MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:   
	                  

	BOARD DATE:      18 March 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC96-08637

	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.  The following members, a quorum, were present:



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

	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 DA Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be reconsidered.  He further requests that his Separation Program Designator (SPD) be changed from JCC to JBK (expiration term of service) and that his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-1.  He also requests that the separation authority as currently reflected on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be changed from Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 16-8 to AR 635-200, paragraph 4-2 and that he be paid the remaining 50 percent of his severance pay.  Additionally, he requests that two letters dated 18 November 1993 written to a Senator’s office by a clerk at the US Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) be removed from his record or that an addendum be made.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the letter dated 18 November 1993 clearly refers to his gender as female and contends that he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 17 June 1982 for driving while under the influence and that the only NJP he ever received was for an alleged failure to repair.  He further states that he believes that this definitely places in question whether the QMP Board was reviewing the correct personnel file and whether he would have been selected at all for the QMP process.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his QMP appeal, a memorandum denying his QMP appeal, two letters from EREC to a Senator’s office explaining the reasons that the applicant was barred from reenlistment and apologizing for errors made in the explanation , two letters from a Senator’s office written to the applicant, notification to the applicant that a DA Standby Advisory Board (STAB) denied his appeal of the bar to reenlistment, notification to the Commander of the 1st Armored Division of the applicant’s disapproved appeal, a from the applicant to the Senator’s office, a letter from a paralegal to the Senator’s office, and a memorandum from the applicant, through his chain of command, requesting an exception to policy for separation benefits.

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

On 29 August 1978 he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed training as a Water Treatment Specialist.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 October 1991.

On 17 June 1982 NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

On 12 March 1986 the applicant received a letter of reprimand for failure to timely return from approved leave. He was authorized only 10 days leave upon completion of his temporary duty at the Quartermaster School at Fort Lee, Virginia.  He signed out of school on 5 December 1986, yet he did not return to duty until 12 January 1986.  The applicant opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

A review of the applicant’s NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period covering September 1988 through January 1989 shows his overall performance as fair and it indicates that he needed improvement in leadership ability and in responsibility and accountability.

He was rated as a marginal performer on his NCOER for the period covering December 1989 through November 1990 and it shows that he needed improvement in competence.  The senior rater indicated that his overall performance was fair and his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility was poor.

On 5 April 1993, the applicant received notification from the EREC that he was being barred from reenlistment under the QMP.  He was informed that the CY93 Sergeant First Class/Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course Promotion/Selection Board reviewed his record of service, including performance and future potential for retention in the Army.  He was also provided with a list of the documents which contributed most to the board’s decision to bar him from reenlistment.  On the list were the two NCOERs, the NJP, and the letter of reprimand mentioned above.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the bar to reenlistment on 9 June 1993.  On 27 December 1993 his appeal was denied by a STAB.

On 18 November 1993 the EREC responded to a congressional inquiry on behalf of the applicant.  In the response USAEREC, attempted to explain what documents were used during the QMP process and noted that the department inadvertently indicated that the NJP that he received was for driving while under the influence of alcohol and that twice had mistakenly referred to his gender as female.

In a letter to a Senator’s office dated 7 January 1994, the applicant expressed his disbelief in the errors that were made by the EREC while responding to the letter from the Senator’s office and expressed his concern as to whether or not the service record that was reviewed by the QMP board was his.

In response to a congressional inquiry, dated 10 February 1994, the EREC apologized for the mistakes that were made during the preparation of the 18 November 1993 response and assured the Senator that the documents used during the review of the applicant’s appeal clearly identified his gender as male.

On 4 May 1994, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16 for non-retention on active duty.  He was given a separation program designator of KGH and an RE code of RE-1.  He had completed 15 years, 8 months and 6 days of total active service and was given one half separation pay.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, 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 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 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge. Incident to the request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.

RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification such as a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.

DA Circular 635-92-1 dated 1 August 1992 set forth the policy and procedures regarding separation.  It states that one half payment of separation pay is authorized to soldiers who meet the criteria in paragraph 2-1 and who are not fully qualified for retention and are involuntarily separated.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board notes the inaccuracies in the USAEREC’s responses to the Senator’s Office dated 18 November 1993.  However, those inaccuracies have no bearing on the fact that the applicant’s bar to reenlistment was based on his record of service and overall performance.  He was properly informed on 5 April 1993 of the exact documents that were used during the QMP process.  He was barred from reenlistment and, therefore, the RE code and the separation code that he received are appropriate.  Moreover, he met the criteria set forth in DA Circular 635-92-1 and was issued the appropriate amount of separation pay.

4.  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.

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

 TNK     JS      CLA   DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director