PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 04 APRIL 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001063197


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests in effect that her bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be overturned, and that her NCO evaluation reports (NCOERs) be corrected.

3. The applicant states that she is an Army Reserve soldier in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program working as a health care recruiter in Columbia, South Carolina. She was notified on 2 February 2000 that she was barred from reenlisting under the QMP because of four NCOERs relating to her physical fitness. She received support from members of her chain of command in appealing the QMP to no avail. She was allowed to remain on active duty until her separation date (ETS) in August 2002; however, she is still barred from reenlisting. She poses questions concerning her NCOERs, her profile, and her physical fitness test results.

4. The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1974. Her NCOERs beginning in April 1988 through March 2000 show that she was a consistently excellent soldier who was rated either “among the best” or “fully capable” by her raters. Her senior raters, except on one occasion, rated her overall performance and potential in the top block or the second from the top block. She completed the basic NCO course (BNCOC) in 1993 and the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC) in 1994. Her Academic Evaluation Report for that course shows that she achieved a score of 193 (out of a possible 200) on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The applicant has received numerous recruiting awards, four awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, and three awards of the Army Commendation Medal. She was promoted to Sergeant First Class in September 1994.

5. A 1 March 1993 physical profile report shows her medical condition as status post excision, right first rib. That profile report showed that she could do the two mile run, perform sit-ups, and perform modified push-ups.

6. In an undated explanation concerning her NCOER for the period 9503 through 9602 the applicant stated that she took the APFT in August 1995.

7. The applicant’s NCOER for the period 9503 through 9602 shows that her rater considered her fully capable, and her senior rater placed her in the second from the top block in overall performance and potential. It shows that she had a profile dated in October 1995, contained the notation, “70/193/No” concerning her height/weight, but also the remark that she met the body fat standard in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9. Her rater stated that her profile did not hinder duty performance. Her report for the period 9603 through 9702 shows that her rater considered her fully capable, and her senior rater placed her in the second from the top block in overall performance and potential. It shows that she had a profile dated in November 1996, containing the notation “69/209/Yes” concerning her height/weight, stated that she was within the body fat standards, and that her profile did not hinder job performance. The applicant’s NCOER for the period 9704 through 9706 contains the exact remarks and notations of those specific areas as noted above in her previous NCOER. Her NCOER for the period 9707 through 9803 shows that her rater considered her among the best, that her senior rater placed her in the second from the top block in overall performance and in the top block in overall potential. The report shows that she had a profile dated in March 1998, that her height/weight data were “69/210 Yes,” and that her rater stated that her profile did not interfere with her job performance. It did not contain a remark showing that she was within the body fat standards contained in the regulation.

8. An APFT scorecard shows that the applicant passed the physical fitness test on 8 June 1994 and again on 5 May 1995. She did not take the push-up portion of the tests because of a profile.

9. A 26 May 1995 body fat content worksheet shows that the applicant was in compliance with Army weight standards.

10. A 20 April 1998 memorandum shows that the applicant had been diagnosed with severe lower back strain, joint degeneration, and muscle spasms of the spine, that she was doing well, taking physical training, and would be able to take the APFT.

11. An undated document shows that the CY99 USAR AGR
Sergeant Major/Master Sergeant Board identified the above four NCOERs as a basis for her bar to reenlistment. It indicated that her area of deficiency/weakness of those reports was physical fitness/weight.

12. On 25 March 2000 the applicant appealed the NCOERs for the period 9503 through 9602 and 9707 through 9803, stating that part IVc of those reports should reflect that she passed the APFT in lieu of showing that she had a profile.

13. A 14 April 2000 body fat content worksheet (DA Form 5501-R) shows that the applicant was in compliance with the Army weight standards.

14. On 25 April 2000 the applicant’s detachment commander supported the applicant’s appeal of her bar to reenlistment. He stated that several of the NCOERs which served as a basis for the bar were contested during her successful appeal of a previous DA bar to reenlistment. The applicant’s brigade commander also supported her request. Her appeal is not available to the Board.

15. On 5 September 2000 the Army Reserve Personnel Command informed the applicant’s major command that her appeal to the DA imposed bar to reenlistment was denied.
16. None of the documents associated with the applicant’s QMP action (notification/appeal denied) are currently filed in her OMPF.

