MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 26 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001065174

         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 Paxson		Chairperson
Ms. Deborah Jacobs		Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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: In effect, that his narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) code be changed.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his narrative reason for separation and RE code are unfair and unjust. He contends that his prior service records and service awards were discounted and that limited material, namely three evaluations, were the crux of documentation used to deny his reenlistment. He states that his evaluations of April 1989 to November 1989 and December 1989 to February 1990 exemplify his contention of unfairness. On the former, an overall potential rating of 4, superior was given, whereas, just three months later the rating was 1, fair. The evaluation of October 1990 to September 1991 although not indicative of his overall duty was not used. This evaluation did show improved performance in areas described as lacking previously in December 1989 to February 1990. He points out that he was awarded a Certificate of Achievement for the same time period he was being characterized as “fair” with comments of, “requires constant supervision and prime candidate for QMP.” [Qualitative Management Program]. In support of his application, he submits a letter of support, dated 25 October 2001, from a Veterans Service Officer; DA Form 2166-6 (Enlisted Evaluation Report) for the period July 1984 to September 1984; DA Form 2166-6 for the period September 1990 to September 1991; NGB [National Guard Bureau] Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) with an effective date of 7 March 1982; service personnel records; an award certificate for the Army Achievement Medal; numerous certificates of achievement; letters of commendation and appreciation; five civilian work evaluations; a Social Security Administration Earnings Record; and three character reference statements.

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

The applicant enlisted on 7 February 1975 and remained on active duty until he was honorably discharged on 26 January 1981 in the rank of specialist four/E-4. He entered active duty again on 6 April 1982. He was promoted to staff sergeant/E-6 on 7 May 1987.

On 15 January 1992, after a comprehensive review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the calendar year 1991 (CY91) Sergeant First Class/ANCOC [Advanced Noncommissioned Officers’ Course] Promotion/Selection Board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP. The bases for the determination were three Enlisted Evaluation Reports which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in performance/efficiency and a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 8 February 1990 which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in discipline.

The applicant’s Statement of Options, dated 24 January 1992, indicates he would submit an appeal not later than 60 days after date of notification; however, the available records do not contain an appeal to his bar to reenlistment. The Statement of Options also states that “Failure to submit this appeal within THIS timeframe will result in separation UP AR [under provisions of Army Regulation] 635-200, Para [paragraph] 16-8, within 90 days.”

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 16 April 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, Reduction in Authorized Strength - Qualitative Management Program. He had served 16 years and 1 day of total active service. He was issued an RE code of “4”.

Item 25 (Separation Authority) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the entry, “AR 635-200 PARA
16-8.”

Item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry, “JCC.” Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JCC” is “reduction in authorized strength” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8.

Item 27 (Reentry Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry, “4.”

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 16-8 of this regulation sets forth the requirements for early separation of enlisted personnel due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints. The service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing into the Regular Army and the USAR. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification such as a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.
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 contentions that his prior service records and service awards were discounted and that limited material, namely three evaluations, were the crux of documentation used to deny his reenlistment, are not supported by the evidence of record. Evidence of record shows that the CY91 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion/Selection Board, after a comprehensive review of the applicant’s OMPF, determined that he should be barred from reenlistment.

2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that his narrative reason for separation and RE code were unfair and unjust. However, the narrative reason for separation and the RE code used in the applicant’s case are correct and were applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

3. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation or the RE code issued to him were in error or unjust.

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

GP_____ DJ______ REB_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065174
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020326
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0200
2.	100.0300
3.
4.
5.
6.