APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge as a result of a DA imposed bar to reenlistment be rescinded and that his records be corrected to show that he served until his normally scheduled separation date (ETS) and then retired for length of service.  As an alternative he asked that he be separated with entitlement to the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI).

APPLICANT STATES:  When he entered the Army in 1973 his consumption of alcoholic beverages was only moderate.  However, as a result of the Army’s “widely accepted and even encouraged” consumption of alcohol his “drinking progressed in frequency and quantity” ultimately resulting in three DWI charges and associated disciplinary actions.  He noted that he was consistently told by his superiors that he was a “victim of circumstance” and supported these statements by the lenient punishments he received as part of the non-judicial punishments imposed following each of his DWI incidents.  He states that although he was referred for alcohol counseling on two different occasions, “because it was required for soldiers who were arrested for DWI, not because [his] command thought [he] had a problem with alcohol,” no one recognized the severity of his illness and therefore he did not receive proper medical intervention.  The applicant states in spite of his three alcohol related events his record was outstanding.  He states that although his selection under the Army’s Qualitative Management Program and subsequent separation “weighed heavily on” him he had not “yet reached [his] “bottom” and continued to drink after his separation.  The applicant notes he eventually stopped drinking and turned to crack cocaine but by March 1992 he had “finally reached [his] bottom and quit using any form of mood altering substance.”  He states he has completely abstained since that date.

The applicant states that his “discharge was a direct result of the Army’s failure to properly diagnose and treat [his] disease of alcoholism” and he is “now requesting that [he] be given something for the over 16 years of active service [he] gave [his] country.”



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

He entered active duty on 15 June 1973 and served his entire military career in the supply areas.  His assignments included two tours in Germany, one in Korea and more than 3 years as an instructor at the Army’s Quartermaster School at Fort Lee, Virginia.

The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6 in 1980 and received two awards of the Army Commendation Medal, one Army Achievement Medal and several letters of commendation/achievement.

In August 1978 the applicant received his first record of non-judicial punishment for DWI.  In April 1979 he was again punished under Article 15, UCMJ for DWI and in March 1988 he received a letter of reprimand when he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test after being discovered “unconscious behind the steering wheel in an automobile that was in a ditch.”

On 30 August 1987 the applicant reenlisted for a period of 6 years thus establishing his scheduled ETS date as 29 October 1993.  However, on 8 February 1989 the applicant was notified of his selection for a DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the Army’s Qualitative Management Program.  The notification letter indicated that his two records of non-judicial punishment and the letter of reprimand “contributed most to the board’s decision....”  Although he initially indicated that he would appeal the DA bar, on 27 June 1989 he requested separation noting that he did not believe he would be able to over come the bar.

The applicant’s request was approved and he was voluntarily released from active duty on 27 July 1989 with an honorable characterization of service.  At the time of his separation he had completed 16 years, 1 month, and 13 days of active Federal service.

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 policy and the Department of Defense Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual (DODPM), based on Public Law 102-190, 5 December 1991, as amended, prescribes the qualifications for entitlement to readjustment benefits for certain voluntarily separated members.  Monetary benefits associated with the program included a lump sum payment (Special Separation Benefit/SSB) or an annual payment for a specified number of years (Voluntary Separation Incentive/VSI).  The incentives were available to members who were retainable on active duty who requested voluntarily separation from active duty prior to selection for an involuntary separation.  Generally, to qualify for either incentive individuals must have served on active duty for more than 6 years prior to enactment of this law, served at least 5 years of continuous active duty preceding separation, and meet such other requirements as the Secretary may prescribe which could include requirements relating to years of service, skill, and grade.  Implementation of the program first occurred in FY92 and was one of several management tools utilized to assist in the Army’s drawdown.

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.  The applicant’s voluntary separation after imposition of the DA bar to reenlistment was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  While the Board sympathizes with the emotional turmoil the applicant may have experienced as a result of his separation from the military, and commends him for his recent strides in taking control of his addiction problems, neither serves as a basis to rescind the bar to reenlistment or permit him to qualify for retirement or separation benefits.

3.  The Manual for courts-martial states that voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not an excuse for an offense committed while in that condition.  That this standard of conduct is accepted not only by the military but by society as a whole is demonstrated by the fact that drunk drivers are held legally responsible for the results of their behavior even though they are shown to be alcoholic.

4.  The QMP is a tool used by the Army to ensure a quality force and as such was designed to deny continued service to those soldiers whose past performance or future potential does not meet the stringent requirements for continued service.  The applicant has provided no evidence to support that his case is so extraordinary or that his overall service was so outstanding that removal of the bar and reinstatement is warranted.

5.  The VSI program was implemented after the applicant’s separation from active duty.  Even if the program had been in effect the applicant would not have been eligible, because of the QMP action, to apply for the program.  A soldier selected for a DA imposed bar to reenlistment should not benefit from the increased monetary benefits given to others who are fully qualified for continued service but whose skills or grade now simply exceed the needs of a smaller more focused Army and were permitted to request one of the early separation benefits when the program was implemented.

6.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

7.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

8.  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