MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077997

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 the Separation (SPD) Code and Reentry (RE) Code on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be changed to more favorable codes.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was based on a poor Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) which was unjust and is under appeal.  In support of his application he submits nine third party letters of support for his NCOER appeal and copies of two NCOERs.

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

While serving in the Air Force Reserve (AFR), the applicant contracted for enlistment in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  He was discharged from the AFR and enlisted in the USAR in the pay grade of E-5 on 31 October 1996, for a period of 3 years.  He was assigned to a USAR Troop Program Unit (TPU) in Oakdale, Pennsylvania for duty as an administrative specialist (71L). 

During the period of 15 November 1997 through 15 March 1998, the applicant was enrolled in a non-resident personnel specialist course (75H).  He failed to achieve course standards and meet attendance standards and an Academic Evaluation Report (DA Form 1059) was prepared accordingly.

On 1 November 1998, he entered active duty in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program and was assigned as the Personnel Service Sergeant (75H) for his unit in Oakdale.

On 30 July 2001, a memorandum was dispatched from the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) notifying the applicant that he was being barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The specifics surrounding the bar to reenlistment are not present in the available records; however, on 12 August 2001, the applicant selected option three of the DA Form 4941-R (Statement of Option) in which he requested to be discharged.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he would not be allowed to reenlist at a later date and that the option, once approved, could not be revoked.

On 31 October 2001, he was honorably discharged due to non-retention on active duty.  He had served 3 years of active service during his current enlistment (AGR Tour).  He was issued a SPD of "JGH" and a RE Code of "4".

A review of the applicant's records shows that he received an NCOER covering the period from October 1998 through September 1999 in which the rater gave him "No" ratings in Part IVa, under "Places dedication and commitment to the goals and missions of the Army and Nation above personal welfare" and "Is honest and truthful in word and deed."  The supporting comments indicate that the applicant did not place mission above other obligations and that he was not always where he was supposed to be.

In Parts IVc, under Physical Fitness and IVf, under Responsibility and Accountability, his rater gave him "Needs Improvement" ratings and indicated in the comments that despite two Army Physical Fitness Tests being administered, he failed to take one.  He fails to take responsibility for his own actions and fails to follow through on assigned tasks.

In Part V, under Overall Performance and Potential, his rater gave him a "Marginal" rating and his senior rater (SR) gave him "Poor" ratings.  The SR comments that the applicant possesses the ability to work hard when presented with specific tasks, that he needed to develop attention to detail in his work habits, that he displayed a lack of accountability as to his whereabouts on many occasions and that he should only be utilized in positions in which constant supervision is available.

In his next NCOER covering the period from October 1999 through February 2000, he received the same ratings and the supporting comments indicate he failed to put mission above personal affairs, has had lots of unaccountable time, he failed to take a APFT despite numerous opportunities to do so, has not gained in technical expertise, displays nonchalance regarding his obligations as a soldier, and he has minimal potential for future AGR utilization due to need for constant supervision. 

There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever appealed the evaluation reports to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB).

Army Regulation 601-280 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 enlisted soldiers, (3) deny reenlistment to non-progressive and non-productive 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 Department of the Army 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.  Soldiers who are within 2 years of qualifying for retirement on the date of separation will not be separated under this provision unless directed by the Secretary of the Army.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the Department of the Army bar to reenlistment under the QMP was imposed in compliance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate given the circumstances in this case.

3.  Likewise, he was issued the proper separation and RE Code at the time of his discharge.

4.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and the supporting documents submitted with his application.  However, the applicant did not appeal his bar to reenlistment under the QMP when he was afforded the opportunity to do so and he has not submitted any mitigating matters that would serve as a basis to make the changes he is requesting.

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 this requirement.

6.  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

__mm___  __clg ___  ___mb __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077997	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  7	100.0600/BAR	
2.  189	110.0000/CORR 214	
3.  4	100.0300/RE CODE	
4.		
5.		
6.