RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01260 (Case 2)

            INDEX CODE:  111.02


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period  14 Jun
97 through 14 Dec 97, be upgraded from a “4” to a “5”.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on the rater’s inexperience,  the  contested  report  was  rated
unfairly and the rater did not give him adequate feedback  during  the
reporting period.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of his AFI 36-2401 applications, which include statements  from
his rating chain and additional documents associated with  the  issues
cited in his contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 16 Mar 81.  He is currently serving on active duty in  the
grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective  date  and  date  of
rank of 1 Oct 99.

Applicant's profile, commencing with the report  closing  14  Jan  95,
follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

             14 Jan 95 5 - Immediate Promotion
             10 Dec 95 5

             30 Jun 96 5

             13 Jun 97 5
            *14 Dec 97 4 - Ready for Promotion
             13 Dec 98 4

* Contested report

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, were considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board
(ERAB) on 26 Aug 98, 16 Nov 98 and 25 Feb 99.

In 1998, applicant applied to the Air Force Board  for  Correction  of
Military Records (AFBCMR) requesting that  his  promotion  eligibility
for master sergeant (E-7) be reinstated for promotion cycle 97E7.  His
application was disapproved by the Board on 2 Mar 99.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated the first time the  contested  report  was  considered  in  the
promotion process was Cycle 98E7 to master sergeant (E-7),  promotions
effective Aug 98 - Jul 99.   Should  the  Board  upgrade  the  overall
rating or void the report in its entirety, providing he  is  otherwise
eligible, the applicant will be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration commencing with  Cycle  98E7.   It  is  noted  that  the
applicant will become a selectee for promotion during  this  cycle  if
the Board grants his request, pending a  favorable  data  verification
check and the recommendation of his commander.  The applicant became a
select during the 99E7 cycle.  DPPPWB defers to the recommendation  of
HQ AFPC/DPPPAB (Exhibit C).


The Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,
indicated that the rater states he believes  he  sincerely  rated  the
applicant given the short rating period (133 days of supervision), but
concluded he may have rated  him  differently  if  he  had  given  the
applicant timely  feedback.   However,  he  does  not  state  that  he
supports   upgrading   the   report.    DPPPAB    noted    that    the
indorser/commander accepts  full  responsibility  for  not  adequately
counseling the rater on the importance of providing timely  and  frank
feedback and for failing to note the  discrepancy  with  the  feedback
date on the EPR.   The  indorser/commander  further  stated  that  the
report should be upgraded to a “5” promotion  recommendation.   DPPPAB
stated that while the applicant clearly established that the rater did
not conduct mid-term feedback, he has provided  no  evidence  to  show
that he ever requested feedback of the rater and/or the rater’s rater.
 The rater’s failure to  conduct  a  required  or  requested  feedback
session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.   The  rater  could  not
have conducted the applicant’s mid-term feedback until after 14 Sep 97
but should have done it prior to 29 Oct 97.  Retrospective  statements
from evaluators prepared several months after the  closeout  dates  of
EPRs do not carry as much weight as assessments made  when  the  facts
and circumstances were fresh in their minds.

DPPPAB stated the applicant established that he did not  receive  mid-
term feedback.  In fact, the report is technically flawed, as the date
of the mid-term feedback on the EPR  is  two  days  after  the  report
closed out.   Therefore,  DPPPAB  recommended  the  Board  direct  the
removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR  and  add
the following statement:  “Ratee  has  established  that  no  mid-term
feedback session was provided in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2403.”   A
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
10 Sep 99 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence  provided,  specifically  the   statements   by   the   final
indorser/commander of the contested  report,  we  believe  substantial
doubt has been created concerning the fairness  and  accuracy  of  the
contested report.  Based on these statements and in the absence  of  a
basis to question the integrity of this individual, we recommend  that
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the  applicant  and  conclude
that the contested report should be upgraded.  In addition,  we  agree
with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  appropriate  Air  Force
office, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, that the  applicant  established  he  did  not
receive mid-term feedback.  Hence, the EPR in question is  technically
flawed concerning the mid-term feedback date and should  be  corrected
to the extent indicated below.  Inasmuch as we  have  determined  that
the contested report should be  upgraded,  equity  dictates  that  the
applicant be afforded supplemental promotion consideration  to  master
sergeant for all cycles in which the contested report was  a  part  of
his  records.   We,  therefore,  conclude  that  he  should  be  given
supplemental promotion consideration for all  cycles  commencing  with
Cycle 98E7.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.    The indorser’s recommendation in  Section   IV  (Promotion
Recommendation), of the Enlisted Performance  Report  (AF  Form  910),
rendered for the period 14 June 1997 through 14 December 1997, be, and
hereby is, changed from “4” to “5”.

      b.    The mid-term feedback date be removed  from  the  Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 14 June  1997  through  14
December  1997,  and  add  the  following   statement:    “Ratee   has
established  that  no  mid-term  feedback  session  was  provided   in
accordance with AFI 36-2403.”
It  is  further  recommended  that   he   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master  sergeant  for  all
appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 98E7.

If  selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  by
supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental
consideration required as a result of that selection, if applicable.

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and  unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would  have  rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information  will  be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after  such  promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the  higher
grade on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion
and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such
grade as of that date.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 January 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member
              Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Jun 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 31 Sep 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Sep 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 99-01260




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.   The indorser’s recommendation in Section  IV
(Promotion Recommendation), of the Enlisted Performance Report (AF
Form 910), rendered for the period 14 June 1997 through 14 December
1997, be, and hereby is, changed from “4” to “5”.

            b.   The mid-term feedback date be removed from the
Enlisted Performance Report, rendered for the period 14 June 1997
through 14 December 1997, and add the following statement:  “Ratee has
established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in
accordance with AFI 36-2403.”

            It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 98E7.

            If selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant
by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection, if
applicable.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency