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
which preclude enlistment.  The applicant states, in effect, that the RE-4 is not applicable to the circumstances at the time of his discharge; that personnel are not eligible for Guard or Reserve duties with a code of RE-4; that he holds a critical military occupational specialty (MOS); and that he desires to serve with his local Guard unit.

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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

He was born on 14 June 1956.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  He served in the Regular Army (RA) from 29 August 1975 through 25 October 1983.  During that period, he attained the pay grade of E-5 and served in MOS’s 45K (Tank Turret Repairman), 67Y10 (Attack Helicopter Repairer) and 67Y20 (Senior Attack Helicopter Repairer).  Also, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully communicating to another soldier a threat to smack him.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days, which he did not appeal.  On 5 October 1982, a local bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant since he did not meet the Army’s weight standards.  On 30 September 1993, the local bar to reenlistment was lifted since he met the Army weight standards.

On 5 October 1984, he enlisted in the RA, in pay grade 
E-4, for 3 years.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 74 (Category II).  He was promoted to pay grade E-5 effective 5 February 1985, and was advised to apply to this Board.  Subsequently, the Board recommended that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to pay grade E-5 effective 1 January 1979, which was approved.  On 26 July 1985, he extended his enlistment for 4 months in order to complete a normal oversea tour in Europe.  His MOS was 45K.
The applicant received the following senior enlisted evaluation reports (SEER) and EER’s (maximum score was 125):

	Period	Score	Type of Report

	Mar 76-Nov 77	113	Initial (1)
	Dec 77-Oct 78	116	Annual (2)
	Nov 78-Apr 79	112.5	Annual
	May 79-Mar 80	113	Change of Rater (3)
	Apr 80-Mar 81	107.5	Change of Rater (4)
	Apr 81-Aug 81	 80.5	Change of Rater (5)
	Sep 81-Aug 82	105	Annual (6)
	Sep 82-Mar 83	101	Change of Rater (7)
	Apr 83-Jul 83	 32.5	Relief for Cause (8)
	Mar 83(sic)-Jul 86	118	Annual (9)
	Aug 86-Dec 86	112.5	Change of Rater (10)
	Jan 87-Dec 87	119.5	Annual (11)
	Jan 88-Aug 88	110.5	Final (12)

The applicant received a noncommissioned evaluation report (NCOER) as follows (Under overall potential and/or service in positions of greater responsibility, the rater could indicate among the best, fully capable, or marginal.  Under overall performance, the senior rater could indicate successful (1 being the highest and 3 being the lowest), fair (4), and poor (5).  Under overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility, the senior rater could indicate successful (1 being the highest and 3 being the lowest), fair (4), and poor (5).):

	Period	Rater's Comment  Senior Rater

	Sep 88-Jan 89	Marginal         4/4 (13)

