APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Removal of his Department of the Army (DA) imposed bar to reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes he received a bar to reenlistment due to discrepancies in his record caused by enlisted evaluation reports that were not a true evaluation of his worth as a soldier and a noncommissioned officer.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 May 1977 and was honorably discharged on 11 August 1989 in pay grade         E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.

On 14 October 1988 the applicant was informed that his records had been reviewed by a DA Qualitative Management Program (QMP) board and he had been barred from reenlistment.  The QMP determined that he was deficient in several areas of performance including competence, training and personal values and should, therefore, not be permitted to reenlist.

The applicant appealed the findings of the QMP.  His appeal did not cite specific examples of discrepancies in his records but rather contested the overall evaluation of his record by the QMP Board.  Specifically, he stated that his enlisted evaluation reports (EER’s) show that he was an above average NCO with room to grow in some areas.  He contended that the scores on his EER’s were average for his grade and military occupational specialty.  On two EER’s, he stated, that the low scores were the result of controversies between himself and his platoon sergeant, and because he had not completed the primary leadership development course, he received two other low evaluations.  He stated that he subsequently completed the primary leadership development course and had also completed the basic NCO course (albeit after the cutoff date of the QMP review).

On 9 May 1989 the applicant’s appeal was denied.  The appeals board judged that the applicant’s past performance and estimated potential were not in keeping with the standards of the NCO corps.

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.

Separation proceedings under chapter 13, 14 or other appropriate chapters of this regulation will be initiated within 60 days against soldiers for whom a DA imposed bar to reenlistment has been finally approved.

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.  The applicant has submitted no evidence of material error or substantive inaccuracy of any of his evaluation reports.  His request to this Board, like his appeal of the bar to reenlistment, deals in generalities and his disagreement with the ratings he received.

2.  Moreover, he does not deny the accuracy of the low ratings he received.  But instead of refuting the reports, he attempts to explain the reason for the rating from his perspective and how he improved his performance.

3.  Evaluation reports that are inconsistent with others in the OMPF do not mean that they are inaccurate or unjust.  Some soldiers do not perform certain duties as well as others and this is one of the things the evaluation reporting system is supposed to reflect.

4.  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.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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