APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his request to have his HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, imposed under the Army’s Qualitative Management Program (QMP), rescinded.  He also now asks that he receive separation pay and, in effect, that his reenlistment eligibility code (RE) be changed on his separation document.

APPLICANT STATES:  With the exception of the addition of his request for separation pay and a revised RE code, the applicant submits the identical documentation he utilized in his original 1992 application to the Board.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case on 3 November 1993 (COPY ATTACHED).

In accordance with the applicant’s request he was separated on 30 April 1990 as a result of the QMP action.  At the time of his separation he had completed a total of 16 years and 
8 months of active Federal service; of which 12 months and 
8 days was with the Army.  Item 27 on his separation document reflects “RE CODE 4.”

The National Defense Authorization Act of FY91 authorized separation pay for enlisted soldiers.  As a result of the act half separation pay was authorized for soldiers who were involuntarily separated under the QMP on or after 5 November 1990.  It did not provide for retroactive separation pay to soldiers involuntarily separated prior to that date.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210, then in effect, covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter included a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-4 applied to those individuals separated before completing a contracted period of service as a result of a HQDA imposed 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.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. His RE-4 code was appropriate based on his separation under the QMP.

2.  The applicant had not one, but two letters of reprimand as a result of driving while intoxicated.  He was 31 years old at the time of his first DUI and 34 at the time of his second.  He should have been well aware of the consequences of his actions and the results such actions were likely to have on his military career.

3.  The Board notes that while the QMP identified only two evaluation reports as the primary basis for imposing the bar to reenlistment his overall performance was not so extraordinary as to warrant removal of the bar.

4.  At the time of the applicant’s involuntary release from active duty he was not entitled to separation pay and there were no provision in the law to retroactively award such pay to soldiers separated prior to the implementation date.

5.  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.

6.  The overall merits of the case, which lacks any new arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

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