergeant as he is requesting.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The  Recognitions  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  noted  applicant’s
referral to his receipt of the  Good  Conduct  Medal  for  the  period
17 March 1951-16 March 1954.  DPPPRA stated applicant did receive  the
Good Conduct Medal for a period during which  he  received  a  Summary
Court-Martial for being drunk on duty and was restricted to  post  for
two weeks and  forfeited  $50.   In  the  11  August  1952  letter  of
notification that he was being recommended for demotion, it  was  also
brought out that he reported for duty drunk on 1 July 1952, and failed
to report for duty on 27 June 1952 and 10 August 1952.

DPPPRA stated the  applicant  should  never  have  received  the  Good
Conduct  Medal  for  such  obvious  and  repeated  misconduct.    They
recommended that the Good Conduct Medal for the period 17 March 1951 -
16 March 1954 be revoked.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.

The Senior Attorney-Advisor,  AFPC/JA,  provided  comments  addressing
applicant’s  contention  that  his  1951  demotion  was  “unjust   and
illegal.”  After citing the facts of the case,  JA  stated  that  they
believe this application is nearly 30 years overdue  and  is  entirely
without merit.  While the record would support denial on  the  merits,
they recommend  denial  on  timeliness  grounds.   The  applicant  was
properly demoted for three instances  of  alcohol-related  misconduct.
In carrying out the demotion, the initial implementing order, SO  116,
failed to properly  identify  the  basis  for  the  action.   Military
authorities at the time noticed the error, revoked SO 116, and  issued
a corrected order, SO 134.  The new order was in full compliance  with
the demotion regulation.  The only effect of the  mistaken  order  was
that the applicant received a staff sergeant’s pay for one  additional
month.  Under these facts, JA can discern neither error nor injustice.
 For these reasons, they recommend denial of this  time-barred  claim.
(Exhibit J)

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant returned the advisory opinions and additional copies of  his
retirement orders with his annotations.  (Exhibit L)

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings in this case pertaining to applicant’s request
for that his retired pay be computed based on the years of service for
basic pay versus years of active service  for  retirement,  the  Board
determined that the application was not timely filed and that it would
not be in the interest of justice to  excuse  the  failure  to  timely
file.  After reviewing the  evidence  previously  considered  and  the
applicant’s recent submissions, we have determined that it would be in
the interest of justice to waive the failure to  timely  file  and  to
resolve this case on its merits.

2.  After  careful  consideration  of  the  applicant’s  most   recent
submission, as well as his previous submissions, we find  insufficient
relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the  existence  of
probable error or injustice warranting corrective action.

      a.  Applicant’s  contention  that  his  retired  pay  should  be
computed on his years of service for basic pay rather than his  active
service  is  duly  noted.   However,  we  note  that  this  issue  was
previously addressed in a 29 June 1992 letter to  the  applicant  from
the  Directorate  of  Retired  Pay  Operations,  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service-Denver (DFAS-DE).  Specifically,  enlisted  members
who retire under the authority of 10 USC 8914, as the  applicant  did,
have their retirement percentage based on the actual amount of  active
service performed, not on the amount of service for basic  pay,  which
is used only to determine the longevity rate or “fogey”  on  which  to
apply the percentage.  Other than his own  assertions,  the  applicant
has not presented any  evidence  showing  that  his  retired  pay  was
improperly computed or that the computation of  his  retired  pay  was
contrary to the governing  statute.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  disturb  the
existing record with respect to this matter.

      b.  Applicant contends that his administrative demotion in  1952
was illegal and unjust.  In this regard, a  review  of  the  available
record reflects that the applicant was administratively demoted due to
misconduct, which  involved  incidents  of  reporting  for  duty  with
evidence of heavy drinking apparent in his actions, speech and on  his
breath; leaving his assigned duties without proper  authorization  and
failing to return to duty; and two occasions of failing to report  for
duty at the prescribed time.   The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence to sufficiently convince the Board that  the  Demotion  Board
abused its discretionary authority in imposing  the  demotion  action,
that  the  administrative  demotion  was  contrary  to  the  governing
regulation in effect at the time, or that  he  was  denied  rights  to
which entitled during the demotion  process.   We  further  note  that
subsequent to his administrative demotion, the applicant was  promoted
back to the grade of staff sergeant.  However, he was again reduced to
the grade of airman first class as  a  result  of  punishment  imposed
under the provisions of Article  15,  UCMJ,  for  being  disrespectful
toward a superior officer.  We also found no evidence  in  the  record
that the  applicant  ever  served  in  any  grade  higher  than  staff
sergeant.  Having found the demotion action valid, we believe that the
applicant was correctly retired in the grade of  airman  first  class.
When his active service and his time on the retired  list  equaled  30
years, in accordance with the governing statute, he  was  advanced  to
his highest grade satisfactorily held while he  was  on  active  duty;
i.e., staff sergeant.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we found no basis upon  which  to  favorably
consider applicant’s requests that his records be corrected to reflect
that his grade at the time of his retirement was  staff  sergeant  and
that he was advanced to the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  after  30
years.
___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 93.
    Exhibit G.  DD Fm 149, dated 2 Dec 95, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Apr 96.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 23 Apr 96.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 16 Jul 96.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jul 96.
    Exhibit L.  Response from Applicant (extracts from Master
                Personnel Records), undated.


                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair