MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 9 April 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001066143

         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
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 he be granted a retirement, in lieu of his discharge by reason of reduction in force.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was put out of the Army like a piece of trash. He claims that the reason for his discharge was alcoholism, which is a sickness like cancer. He contends that in 1992, his commanding general (CG) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma was unable to court-martial him, so he along with a colonel and a command sergeant major, railroaded him out of the Army.

The applicant also contends that there was an Inspector General (IG) investigation conducted at Fort Sill during this timeframe, which was covered up. He indicates that he is a recovering alcoholic, no thanks to the Army, to which he gave almost 18 years of service. The applicant comments on an ongoing lawsuit that is pending based on injuries he received in a gas fire explosion in his apartment, subsequent to his discharge. He claims that this information is provided in order to confirm that he is seeking justice and not benefits from the Army and to show, he is not afraid to sue the Army, which is a lawsuit that he would win.

The applicant further indicates that all he wants to do is salute the flag with his children and grandchild. He states that although this request may do no good, he would not be dissuaded and does not care what it takes, but he will salute the flag. He concludes by commenting that he is not making a threat, but rather a promise. In support of his application, he provides a newspaper article extract with a story on his apartment fire and his recovery, and a pre-trial order pertaining to his lawsuit against the gas company.

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

He served on active duty in the Regular Army for 17 years, 9 months, and
26 days until 31 July 1994. At that time, he was honorably discharged in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E-7).

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was SFC/E-7. It also shows that he received the following awards during his active duty tenure: Meritorious Service Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Army Service Ribbon;; National Defense Service Medal; Good Conduct Medal (5); Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral 2; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with numeral 3; Driver/Mechanic Badge; Army Recruiter Badge; Army Gold Recruiter Badge; Expert Marksmanship Badge (Rifle); and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Grenade). The record documents no other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

---

On 10 July 1993, the applicant was notified by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) that he had been barred from reenlistment by Department of the Army (DA) under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

The EREC QMP notification also informed the applicant that the QMP action was the result of a determination made by the 1993 master sergeant promotion board, subsequent to their comprehensive review of his file. They based their decision on two evaluation reports covering the periods June through
November 1988, and July through December 1992, an academic evaluation report (DA Form 1059) he received on 19 February 1988, and a memorandum of reprimand he received on 26 January 1993. An option election form was also provided to the applicant with the QMP notification correspondence, and he completed this form and elected to submit an appeal.

On 11 April 1994, EREC officials notified the applicant that his QMP appeal had been reviewed and carefully considered by a DA Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), however, it had been disapproved. The STAB judged that his past performance and potential performance were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer’s Corps and consequently, the DA bar to reenlistment remained in effect.

On 31 July 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by him on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 16, paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in force. This document also verifies that in connection with his discharge he received separation pay in the amount of $22,016.74.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards. It is designed to enhance quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to
non-progressive and nonproductive soldiers, and encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.

The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram. Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for members in pay grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards. The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.
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 16-8 provides for the early separation of soldiers due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints. It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers may be separated prior to expiration of enlistment of fulfillment of active duty obligation when authorization limitations, strength restrictions, or budgetary constraints require the Regular Army active duty enlisted force to be reduced in number.

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 notes the applicant’s contentions that he should be granted a retirement because his chain of command discharged him based on his alcoholism, which is a disease. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

2. There is no evidence that the applicant’s discharge was inappropriately influenced by members of his chain of command, and the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence to show his discharge was improper or that he was ever denied counseling or assistance for his alcohol related problems while serving on active duty.

3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged by reason of reduction in force in accordance with applicable regulations, after being barred from reenlistment by DA under the provisions of the QMP. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

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

__RVO__ __RJW__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066143
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/09
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1994/07/31
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C16
DISCHARGE REASON	Reduction in Force
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 338	136.1000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.