APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he feels that it was wrong to be involuntarily separated under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and barred from reenlistment.  He had already reenlisted for 6 years before they started downsizing the military.  He was honorably discharged with 14 1/2 years of good service.  He is now serving in the California Army National Guard, in pay grade E-5, as a tank gunner.  He was never in trouble, had no “DUI’s,” had no Articles 15 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, had good physical training tests, and had good noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER).  He has been trying to go back on active duty, but his reenlistment code needs to be changed.

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

He was born on 20 April 1958.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 18 April 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 25 (Category IV).  He remained on active duty through extensions and reenlistments until his discharge on 22 April 1992.  He was advanced/
promoted to pay grades E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, and E-6 effective 18 October 1978, 18 March 1979, 1 September 1979, 27 August 1980, and 7 September 1983, respectively.  He performed duties in military occupational specialties (MOS) 19E (M48 M60 Armor Crewman, 19F (Light Vehicle Driver), and 19K (M1 Armor Crewman).

A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 17 December 1981, indicated that the applicant attended the Primary NCO Course from 19 November 1981 through 18 December 1981; that he achieved course standards; that he had satisfactorily completed all phases of the course; that he had shown improvement in the area of leadership and was able to communicate with his peers in the 
accomplishment of the mission assigned to his squad; and that he had shown excellent potential to assure the responsibilities of a combat leader.

A DA Form 1059, dated 13 May 1983, indicated that the applicant attended the Basic NCO Course from 14 April 1983 through 13 May 1983; that he achieved course standards; that he accomplished all tasks required by the course; that he lacked greatly in self-confidence due to a deficiency in technical expertise; that he required maximum effort and instruction in order to achieve academic course standards; that he never did present a “quitters” attitude and continuously displayed a determined “can do” attitude; that he had the tactical ability for his position and was definitely more at home in the field, however, given the proper training and counseling, he could develop into a well rounded NCO capable of the next level of military education; and that, while attending the course of instruction, he also successfully completed the “BTMS” Workshop.

A DA Form 1059, dated 30 August 1989, indicated that the applicant attended the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) from 9 August 1989 through 3 November 1989; that he failed to achieve course standards; that he was unsuccessful in achieving the standards of the Armor ANCOC and consequently did not graduate; that he failed Military Branch History and the Army Safety Program on three separate attempts; that he had extreme difficulty reading, writing, and understanding English; that, because of that fact, he had shown only a marginal willingness to assist and lead others which was a demonstrated weakness for a NCO; and that he had not acquired all of the technical skills needed to be a solid performer, therefore, he had to improve his technical and tactical skills prior to attending any further leadership schools.  (Note:  This was one of the basis for the applicant’s QMP action.)

A DA Form 1059, dated 29 August 1990, indicated that the applicant attended the ANCOC from 8 August 1990 through 2 November 1990; that he failed to achieve course standards; that he had been declared a non-graduate of the course; that he failed Phase 1, Test 1, Common Leader Training; that he was permitted to take two retests and failed both; that he consistently showed a weakness in reading comprehension and a weakness in grasping subject matter; that it was his second attempt at the course within the last 12 months, and in both cases he failed Phase 1, Test 1; and that he had shown no noticeable improvement and should not be allowed to reattend the course.  (Note:  This was one of the basis for the applicant’s QMP action.)

For the periods March 1979 through May 1988, the applicant received the following enlisted evaluation reports (the average score is shown with 125 being the maximum score achievable):  120, 117, 125, 119.5, 122, 123, 125, 125, 125, 125, and 125.

The following is a record of the applicant’s available NCOERs:  (The rating system depicted below is limited to three entries.  The first entry is derived from Part Va (the rater’s rating of the NCO’s overall potential for promotion and or service in positions of greater responsibility), expressed in Roman numerals, with “I” (Among the Best) the highest and “III” (Marginal) the lowest; and the last two entries are derived from Part Vc (the senior rater’s rating of the NCO’s overall performance) and Part Vd (the senior rater’s rating of the NCO’s overall potential for promotion and or service in positions of greater responsibility) respectively, also expressed in Roman numerals, with “I thru III” indicating a rating of “Successful/Superior,” “IV” indicating a rating of “Fair,” and “V” indicating a rating of “Poor.”

    Period		Score/Rater/		Type of Report
				Senior Rater

Jun 88-May 89		I/II/II			Annual*
Aug 89-Dec 89		II/II/II			Change of Rater**
Jan 90-Jun 90		II/III/III		Change of Rater***
Jul 90-Jun 91		II/II/II			Annual
Jul 91-Sep 91		II/II/II			Change of Rater
Oct 91-Dec 91		II/II/II			Change of Rater
_______________
*This NCOER was one of the basis for the applicant’s QMP action.
**The rater indicated that the applicant needed some improvement in Part IVb (Competence).  Also, he stated that the applicant’s absence from MOS related position for 3 years had diminished tank skills.
***This NCOER was one of the basis for the applicant’s QMP action.  The rater indicated that the applicant needed some improvement in Part IVb (Competence).  Also, the rater stated that the applicant scored 59 percent on the skill qualification test (SQT); and that he raised the general technical (GT) score to only 93 after 2 1/2 months in the Basic Skills Education Program.  The senior rater stated that the SQT and GT scores were not an accurate reflection of the applicant’s competence and potential.

The Calendar Year 1991 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion/
Selection Board reviewed the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File and determined that he would be barred from reenlistment under the QMP.  The NCOERs for the rating periods June 1988-May 1989 and January 1990-June 1990 and the DA Forms 1059, dated 30 August 1989 and 29 August 1990, were the documents used as the basis for the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) bar to reenlistment.  A notification was sent on 15 January 1992 by the authorities at the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center to the applicant advising him of the HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, and of his options.

On 24 January 1992, the applicant was notified by a commissioned officer (a lieutenant colonel) of the HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, and of his options.  The applicant indicated that he understood that the QMP Program had been in effect since February 1990, and that he was in a nonpromotable status while the bar remained in effect.  He indicated that he would not submit an appeal, and that he understood that he would be separated within 90 days as of the date of the option statement under Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 16-8.

On 24 January 1992, the commander indicated that he had presented the notification of the DA bar to reenlistment, explained the available options, and counseled the applicant on his rights, the provisions of the Enlisted Qualitative 
Early Separation Program, and Army Regulation 635-200.  Also, he indicated that he would not submit a separate appeal on the applicant’s behalf.

On 22 April 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-6, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 (reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early transition program).  He had completed 14 years and 5 days active military service.  He was assigned a reentry code of RE-4.  He received numerous decorations and awards to include the Army Commendation Medal with 1st oak leaf cluster, the Good Conduct Medal (4th Award), the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze stars, and the Kuwait Liberation Medal.  He received separation pay of $14,258.16.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, provides for the early separation of soldiers prior to the expiration of their terms of service due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  When authorization limitations, strength restrictions, or budgetary constraints require the size of the enlisted force to be reduced, the Secretary of the Army, or his designee, will authorize voluntary or involuntary early separation.
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.  The reentry code of RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  (Includes persons being separated with a DA bar to reenlistment in effect.)

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.  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’s HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to significantly jeopardize the applicant’s rights.  The Board notes that the applicant nor his commander submitted an appeal to the applicant’s QMP action.

3.  The HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment and its retention are appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

5.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of that disqualification which established the basis for the RE code.

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

7.  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