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:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John E.B. Smith, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

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.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair