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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00201, Cse 2
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NO

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he  requests  the  Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) closing 31 May 90 be removed and replaced with the
“5” EPR closing 31 May 90 and in Section V of the  replacement  EPR  change
the statement  to  read:   “Ratee  has  established  that  feedback  wasn’t
provided IAW  AFR  39-62.”   He  would  also  like  supplemental  promotion
consideration for cycles 99E8 and 00E8.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
master sergeant.

A similar  appeal was  considered  and  denied  by the  Board on 8 May  01.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and  circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant's contested EPR, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 30 Aug 01,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration,
contending that the indorser (Lt Col H.) spoke with Capt M. and  determined
that Capt M. did not provide the feedback and downgraded the EPR because of
mistakes of others.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After careful  review  of  the
evidence submitted with this reconsideration request, the majority of the
Board is not  persuaded  that  the  contested  report  is  an  inaccurate
assessment of the applicant’s performance.  The two statements  from  the
evaluators of the  contested  report  are  duly  noted;  however,  it  is
apparent there is some discrepancy between these evaluators regarding the
assessment of the  applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  time
period
and whether or not written feedback was  provided.   Notwithstanding  the
statement from indorser, the majority does not believe the rater did  not
or could not properly assess the applicant’s performance - regardless  of
whether written feedback was provided.  Although the  indorser  may  well
have observed the applicant’s performance, there  has  been  no  evidence
presented which would indicate he was in a better position than the rater
to properly assess the applicant’s day-to-day performance.  Lastly, while
both statements cast some doubt regarding whether or not written feedback
was performed, the majority notes  that  lack  of  feedback,  in  and  of
itself, does not invalidate  a  performance  report.   Additionally,  the
majority notes the rater indicates that it was her habit to provide  oral
and/or  written  performance  feedback  to  all   personnel   under   her
supervision.  In view of the above findings, the majority again finds  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on October 18, 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
                       Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the  application.   Mr.
Robuck voted to correct the record and  has  submitted  a  Minority  Report
which is attached  Exhibit  H.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 May 01, w/Atchs.
      Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 01, w Atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Minority Report.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Acting Panel Chair








MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
                             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                             OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MRB
                 1535 COMMAND DR, SUITE 302
                 ANDREWS AFB, MD 20331-7002

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, SSN

      I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and
agree with the minority member of the panel that the contested Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) should be voided and removed from the
applicant's records and replaced with an amended reaccomplished report
and he be provided reconsideration for promotion for all appropriate
cycles.

      As noted by the minority member, the applicant has submitted new
evidence in support of his request.  The new evidence supports the
applicant's contention that he was not given the required mandatory
feedback session.  Granted, a rater's failure to conduct a required or
requested feedback session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent
EPR.  However, the statement from the Indorser persuades me that feedback
was not provided by the rater.

      Furthermore, considering the applicant's outstanding performance
history, I believe that the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in
his favor by voiding the contested EPR, replacing it with a
reaccomplished amended report and providing reconsideration for promotion
to senior master sergeant by all appropriate cycles.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency





AFBCMR 01-00201




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, SSN, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911, rendered
for the period 1 June 1989 through 31 May 1990, be and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The attached reaccomplished Enlisted Performance Report,
AF Form 911, rendered for the period 1 June 1989 through 31 May 1990,
reflecting an Indorser's Recommendation of an overall "5," be placed in
his records.

            c.  Section V, of the reaccomplished report be amended to
read:  "Ratee has established that feedback wasn't provided in accordance
with AFR 39-62."

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 99E8.

      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 qualification 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

Attachment:
Reaccomplished EPR, closing 31 May 90