MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 21 February 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059470

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member

         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: Removal of the Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment under the provisions of Army Regulation 140-111.

APPLICANT STATES: That she does not believe the bar to reenlistment meets the regulatory criteria. She contends that even if the reasons for the bar to reenlistment arguably qualify, she established that there was more evidence behind the documentation than the Army examined. She states that even if the reasons for the bar to reenlistment were proper, she has overcome the problems she had. She goes on to state that she is capable of providing further quality service and should be retained. In support of her application, she submits a letter of explanation, dated 24 May 2001, wherein she contends that the bar to reenlistment should be lifted for three reasons: (1) the bar to reenlistment was not proper; (2) even if there was an arguable reason for it, a closer examination of the facts clarifies that the bar to reenlistment had no basis and the bar to reenlistment should have been lifted following the submission of her appeal; and (3) assuming that the bar to reenlistment was proper, there is no longer any reason for it. She also submits a List of Enclosures (with 33 enclosures).

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

The applicant entered the delayed entry program in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 14 June 1979. She was discharged from the delayed entry program on 21 August 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, for pregnancy. Records show the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 28 February 1980 and is currently a sergeant first class on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program. Her expiration term of service is 12 December 2004.

On 13 July 1996, the applicant injured her right knee while playing volleyball. On 15 July 1996, she received a 10-day profile until 26 July 1996. On 16 October 1997, a second temporary profile was issued until 1 December 1996. On
9 December 1996, a medical test revealed a tear of the posterior cruciate ligament. Surgery was scheduled and another temporary profile was issued on
6 January 1997 with an expiration date of 12 February 1997. On 25 April 1997, the applicant underwent posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. On 10 July 1997, another temporary profile was approved with an expiration date of
15 October 1997. The profile was again continued from 17 October 1997 to
17 February 1998. On 17 February 1998, another temporary profile was issued with restrictions on running.

The applicant’s DA Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period covering May 1996 through April 1997 shows the entry, “PROFILE 9610” in the section for “APFT” [Army Physical Fitness Test] and the entry, “69/197 YES” in the section for “HEIGHT/WEIGHT”. This report also contains the entry, “Within the bodyfat standards of AR [Army Regulation] 600-9.”
The applicant’s DA Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period May 1997 through April 1998 shows the entry, “PROFILE 9610” in the section for APFT and the entry, “69/205 YES” in the section for “HEIGHT/WEIGHT”.

On 7 April 1999, the applicant was issued a permanent 2 Physical Profile under lower extremities. The unit commander determined her profile did not require a change in her military occupational specialty or duty assignment.

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.

The applicant’s DA Form 2166-7 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period May 1998 through April 1999 shows the entry, “PASS 9904” in the section for APFT and the entry, “69/214 YES” in the section for “HEIGHT/WEIGHT”.

The applicant provided DA Form 705, dated 15 October 1999, which shows she passed the APFT; however, it does not show her height and weight.

By U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command Memorandum, dated 12 January 2000, the applicant was notified of a Department of the Army (DA) Bar to Reenlistment imposed under the USAR AGR Qualitative Management Program (QMP). The bases for the determination were two Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in physical fitness/weight.

The applicant appealed her bar to reenlistment which was considered by the DA Standby Advisory Review Board (STAB); however, her appeal was denied on
5 September 2000.

Records show that separation proceedings were initiated against the applicant following her appeal denial. On 14 December 2000, the 89th Regional Support Command, Staff Judge Advocate determined that the proposed action was legally insufficient and recommended that the applicant’s case be returned without action. On 20 December 2000, the Commanding Officer of the 89th Regional Support Command directed that the applicant’s case be returned without action.

There is no evidence in the available records which shows that separation proceedings were initiated per Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 6, for unsatisfactory performance.

The applicant provided DA Form 705, dated 13 April 2000, which shows that she passed the APFT and her height was recorded as 69 inches; however, her weight is not shown on the scorecard. DA Form 705, dated 21 October 2000, shows that the applicant passed the APFT and her height was recorded as 69 inches; however, her weight is not shown on the scorecard. DA Form 705, dated 19 April 2001, shows the applicant passed the APFT; however, her height and weight are not shown on the scorecard.