17. Army Regulation 140-111 establishes the policies and provisions for imposing bars to reenlistment for members of the AGR program under the QMP. The QMP is based on the premise that reenlistment for continuing service on AGR status is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude and potential for advancement meet USAR AGR standards. The program is designed to enhance the quality of the AGR career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified soldiers up to 29 years of active Federal service, deny reenlistment for continuing AGR service to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. It notes that bars to reenlistment imposed under the provisions of the QMP are not intended to be rehabilitative in nature. They are designed to deny reenlistment for continuing service on AGR status to soldiers who are identified through the qualitative screening program as failing to meet USAR AGR standards.

18. The regulation also states that a soldier may appeal the bar to reenlistment based on improved performance and/or material error in the soldier's record when reviewed by the selection board. Material error is defined as those documents that the board addressed as a basis for the bar to reenlistment. An error is considered material when there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed, the soldier may not have been selected for the QMP.

19. Bars to reenlistment imposed under the provisions of the QMP, while denying a soldier continuing service on AGR status, will not deny the soldier an opportunity to reenlist in the USAR for continuing service in another status, provided the soldier is otherwise eligible.

20. Army Regulation 350-15 prescribes the policies and provisions of the Army’s Physical Fitness Program. It notes that the APFT consists of push-ups, sit-ups and a 2-mile run. For profiled soldiers, a record test must include an aerobic event. The only approved aerobic events are the 2-mile run, 800-yard swim, 6.2-mile bike ride, or the 2.5-mile walk.

21. Army Regulation 623-205 states that part IVc (height and weight entry) on the evaluation report will reflect the applicant’s height and weight as of the rater’s signature date and an entry of “YES” or “NO” to indicate compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9. Example entries are “72/180 YES” or “68/205 NO.” The rater enters “YES” and the bullet “Within body fat standards of AR 600-9” for those NCOs who exceed the weight for height screening table, only after a body fat measurement has been completed and the NCO is found to be within the body fat standards for his/her age group.

22. Army Regulation 623-205 states that part IVc (APFT entry) on the performance evaluation report will reflect “pass” or “fail” and the year and month of the APFT results, or “profile” with the year and month the profile was awarded. Sample entries are “PROFILE 8603.” Comments on “PROFILE” entries will describe the rated NCO’s ability to perform assigned duties.

23. Army Regulation 640-10 states that if an individual’s QMP action is voided documents associated with the QMP notification will be transferred to the restricted fiche. The restricted fiche is the OMPF section for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers. The restricted fiche ensures that an unbroken, historical record of a member's service, conduct, duty performance, evaluation periods, and corrections to other parts of the OMPF is maintained. It is intended to protect the interest of the member and the Army.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant was in compliance with the Army weight standards in May 1995 as reflected by a 26 May 1995 body fat content worksheet. Her NCOER for the period 9503 through 9602 shows that she met the body fat standard. Consequently, her NCOER for that period should reflect the notation, “70/193 Yes” in lieu of the current notation, “70/193 No.”

2. The Board notes that she has appealed two NCOERs to the Army Reserve Personnel Command. Nevertheless, the applicant has not clearly identified to this Board what evaluation reports that she wants corrected, nor the nature of the corrections. Consequently, the Board will not act upon her general statement that her NCOERs be corrected.

3. The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending in 9803 shows her height and weight, but fails to show that she was within the body fat standards. Nonetheless, that remark is required on that report because she exceeded the height and weight standards for her age. Her previous report shows that she was within the body fat standards, but her report subsequent to the report ending in 9803 also fails to show that she was within the body fat standards. Since all three of those reports, however, show that she met the height and weight standards of the regulation, the absence of the required remark is considered an oversight and does not reflect the true nature of her physical fitness.

4. The applicant met the body fat standards contained in Army Regulation 600-9 and was in compliance with the Army weight control program. Her NCOERs for the periods in question show that she had a profile and consequently could not take the APFT. All these reports indicated that she could do her job despite the profile. To identify those NCOERS to be deficient or weak because of either her profile or her weight (despite being in compliance with the Army standards) is an injustice to her and is considered material error. The Board contends that when the applicant appealed the QMP action the material error should have been apparent in view of the fact that no other factors in her record were identified as the basis for the bar. The Board concludes that based on the applicant’s record of performance, and the support of her chain of command, she should not have been barred from reenlisting under the QMP.

5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. showing that the applicant’s height/weight data on her NCOER for the period 9503 through 9602 reflect the notation, “70/193 Yes” in lieu of the current notation, “70/193 No;”

b. showing that the applicant’s QMP appeal was approved; and

c. transferring any documents associated with the QMP action from her performance fiche to her restricted fiche.

2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

__AAO__ __RWA__ __KYF __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ___Arthur A. Omartian____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063197
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020402
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	100.06
2.	7
3.
4.
5.
6.