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:

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.

                                   

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.