RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01673
		INDEX NUMBER:  107.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) originally awarded to him for the period 7 Jul 95 to 31 Dec 00 and later revoked, be reinstated and the period of the award changed to 7 Jul 99 to   28 Dec 00, with a RDP of 28 Dec 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Several glaring errors were made in processing his award and have confused the issue of whether or not he deserved the medal, which he contends he does.  The applicant provides a detailed summary of what he believes happened with his original AFCM and why he deserves the medal, which includes the following points:

	  a.  When he presented copies of two medals awarded to him to personnel in his orderly room that were never updated in PC III, they determined that the medals had overlapping dates and one would have to be revoked.  His supervisory chain at the time assumed that an error had occurred and did not understand the intent of his previous supervisors who had submitted him for the second award.

	  b.  The supervisors who submitted him for the second award confirmed they would have still submitted him for the award had they known of the first award.  They felt that he deserved the award, as did his chain of command.

	  c.  His efforts to get the medal reinstated were unsuccessful and it was suggested that he be submitted for an AFAM in place of the AFCM.  When his supervisors attempted to submit him for the AFAM, they were advised they would have to submit a new Décor 6.  

	  d.  Eventually the AFAM was changed to an AFCM but the end date was moved to 1 Jul 02 because, he was told, the period from 1 Jul 99 to 28 Dec 00 was too short for an AFCM.  However, he notes that other than changing the dates, nothing else was changed regarding the medal.

The applicant also provides 18 other attachments, which include letters of support and other pertinent documentation.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 23 Oct 80 and is presently serving in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  His last ten enlisted performance reports (EPRs) reflect overall ratings of “5.”  The applicant has ten awards of the Air Force Achievement Medal and five awards of the Air Force Commendation Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was awarded an AFCM with the inclusive dates of 7 Jul 95 to 30 Jun 99.  The decoration was never placed in his hard copy personnel record or entered into his personnel system record.  Consequently, when he was submitted for his next decoration, there was no evidence of the initial decoration he had been awarded.  It appears that the applicant’s supervisor submitted him for an AFCM and started the inclusive dates on     7 Jul 95, ending 31 Dec 00.  If the supervisor had been aware of the first decoration, he would have known to start the period of the award no earlier than 1 Jul 99.  When the second award was approved the applicant ended up with two AFCMs approved with overlapping dates.  Since this constitutes dual recognition, the AFCM (1OLC) with inclusive dates of 7 Jul 95 to 31 Dec 00 was revoked.  AFI 36-2803, paragraph 3.7 states “Revoke an award if facts, later determined, would have prevented original approval of the award.”  The applicant has since been awarded an AFCM with inclusive dates of 1 Jul 99 to 1 Jul 02.  Therefore, he now has two approved awards that span the period from 1 Jul 95 to 1 Jul 02.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant addresses each section of the evaluation in order to clarify why he deserves the medal he is seeking.  While the applicant states that he understands the rationale of why his second medal was revoked, he believes that two simple facts were left out of the discussion by AFPC/DPPPR.  First, the officer that submitted him for the award that was revoked states that he would have submitted him for an award regardless of the first award and his entire chain of command supports his receiving the award.  Second, the medal that he was most recently awarded was submitted to help replace the revoked award.  However, the end date of the award was changed although nothing in the narrative was changed.  

The applicant discusses the events that have transpired since he began his efforts to get his medal reinstated.  He provides contact information for several individuals from his previous chain of command that support his receiving the award.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the period of service for each of the two overlapping Air Force Commendation Medals was greater than three or more years.  The applicant seeks to convince us that if the first of these medals, for the period 7 Jul 95 to 30 Jun 99, had been present in his records, his supervisors would have still submitted him for an award for the period 1 Jul 99 to 31 Dec 00.  Subsequently, he believes this justifies reinstatement of the revoked award with the dates corrected.  Based on the evidence of record, we are not persuaded.  While noting the letters of support the applicant provides stating that he is deserving of the award, he has not provided sufficient evidence of any efforts by his chain of command to get him awarded the AFCM for the shorter period of time.  Although he states the replacement AFCM he eventually received was awarded based on the same justification as the revoked award, we realize that length of service is also a relevant consideration when approving awards, especially in cases of meritorious service.  In the absence of clear-cut evidence that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice, we find no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the award approving authority.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-01673 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Aug 04.