         
(1)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant’s ability to work in harmony with both his supervisors and subordinates as well as his personal behavior was much more successful today than it was 90 days ago.  The indorser stated that the applicant had a “can do” attitude, but needed to learn to think out problems before hand thereby eliminating mistakes.
(2)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant needed to improve his leadership abilities.
(3)  On this SEER, the rater stated that the applicant had a problem with personal appearance and needed some experience in leadership.
(4)  On this SEER, that rater states that the applicant lacked the ability to communicate with his supervisors and subordinates due to his lack of initiative and failure to accept the responsibility of a NCO.  The indorser stated that the applicant was never to busy to sit down and talk to any subordinate with a personal problem, but he lacked the personal experience to solve all the problems.
(5)  On this SEER, the rater stated that the applicant sought little potentials of improving his knowledge or appearance; that his communication to other team members was lacking and needed great improvement; and that the applicant’s leadership qualities was not up to military standards.  The indorser stated that the applicant had the potentials for being a good NCO if he would apply himself to the task of being an NCO; that he showed little initiative towards his duty performance, appearance, or responsibility; and that he sought minimum ways in self-improvement as off duty or on duty schooling.
(6)  On this EER, that rater stated that the applicant, as an “AH-1” aircraft repairman, performed his duties with supervision; and that, during this rating period, the applicant performed marginally and accomplished only mediocre results.  The indorser stated that the applicant was a colorless soldier; that he lacked the ability to create enthusiasm among his subordinates; that he was habitually untidy in his performance and dress, therefore, he  makes an unfavorable impression wherever he goes; and that the applicant was unwilling to work as part of a team.
(7)  The indorser stated that, many times, the applicant was placed in a position requiring him to supervise his subordinates, during which time he failed to recognize safety hazards; that his subordinates were not properly dressed for inclement weather conditions; and that he allowed abuse of a government vehicle to occur.
(8)  The rater stated that the applicant had been performing far below an acceptable level in his assigned duties as a crew chief; that his poor judgment and lack of technical skills had compromised the safety and availability of his assigned aircraft and other aircraft he had worked on; that the applicant’s poor military appearance, bearing, and lack of initiative had caused him to lose the respect of his superiors and subordinates; and that this had caused a “moral” and discipline problem.  The indorser stated that the applicant had not performed at an acceptable level and demonstrated no leadership ability as an “AH-13” crew chief; that he lacked basic technical skills in aviation maintenance and tasks which were essential to an E-5; that he showed no desire to learn these tasks and expressed little self-confidence; that given 2 weeks to study “TM 38-750” with specific guidance, the applicant failed to satisfactorily complete a written examination; that he declined the opportunity for additional training; that his military bearing was poor and did not meet minimum Army standards; and that these factors had combined to compromise the applicant’s leadership integrity and resulted in loss of respect an E-5 deserves from his subordinates.  This EER was used as a partial basis for a Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) imposed bar to reenlistment.
(9)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant had been a soldier of minimal personal standards, however, the hard work and dedication he put in on his assigned vehicles was highly noted; that it was this standard that should be used towards improving his uniform and personal appearance; and that by raising his standards and a little more effort, he could be an outstanding NCO.  The indorser stated that the applicant’s enrollment in the weight control program affected his ability to have a good solid military appearance.
(10)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant’s level of technical knowledge in his MOS was constantly improving, but he needed further training to provide effective leadership and improve the professional competence of himself and to better supervise his subordinates.  The indorser stated that the applicant needed little supervision in the performance of his assigned duties, but he needed to improve his conduct toward both his peers and subordinates; and that he needed to gain more knowledge in his MOS and get his weight under control. This EER was used as a partial basis for a HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment.
(11)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant had not fully developed his leadership skills.
(12)  On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant was assigned to the team as an artillery support supervisor with no prior experience with “M109A2” fire control systems; that this had made it difficult for him to maintain the standards set; that it had also made it hard for him to train his peers; and that the applicant needed to seek self-improvement and leadership development training.  The indorser stated that the applicant’s performance as a NCO could be improved with a little more initiative on his part; that he needed to seek self-improvement courses on leadership and communication skills to help make him a more efficient NCO; and that the applicant required no supervision on his technical skills, however, he did require a lot of supervision on his soldierly skills and how to deal with subordinates in a tactful manner.
(13)  On this NCOER, in Part IV-Values/NCO Responsibilities, the rater checked “No” to “Is committed to and shows a sense of pride in the unit-works as a member of the team.  Also, the rater stated that the applicant had demonstrated a lack of willingness to work as a member of the “4/82” contact team, and that he would often report to formations in unpressed uniforms and unpolished boots.  In Part IV-Values/NCO Responsibilities, the rater stated that the applicant needed to improve his ways to learn, grow, and improve; that he needed to improve his personal appearance and obtain a passing score in the Army Physical Readiness Test; that he needed to improve his leadership skills; and that he needed to increase his awareness of his responsibilities as an NCO and of his subordinates.  The senior rater stated that that applicant’s short temper hindered his ability to work with a team.
         

The Calendar Year 1988 Master Sergeant/Sergeant Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Selection Board reviewed the applicant's Official Military Personnel File and determined that he would be barred from reenlistment.  The EER’s for the rating periods April-July 1983 and August-December 1986 were the documents used as the basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment.  A notification was sent on 14 October 1988 by the authorities at the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC) to the applicant advising him of the HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, and of his options.

On 28 October 1988, the USAEREC sent a notification to the applicant’s oversea division commander to have the applicant notified of the HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment, and of his options.  The notification was forwarded to the applicant’s battalion commander on 
10 November 1988.  There is no documentation in the available records as to when the applicant was notified of the HQDA bar to reenlistment and his options.

A staff member of the Board was informally advised by the authorities at the USAEREC that their records for 1988 are not available regarding the applicant’s QMP action, and that the applicant’s entire service is considered under the QMP program.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 1 February 1989, in pay grade E-5, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4 by reason of expiration of term of service.  He had completed a total of 12 years, 5 months, and 24 days active military service, and 3 months and 25 days inactive military service.  He was given a reentry code of 4.  He received the following decorations and awards:  the Good Conduct Medal (2d Award), the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon (2d Award), the Aircraft Crewman Badge, and the Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle M-16).

There is no evidence that the applicant made any effort to have the alleged error or injustice corrected prior to this application.

Army Regulation 601-280, at chapter 10, sets forth the 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.


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 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.

Army Regulation 601-210 provides, in pertinent part, that persons separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification (includes persons being separated with a HQDA bar to reenlistment in effect) are ineligible for enlistment.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 1 February 1989, the date the applicant was discharged.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 February 1992.

The application is dated 24 July 1995, and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.




BOARD VOTE:

                      EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

                      GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                      CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




		David R. Kinneer
		Executive Secretary