| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment
under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be removed.
APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his notification (23 September 1988), he met the weight standards. He also states that his Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EER) reflected only deficiencies in physical fitness and military bearing, and were solely considered without regards to his chronic injuries sustained while on active duty. In support of his application he submits a copy of his QMP appeal packet with enclosures, two EERs, and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he reenlisted
on 25 February 1976 as a combat engineer with prior active duty and continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.
On 9 September 1988, the Calendar Year 1998 Master Sergeant Selection
Board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment under
QMP. The basis for the determination was four Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) which indicated that he displayed weaknesses in physical fitness and military bearing.
On 13 September 1988, the applicant was determined to be in compliance with the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9 and was therefore removed from the weight control program. His weight was 211 pounds. His screening table weight ceiling was 189 pounds for his present age and his body fat content was 23.93 percent, which was within standards.
On 23 September 1988, the applicant was notified of his HQDA bar to reenlistment under QMP and elected to submit an appeal on 26 September 1988. The applicant provided a copy of a letter, dated 14 December 1988, from the Chief, Orthopedic Service. The letter stated that the applicant injured his right knee several weeks prior to 21 April 1987, and had been on recurring profiles from that date to the present prohibiting his participation in unit runs. The letter also stated that the applicant underwent knee surgery on 10 November 1988, and was on profile for 6 weeks. He further stated that, by preventing him from running, his injury contributed to his initial inability to maintain weight standards from April 1987 to January 1988.
The applicant appealed the bar through his chain of command to the DA
Standby Advisory Board (STAB) on 13 December 1988, which was denied. The
STAB stated that the past performance and estimated potential of the applicant were not in keeping with the standards expected of the NCO Corps and that
the bar would remain in effect.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 2 June 1989 under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5(a), due to a HQDA imposed bar to reenlistment. He had completed 15 years, 6 months, and 13 days of creditable service. The applicant stated in his application to this Board that he just learned of the existence of this Board and that is why he waited 12 years to apply for relief.
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(a) applies to personnel who perceive that they will be unable to overcome a HQDA bar to reenlistment and will be discharged upon their request, unless disapproval of the request is required or permitted under other provisions. Soldiers may request discharge at any time after receipt of the HQDA bar to reenlistment from their unit commander or upon notification that an appeal of the bar to reenlistment was disapproved.
Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) implements the guidance in DOD Directive 1308.1 which establishes a weight control program in all the Services. This regulation applies to all members of the Active Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to include those ARNG and USAR personnel in Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status.
This regulation requires that the body fat composition will be determined for personnel whose body weight exceeds the screening table weight in Table 1
or when the unit commander or supervisor determines the individual’s appearance suggests that body fat is excessive.
Table 1 of Army Regulation 600-9 is a chart which shows the Weight for Height Table (Screening Table Weight). This chart shows that the Screening Table Weight for a male who is between 28 and 39 years of age and who is 70 inches tall is 189 pounds.
Paragraph 20c of Army Regulation 600-9 contains a chart which shows the maximum allowable body fat standards. This chart shows that the maximum allowable body fat standards for males in age group 28 to 39 is 24 percent.
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 was properly barred from reenlistment based on his four
NCOERs which indicated that he displayed weaknesses in physical fitness and military bearing.
2. His HQDA bar under QMP was imposed in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his HQDA imposed bar under QMP was improper or unjust. The Board notes that the applicant was removed from the weight control program on 13 September 1988, but the QMP action was based on a 3 year history of weight control problems.
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 this 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
__jl___ __jm____ ___mm_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057606 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011011 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19890602 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C, 16-5(a) |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 7 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060006437C070205
The applicant request, in effect, that his reentry (RE) Code be changed from RE-4 to a more favorable code and that item 12a (Date entered AD [Active Duty] This Period), of his DD Form 214 [Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty], dated 20 March 1990, be corrected to show the entry "73 09 28" (28 September 1973 [sic 73 09 29/29 September 1973]) instead of the entry "75 09 05" (5 September 1975). Item 18a (Record of Service/Net Active Service This Period), of his DD Form 214,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9108000
Also, he now requests, in effect, placement on the permanent disability retired list, removal of the enlisted evaluation report (EER) covering the period September 1977-August 1978 as a partial basis for the HQDA bar to reenlistment, and the award of the Good Conduct Medal (6th Award). On 3 April 1989, the Board of Veterans Appeals, indicated that the applicant had active service from May 1970 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to March 1986; that the applicant had a transitory psychotic...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053139C070420
The Inspector General inquiry determined: “No evidence existed that [applicant’s name omitted] actually filed an Article 138 complaint against his Company Commander. The applicant was advised by military counsel to appeal the bar to reenlistment and to file an Article 138 complaint and he did not do either. Evidence of record shows that he chose to not appeal the QMP decision and request retention on active duty on the basis of improved performance based on the argument that he met Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078826C070215
The height and weight entries while indicating that she exceeded the screening weight for her height, confirm that she met the Army’s weight standard by body fat measurement with “Yes” entries in both reports. The APFT entry was “Profile 9610”, which indicated that she was unable to take the APFT to a physical profile limitation; and the Height/Weight entry was “69/197 Yes”, which indicated that although she exceeded the screening table weight for her height, she did meet Army weight...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059470C070421
The applicant provided DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard), dated 22 April 1999, which shows that she passed the APFT and her height was recorded as 69 inches and her weight was recorded as 214 pounds. However, evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to take the APFT for two consecutive years due to a medical profile (May 1996 to April 1997; and May 1997 to April 1998). After review of all evidence in this case, the Board determined that the applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506078C070209
He states that he was illegally denied reenlistment which was later corrected by his being authorized an antedated reenlistment. In support of his application he submits a letter from his commander who confirms that the applicant was occupying an E-8 position, that he had forwarded promotion packets for the applicant, and that the applicant was separated under the QMP without being issued a 20 year letter. The USARC recommended that the Board validate the revocation of his 1986 discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024512
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he is entitled to severance pay. The applicant's EER for the period June 1988 through July 1989, dated 14 August 1989, shows that in March 1989 the applicant passed the APFT and met weight standards. He was properly separated for the DA-imposed bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511133C070209
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment. (2) On this EER, the rater stated that the applicant needed to improve his leadership abilities. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017368
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the narrative reason for his separation from honorably discharged due to failure to meet body fat standards to a medical discharge. On 4 April 1988, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 5-15 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for failing to meet body fat standards and enrollment in the AWCP and failing to make satisfactory...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001059C070205
On 27 February 2005, the applicant was administered a "for record APFT" in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups and failed the 2-mile run and was not within body fat standards. The applicant was administered a for record APFT in which he passed the push-ups and sit-ups but was not within body fat standards and he failed the 2-mile run. The advisory opinion restates that the applicant's contention that he was not allowed due process in appealing his bar to reenlistment carries...