| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP) bar to reenlistment be removed.
APPLICANT STATES: That his family has suffered and they are again becoming a victim of his actions from an incident which occurred four years ago. He feels his request should be approved due to his performance after the incident and the fact that he has done everything humanly possible to make up for his wrong doing. Both his daughter and his wife have forgiven him but the Army has not. He provides a portion of his QMP appeal packet as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records are not available. The information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 December 1986. He was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 1 May 1991. On an unknown date, he was recommended for promotion to E-6.
On 14 March 1997, the applicant indecently assaulted his (about 13-year old) stepdaughter. Later that night, after being confronted by his wife and stepdaughter, he referred himself to the Wurzburg Army Hospital Psychiatry Clinic. The medical officer on duty notified the military police, who took him into custody. After questioning, he was released to his unit commander. He was moved back into the barracks. After three months of family counseling, he was allowed to move back home.
On 9 June 1997, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for “on numerous occasions from on or about 1 Mar 97 to on or about 14 Mar 97 indecently assault your stepdaughter” and “on or about 14 March 97, wrongfully commit an indecent act with your stepdaughter.” (The applicant contended in his QMP appeal that it only occurred the one time, apparently confirmed by his stepdaughter during an interview with a clinical psychologist.) His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4, a forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 2 months, and extra duty for 45 days. He appealed the punishment and the reduction in rank was suspended.
It appears the applicant may have reenlisted at some point after the incident and/or accepting the Article 15. On 12 June 1998, an administrative board was convened to determine if the applicant should be eliminated from the service due to erroneous reenlistment. The board recommended that the applicant not be discharged for erroneous reenlistment. On 22 June 1998, the appropriate authority approved the findings of the board.
The applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 March 1999.
On 18 July 2000, the applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the period 1 August 1998 to 1 October 2000. The reverse side of the Recommendation for Award, DA Form 638, the approval side, is not available. However, he did list the MSM as one of the enclosures to his QMP appeal packet.
On 31 August 2000, the applicant was recommended for a QMP bar to reenlistment. The Article 15 was identified as the document used as the basis for the bar.
On 12 November 2000, the applicant appealed the QMP bar to reenlistment.
On 1 December 2000, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant was in good compliance with the treatment regimen and responded well to treatment interventions. Since terminating treatment he had done well both in his military career and his personal life. Letters from his wife and daughter attested to reconciliation and a strengthening of the family bonds. There was every indication that the experience, while painful for all concerned, had a positive outcome. In the opinion of the examiner, it was very unlikely that the applicant would ever repeat an offense of this nature.
The applicant’s company commander, his battalion commander, and his brigade-level commander recommended approval of the removal of the bar to reenlistment. His brigade-level commander stated that based upon the applicant’s past documented performance and the psychiatric evaluation, he believed the applicant has exceptional potential for future service to the Army.
The division commander recommended disapproval of the applicant’s appeal. He stated that the applicant’s misconduct was inexcusable and cannot be tolerated.
The U. S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center received the applicant’s appeal packet in January 2001. The Master Sergeant promotion selection board acted upon it and disapproved his appeal. The applicant was notified on 9 April 2001 that his appeal was disapproved. He was required to separate by 22 August 2001.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 19, contains policy and procedures for voluntary and involuntary separation, for the convenience of the Government, of Regular Army noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and U. S. Army Reserve NCOs serving on Active Guard/Reserve status, under the QMP. NCOs whose performance, conduct, and/or potential for advancement do not meet Army standards as determined by the appropriate recommendation of Headquarters, Department of the Army centralized selection boards responsible for QMP screening will be denied continued service. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers, (3) deny continued service to nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.
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 Board is cognizant of the applicant’s contrition and the fact that his record of service after the incident was commendable. However, conduct, not only potential, is one of the factors upon which a QMP decision may be based. The applicant’s division commander and the Master Sergeant promotion selection board determined that his potential did not outweigh the seriousness of the conduct. The Board concludes that he has provided no evidence that would sway it to reverse the QMP decision.
2. 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
__jh____ __mhm___ __ewl___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001059650 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010801 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.06 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094977C070212
In a 23 December 1997 memorandum to the Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, an Army captain, a legal assistance attorney at Fort Bragg, stated that after a careful review of the applicant's NCOER, the QMP appeal packet, and the investigatory letter drafted by the applicant's brigade commander, that it was clear that the NCOER was unjustly tainted by the unproven accusation of the applicant's accuser, and was not based on the applicant's performance during the period. The ESRB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087979C070212
He successfully completed his tour as a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, Georgia and he has continued superior duty performance as evidence by the eight Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) he submitted with his application. On the same date, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the LOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. The applicant successfully completed his tour as a drill sergeant without further incident; the QMP bar to reenlistment has been removed; and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088158C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. As supporting evidence, the applicant provides a memorandum from the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) dated 1 July 2002 explaining the results of the Special Review Board's consideration of her NCOER appeal; two nonrated statements dated 1 July 2002 reference the two removed NCOERs; and the modified third NCOER (for the period ending June 1998). Paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088488C070403
The applicant appealed the QMP action, and submitted the same packet he now provides to this Board in support of this appeal. If, for whatever reasons, the relief does not occur on the date the NCO is removed from his or her duty position or responsibilities, the suspended period of time between the removal and the relief will be nonrated time included in the period of the relief report. The evidence of record confirms that on 2 October 1996, subsequent to the completion of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075163C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. NCOs whose performance, conduct, and/or potential for advancement do not meet Army standards as determined by the appropriate recommendation of Headquarters, DA centralized selection boards responsible for QMP screening will be denied continued service. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073126C070403
The Board considered the following evidence: He provides three letters of support dated 4 March, 18 April, and 23 April 2002; the court document showing his case was dismissed without prejudice; the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) packet; and his HQDA QMP bar to reenlistment appeal packet as supporting evidence. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by transferring the GOMOR issued to the applicant on 15 January 1997,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009565
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). This document notified him that the Calendar Year 1988 Master SGT/SGT QMP Selection Board reviewed his official military personnel file (OMPF), and after a comprehensive review, the board considered his record of service including performance and future potential for retention in the Army, and barred him from reenlistment. He was informed that: * separation proceedings must be initiated no later...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068472C070402
After review of the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the QMP Board barred the applicant from further reenlistment in the USAR AGR program. Records show that a Department of the Army QMP Board considered the applicant's OMPF and determined that he should be barred from further reenlistment in the USAR AGR program. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant's records along with his appeal should be reconsidered by the AR-PERSCOM QMP Appeals Board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009761C070208
Counsel also provides Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings, Docket Number AC98-09329/AR1999016304 dated 14 January 1999, in which the ABCMR awarded the applicant in that case the AGCM because he had never been disqualified for the award by his chain of command. In the NCOER for the period ending April 1996, her rater gave her a "No" rating in Part IVa2 with one negative supporting comment. Unit commanders are authorized to award the AGCM to enlisted personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073694C070403
On 6 October 2000, while stationed at Fort Drum, New York, the applicant was notified by his battalion commander that after a review of his OMPF, the Calendar Year 2000 Sergeant First Class Promotion Board had determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on the presence of the documents removing him from the Drill Sergeant Program. On 16 January 2001, the applicant signed another option statement in which he elected not to appeal the QMP action. The applicant’s...