APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he either be allowed to enlist in the Army National Guard or reinstated on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  He had less than 2 ½ years left before he would have reached retirement eligibility and at the time of his discharge, his duty performance and responsibilities were “on line” with his peers and exceeded Army standards.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1974, was awarded the military occupational specialty of power generator equipment operator/mechanic and infantry wheeled vehicle mechanic.  He served through consecutive reenlistments and was promoted to pay grade E-6.

While on active duty, on 13 November 1974 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer; he accepted NJP on 7 August 1978 for disobeying a lawful order; and he accepted NJP  on 2 May 1979 for again disobeying a lawful order.

The applicant’s performance ratings for periods ending November 1987, May 1988, November 1988, April 1989, and December 1989 were less than what would be expected for an NCO.  The report he was given for the period ending May 1991 was adverse, failing him on two Army ethics, stating that he needed improvement in competence, leadership, responsibility and accountability.  Bullet comments included “lacks dedication at times” and “fails to follow instruction”, “demonstrated difficulty in management of maintenance areas”, “failed to counsel subordinates”, “communicated inaccurate information to superiors and subordinates alike”, “failed to task section NCO’s on shop requirements”, “requires some guidance to plan and conduct training”, did not maintain accountability of assigned tool sets, kits and outfits”, “needs to work on leadership skills”, and “management skills need improvement.”  His overall rating was considered marginal.

On 15 January 1992 the applicant was notified a bar to his reenlistment was being imposed under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  There is no evidence that the applicant appealed that bar.

Accordingly, on 12 May 1992 the applicant was honorably discharged due to reduction in strength, qualitative early transition program.  He had a total of 17 years, 7 months and 12 days of active service.

Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and options available in the Army Reenlistment Program.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service. This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative discharge from active service is not warranted.  Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification are, but are not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, and substandard performance of duties.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the applicant’s contention that he was within 2 ½ years of retirement is upheld by his military records, his contention that his duty performance was “on line” with his peers and exceeded Army standards is not.

2.  The applicant’s record of NJP’s and his substandard and adverse evaluations clearly support his selection for a QMP bar to reenlistment.

3.  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