MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075163

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his reentry (RE) code be changed to 3 or lower.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was released from active duty because of a Department of the Army (DA) imposed bar to reenlistment and denial of his appeal for removal of the bar.  The bar was for two incidents -- for receiving a memorandum of reprimand in April 1990 for driving under the influence and for resisting arrest while drunk and disorderly in January 1999.  He takes full responsibility for his actions.  These were isolated incidents that occurred in Germany and do not reflect his potential to serve in a Reserve Component.  It was an error in judgment in underestimating the alcohol content level of German beverages.  His military job performance met or exceeded standards.  Since his separation he has been serving as a civilian contractor in Qatar and has gained the respect and confidence of his military and civilian superiors.  A Reserve unit has invited him to join as soon as possible if his RE code is changed.  Supporting evidence is as listed on his DD Form 149.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 1986. 

On 19 April 1990, the applicant was given a memorandum of reprimand for driving while intoxicated, losing control of his vehicle, striking a sewer cover, and fleeing the scene of an accident.

The applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 February 1998.  

On 18 February 1999, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being drunk and disorderly and for resisting apprehension.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $250.00 pay for two months.

The applicant's DA bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) packet is not available but apparently was dated around October 2000.  The applicant appealed.  His battalion, brigade, and installation commanders recommended approval of his appeal.  

On 9 April 2001, the U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC) informed the applicant's installation commander that his appeal was carefully reviewed by a recent DA Standby Board which disapproved his appeal, judging that his past performance and estimated potential were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  USAEREC 
informed the installation commander that the applicant must be discharged 90 days after receiving his pre-separation counseling or at his expiration term of service (ETS) if he had less than 120 days to ETS.  Discharge prior to ETS would be under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 19-12.  The narrative reason for separation would be "Non-Retention on Active Duty."  His RE code would be 4.  His separation program designator (SPD) code would be JGH.

The applicant was discharged on 22 August 2001, in pay grade E-6, after completing 14 years, 10 months, and 21 days of creditable active service.  His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, shows his separation authority as Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-7; his SPD as JCC; and the narrative reason for separation as "Reduction in Force."

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 19 contains policy and procedures for voluntary and involuntary separation, for the convenience of the Government, of Regular Army noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and U. S. Army Reserve NCOs serving on Active Guard/Reserve status under the QMP.  NCOs whose performance, conduct, and/or potential for advancement do not meet Army standards as determined by the appropriate recommendation of Headquarters, DA centralized selection boards responsible for QMP screening will be denied continued service. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers, (3) deny continued service to nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  Paragraph 19-12 provides for the involuntary discharge of soldiers who choose not to appeal a QMP selection for denial of continued service or whose appeal is denied. 

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 covers eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.  

The Separation Program Designator Code (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Code Cross-Reference Table dated March 2001 provides that RE code 4 will be given when soldiers are discharged under the QMP.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant was selected for a DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP for two similar incidents, one of which occurred while he was a noncommissioned officer.  Although his appeal was carefully reviewed by a DA Standby Board, it was that board's judgment that his past performance and estimated potential were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to overturn the judgment of that DA Standby Board.  The applicant has not shown that there was a material error or injustice in his selection for a DA bar to reenlistment.

3.  In view of the fact the applicant was separated due to a DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP, the assigned RE code of 4 was and still is appropriate.  The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment in the Regular Army or the U. S. Army Reserve and the disqualification is not waivable.  The Army National Guard, however, follows its own enlistment/reenlistment policies and procedures.  The applicant may want to consider applying to the Army National Guard for a waiver to enlist.  

4.  It is noted that the applicant's DD Form 214 does not reflect the correct separation authority, SPD, or narrative reason for separation.  However, he does not request those errors be corrected so the Board will not further address them.

5.  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

__RVO__  __MKP  _  __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION 

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075163	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.