2. The applicant requests revocation of his separation under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and that he be allowed to retire under the 15 year early retirement authority. In effect, he states he was involuntarily separated just 26 days short of attaining 18 years of active Federal service. He notes he had 30 days of accumulated leave which could have been utilized to extend his 31 December 1993 mandatory separation date sufficiently to enable him to reach the 18 year mark. He states that the FY94 early retirement program allowed soldiers with over
18 years of active Federal service to apply for early retirement regardless of specialty or grade if they were facing involuntary separation as a result of the QMP. The applicant notes his involuntary separation has been devastating and that it was very hard “to watch personnel with less active service time, and less rank retire at
15 years.” He states it “is unfair to involuntarily separate [him] without giving [him] a chance to separate under one of the other programs that other soldiers had a choice of selecting” and notes he gave the Army “the best 18 years of [his] life,” was separated as a well-respected staff sergeant and that his evaluation reports “were all written to reflect that [he was] an above average NCO and very proficient in [his] job.”

3. Records available to the Board indicate he entered active duty on 26 January 1976. Although he was initially trained as an air defense artilleryman he ultimately was reclassified to duties in the aircraft maintenance arena. He was promoted to pay grade E-6 in June 1985 and, according to his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), has been awarded two Army Achievement Medals. His average performance evaluation score prior to 1988 was
113.7 out of a possible 125. Under the new NCO evaluation report system, implemented in 1988, his performance was generally rated as successful while his senior raters placed him in the top block on two of his six NCO evaluation reports.

4. In March 1979 the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for being drunk and disorderly in Korea. Although there is no record of any military action, his 1991 reenlistment contract notes he was charged with domestic violence in April 1991 while assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona and paid a fine. In June 1992, while assigned to Germany, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for his sexual involvement with a woman not his wife. His punishment included a suspended reduction, forfeiture of $500.00 for 2 months, and 45 days extra duty.

5. On 5 May 1993 the applicant was notified that he had been identified for the imposition of a HQDA bar to reenlistment as a result of the Army’s QMP. The QMP notification letter indicated the QMP board considered the applicant’s record of service, including past performance and future potential, and identified the two records of NJP as an area of deficiency or weakness “which contributed most to the board’s decision....” At the time of his QMP notification he had completed 17 years and 3 months of active Federal service.

6. Although the applicant’s appeal of the QMP action was supported by his unit and battalion commanders his brigade commander and the Deputy Commanding General of V Corps recommended denial. The applicant’s appeal was denied on
10 September 1993 and he was notified that he was required to separate not later than 31 December 1993. In early October 1993 the applicant requested that he be allowed to retire as an exception to policy under the FY94 early retirement program announced on 10 August 1993. He noted in his request that soldiers with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment with over 18 years of service were being allowed to apply for early retirement and that he was only “25 days short of this goal.” His command was notified that the Army’s retirement services branch was not processing any requests for early retirement as an exception to policy and as such orders directing his involuntary separation were published on 15 November 1993.

7. On 31 December 1993 the applicant was separated from active duty in pay grade E-6 and received $19,534.18 in separation pay. At the time of his separation he had completed 17 years, 11 months, and 5 days of active Federal service.

8. 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. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

9. The early retirement program was instituted in fiscal year 1993 as one of several programs implemented to reduce the strength of the Army. The program targeted specific occupational groups, grades, and years of service. Individuals identified for involuntary separation under the QMP, with less than 18 years of active Federal service, were precluded from applying for the early retirement program.

CONCLUSIONS :

1. Although the applicant’s involuntary separation under the Army’s Qualitative Management Program was accomplished in accordance with established procedures the basis for the QMP action stemmed from two NJP actions, one of which was were administered early in his career and more than 10 years prior to his QMP selection.

2. The Board notes, however, that the applicant’s nearly
18 years of continuous active Federal service was not marred by any other derogatory information and he consistently received high marks from members of his chain of command. It is highly unlikely he would have been identified under the QMP if the Army were not in the midst of a significant reduction in force. Soldiers in similar circumstances with just 25 additional days of service would have been permitted to retire under the Army’s early retirement program.

3. In view of the foregoing, and in the interest of justice, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to vacate the applicant’s involuntary separation, show that he remained on active duty until 31 January 1994 which would put him over 18 years of service and then allow him to retire under the FY 1994 early retirement program.

RECOMMENDATION :

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

         a. by recouping the $19,534.18 involuntary separation pay from the individual concerned;

         b. by showing that the action involuntarily separating him from active duty on 31 December 1993 as a result of a DA imposed bar to reenlistment is void and of no force or effect;

         c. by showing that he remained on active duty until
31 January 1994, was then separated by reason of voluntary early retirement and his name placed on the retired rolls effective 1 February 1994;

         d. by showing in block 18 (remarks) of his DD Form 214 “member is retiring as provided by section 4403 of the FY 1993 NDAA (PL 102-484) and may qualify for a recomputation of retired pay at age 62 (section 4464) of the same law”, in block 26 (separation code) “RBE”, in block 28 (narrative reason) “Voluntary Early Retirement” and in block 27 (reentry code) “RE-4R”; and

         e. by affording him the appropriate counseling concerning the Survivor Benefit Program.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                 
                  CHAIRPERSON