APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his separation under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be set aside and that he be allowed to reenlist to complete his military career. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he gave the Army 17 years of dedicated service which should be taken into consideration; that he cleared up his personal indebtedness problems by paying his bills and divorcing his wife who as a drug abuser was the main source of his debt; that he was a good soldier who received many awards and outstanding evaluations. COUNSEL CONTENDS: NA EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 3 February 1958 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 30 January 1976. He was trained as a chemical operations specialist and a combat signaler and remained on continuous active duty, rising to the rank of staff sergeant on 1 May 1985. In 1989, the applicant was stationed in Italy. Having incurred a large amount of debt which he was unable to repay, his situation was brought to the attention of his chain of command by his creditors. On an NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period 8902-8910, he was cited for lacking dedication and commitment, not being a team player, failing to maintain high standards of conduct, and for being dishonest in word and deed. His competence and leadership were questioned, and his senior rater characterized his overall performance as poor. The applicant received similarly poor NCOER’s for the periods 8911-9004, 9011-9109, and 9110-9202. Also during this timeframe, the US Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland revoked his security clearance because of his indebtedness. The applicant departed Italy in May 1992 for an assignment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with temporary duty at the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) at Fort McClellan, Alabama. He did not complete ANCOC and was released from the course after 1 month due to family problems. When he arrived at Fort Bragg, his commander requested that he be reevaluated for a security clearance and, on 15 October 1992, he was notified that the applicant was cleared for Top Secret information. The applicant’s records went before the Calendar Year 1993 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion/Selection Board. He was not selected for promotion and, on 5 April 1993, he was notified that he was being barred from reenlistment under the QMP. Cited as the reason for this action were the above mentioned NCOER’s and his 1989 security clearance revocation. He did not appeal the Department of the Army bar to reenlistment and was separated from the Army on 14 July 1993 with an honorable discharge. He had 17 years, 5 months, and 15 days of creditable service. Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards. It is designed to (1) enhance quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram. Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards. The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded: 1. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 2. The applicant received a series of poor NCOER’s while serving in Italy. He also had his security clearance withdrawn because of a serious indebtedness problem. The DA QMP qualitative screening subprogram properly identified the applicant for a DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP. He was properly notified and counseled and chose not to appeal the bar, knowing full well that he would be separated within 90 days of notification. 3. The Board recognizes the steps that the applicant has taken to correct his personal life and commends him for that; however, such steps at this point in time do not warrant granting the applicant’s request. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director