MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 8 October 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002074503

         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. Luis Almodova.		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Mr. James E. Anderholm		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: That his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that it is his understanding that the rules have changed regarding QMP [the Army's Qualitative Management Program]. He says he understands that now an E-5 can remain on active duty until his 15^th year. He adds that it is also his understanding that the promotion points dropped low enough for him to be promoted the month of his discharge, and if that is correct, he believes in his heart that the additional three years would have been enough time for him to have achieved the rank and pay grade of Staff Sergeant, E-6.

The applicant submits copies of letters from several members of the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) [a Colonel, 2 Chief Warrant Officers (Pay Grade W-3), one Chief Warrant Officer (Pay Grade W-2),and a Sergeant Major] recommending favorable consideration of his application and thus facilitating his membership in the MSARNG

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

He enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 7 November 1975 for 6 years in the pay grade E-1 to participate in the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP). On
29 December 1975, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty for a period of 3 years.

The applicant successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual training (AIT). On completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67V (OH-6/OH-58 Helicopter Repairman).

The applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of Sergeant, E-5, on
1 March 1979.

The applicant reenlisted and remained on active duty continuously until he was discharged in the pay grade of E-5 on 15 August 1988.

The applicant served in assignments at Fort Hood, Texas, and at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, as well as two overseas tours of duty in Germany. He completed the Primary Leadership Development Course at the 8^th Infantry Division's Noncommissioned Officers Academy in 1984.

---

A Department of the Army (DA) Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record, Part I (Items 15, 21, 31 and 32), indicate that the applicant was on a promotion
selection/standing list in the MOS 67V. In May 1987, he had 689 promotion points and in May 1988, he had 637 promotion points.

In a memorandum prepared by the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, on 10 September 1987, the applicant was notified that a DA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program had been imposed on him. A list of documents that had contributed most to the board's decision to bar him from reenlistment was provided to him. The documents which were instrumental to his bar to reenlistment are not available for the Board's review; however, the Board presumed government regularity in the identification process of those to be barred from reenlistment, to include the applicant, and is convinced that the reason(s) for imposition of the bar were proper and equitable.

The applicant acknowledged the notification and the options that were available to him in October 1987. Of the options available to him, he opted to submit an appeal and did so on 10 May 1988. The appeal was denied by the DA Reenlistment Appeals Board, U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, Virginia, on 5 July 1988.

Paragraph 7-29a(4), Army Regulation 600-200 (then in effect) stipulated that a soldier must be removed from a local recommended list, "When a local or DA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment is approved after being put on the promotion list."

Paragraph 4-5, Army Regulation 600-200 specifies soldier reenlistment ineligibility points. The reenlistment ineligibility point is the maximum number of years of active Federal service authorized for a soldier in a specific grade. For soldiers in pay grade E-5, the total active service was 13 years at the time of the applicant's discharge.

On 15 July 1988, a Memorandum, Subject: Involuntary Separation was prepared by the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency (Provisional), Alexandria, Virginia. The applicant was notified that he was to be involuntarily separated and that his separation would be accomplished no later than 90 days after he received notification.

On 15 July 1988, the applicant acknowledged the memorandum and stated that he would not appeal this separation action. He requested that he be discharged immediately under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16.

---

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 August 1988 at Fort Hood, Texas. His character of service was honorable, and his reenlistment code was RE-4. The narrative reason for separation was, "HQDA imposed bar to
reenlistment." On the date of his discharge, he had 12 years, 7 months and
17 days active Federal service. The applicant's normal expiration term of service (ETS) date before being identified for involuntary separation was 13 April 1992.

During his service, he was awarded the Aircraft Crew Member Badge, the Army Good Conduct Medal with 3 bronze loops, the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 1, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 1 and the Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes 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 meets Army standards. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) 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 grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by Department of the Army Promotion Selection Boards. The appropriate selection board evaluates past performance and estimates each soldier's potential to determine if continued service is warranted. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted are subjected to a DA-Imposed QMP Bar to Reenlistment. A soldier who has completed 18 years or more of service on the effective date of notification of the bar to reenlistment may be extended to reach retirement eligibility unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of the Army.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, Paragraph 16-5a(1) provided the authority for soldiers who perceived that they would not be able to overcome an HQDA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment to be discharged anytime after receipt of the HQDA bar to reenlistment or notification that the bar to reenlistment appeal had been disapproved. The service of a soldier discharged per this paragraph of the regulation would normally be characterized as honorable.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that before 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 and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

Paragraph 3-22 of that regulation identifies the Reentry Eligibility (RE) Codes. Those codes are used for administrative purposes only and used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure. The Code, RE-1 applies to persons completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army if all other criteria are met. The code RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification. This includes anyone with a Department of the Army-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment in effect at the time of separation, or who are separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years of 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 applicant was involuntarily separated under the provisions of the QMP after having had an HQDA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment imposed on him. The involuntary separation action followed the HQDA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment after he appealed and it was not favorably considered.

2. The applicant was not discharged, as he intimates, because he had attained the maximum number of years service for his pay grade. Had he not been barred from reenlistment, he would have been allowed to continue his service until his normally scheduled ETS, 13 April 1992.

3. The Department of the Army-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the QMP was imposed in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural error(s), which would tend to jeopardize the applicant's rights.

4. The issue of promotion points having dropped the month after his discharge, which the applicant introduced, is moot in view of the fact that anyone having a locally-imposed or HQDA-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment is ineligible for promotion regardless of the number of points that the person has.

---

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

__jlp___ __mhm___ __jea___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074503
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20021008
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880815
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 16
DISCHARGE REASON	A92.41
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.	144.0720
3.	144.9241
4.
5.
6.