Title: APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show that he was separated due to Reduction in Force, not Qualitative Retention Program; that his reentry code be changed to “1;” and that he either be reinstated, granted a 15-year ret
Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                           AC97-09127
Consideration

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show that he was separated due to Reduction in Force, not Qualitative Retention Program; that his reentry code be changed to “1;” and that he either be reinstated, granted a 15-year retirement, or granted full, rather than half, separation pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  That Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 16-8 does not allude to any reference of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), only to a Reduction in Force, and that the reentry code given is not supported by a Reduction in Force separation.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show he was born on   18 October 1958.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 1976 and was honorably discharged on 26 June 1979.  He reenlisted on 9 October 1979 and had continuous active service until his discharge.

During his initial term of service, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three separate occasions for unlawfully selling government property, value of about $2.02; disobeying a lawful order; and failing to go to physical training formation, respectively.  None of these Article 15s is filed on his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

On 9 December 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for striking an individual with a radio antenna and an M16 rifle, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at time prescribed, and for two other offenses.  His punishment was to be reduced to pay grade E-4 and to forfeit $250 pay for one month.  The applicant appealed the punishment.  The superior authority granted partial relief.  Two offenses were struck from consideration and the reduction was suspended for 6 months.

On 15 January 1992, the applicant received a Department of the Army (DA) Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  DA cited two documents, the 1981 Article 15 and one adverse non-commissioned officer evaluation report (NCO-ER), as the documents which contributed most to its decision.  The applicant appealed the Bar, but DA denied the appeal on                   
5 November 1992.  The board “judged that the past performance and estimated potential of the soldier are not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.”

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, 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 the 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.

On 22 January 1993, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-6, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, which directed the early release of soldiers with a QMP bar to reenlistment when budgetary or authorization limitations require a reduction in enlisted strength.  He was authorized separation pay.  His characterization of service was honorable.  His reentry code was “4.”  He had completed 16 years, 3 months and 12 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

The first early retirement program came into effect in Fiscal Year 1994.

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

1.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 is not in error.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The narrative reason for separation is correct for the chapter under which he was separated; the reentry code is correct for that reason.

3.  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

			     		         Loren G. Harrell	
	 	                                         Director