The applicant provided a letter, dated 20 April 2001, from the Commanding Officer of the U.S. Army 89th Regional Support Command, a Major General. In summary, the Major General pointed out that he personally reviewed the USAR AGR QMP bar to reenlistment imposed against the applicant. He stated that the QMP barred the applicant because she had not taken a record APFT during two consecutive annual rating periods; however, her efficiency evaluations for that period reveal that she was on medical profile. He goes on to state that careful examination of the facts led him to conclude that the QMP bar should be lifted. He stated that the applicant was unaware that she could have taken an alternate APFT until she was barred. He further stated that because the applicant successfully passed the APFT immediately after she was given a permanent profile, it is likely that she would have been successful on any alternate test and that she would not have been found deficient by the QMP. In conclusion, the Major General noted that much of the situation came about from circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, specifically her not knowing and no one telling her that an alternate APFT was an option. He also assessed that a bar to reenlistment is no longer necessary. He contends that the applicant’s work is well within the Army’s standard for personnel of her grade and experience, that she has worked hard to overcome her injury and she continues to make a worthwhile contribution to her command. He stated that if there was ever concern about her attitude toward the Army’s fitness standard, that concern should no longer prevail, she continues to pass her APFT’s as they are given.      

The applicant also provided a letter, dated 19 March 2000, from the Commanding Officer, of the U.S. Army 89th Regional Support Command, a Brigadier General. He strongly recommended that the applicant be retained in the AGR program and that the bar to reenlistment be lifted.

Army Regulation 140-111 (U.S. Army Reserve Reenlistment Program) governs the immediate reenlistment or extension of current members of the U.S. Army Reserve. It covers program policy, applicant eligibility criteria, and processing guidelines. It only pertains to immediate reenlistment or extension of current terms of service of personnel for continuing membership in Troop Program Units, the Individual Ready Reserve and Active Guard Reserve status. Section VII (Bar to reenlistment procedures), paragraph 1-30a(1) provides that a bar to reenlistment may be imposed for failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). However, imposition of a bar to reenlistment is mandatory after a second consecutive failure if separation proceedings are not initiated per Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 6 (Unsatisfactory Performance).

Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program), effective 10 June 1987, 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 in Paragraph 21 or when the unit commander or supervisor determines the individual’s appearance suggests that body fat is excessive.

Page 7 of Army Regulation 600-9 contains a chart which shows the Weight for Height Table (Screening Table Weight). This chart shows that the Screening Table Weight for a female, who is between 28 and 39 years of age and who is
69 inches tall, is 158 pounds.

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 NCO Evaluation Report for the period covering May 1996 through April 1997 shows the entry, “PROFILE 9610” in the section for APFT.

2. The applicant’s NCO Evaluation Report for the period covering May 1997 through April 1998 shows the entry, “PROFILE 9610” in the section for APFT.

3. On 12 January 2000, the applicant was barred from reenlistment in the USAR AGR Program. The bases for the determination were two Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in physical fitness/weight.

4. The applicant appealed her bar to reenlistment to the Department of the Army STAB; however, her appeal was denied on 5 September 2000.

5. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that her bar to reenlistment was not proper. 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). The Board also noted that she did not meet the Army screening weight standard at 197 pounds, but was within the bodyfat standards of Army Regulation 600-9. The Board further noted that she failed to meet Army weight standard at 205 pounds with a height of 69 inches. The governing regulation states that imposition of a bar to reenlistment is mandatory after a second consecutive failure of APFT if separation proceedings are not initiated per Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 6 (Unsatisfactory Performance).

6. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that even if there was an arguable reason for the bar to reenlistment, a closer examination of the facts clarifies that the bar to reenlistment had no basis and the bar to reenlistment should have been lifted following the submission of her appeal. However, a DA STAB determined otherwise and denied the applicant’s appeal to her bar to reenlistment on 5 September 2000. Therefore, there was no basis for removal of her bar to reenlistment.

7. The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that assuming that the bar to reenlistment was proper, there is no longer any reason for it. However, the Board notes that the DA Forms 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard) provided by the applicant show that she passed the APFT on five occasions between 22 April 1999 and 19 April 2001; however, her height and weight are not recorded on four of the five scorecards. Therefore, there is no evidence that the applicant was within the Army weight standards during these periods.

8. After review of all evidence in this case, the Board determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants overturning the current DA imposed bar to reenlistment in the USAR AGR Program.

9. 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.

10. 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

GDP____ TAP_____ MHM____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059470
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020221
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	100.0600
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.