MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 11 February 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075047

         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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member
Mr. Antonio Uribe		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 she be credited with completion of Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), that her rank of sergeant (E-5) be restored, that the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) bar to reenlistment be overturned and that she be restored to active duty in the Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) program with back pay.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was not conditionally promoted to the rank of sergeant or alternatively that she should be given credit for completing the PLDC because she completed it in 1990. In support of her appeal, she submits a copy of a March 1990 Academic Efficiency Report (AER) showing that she achieved course standards in PLDC at a course in Germany. She also submits a December 2002 DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record that shows in block 11 (military education code) " Primary Leadership Development Course." She states that, on some unspecified date, during the QMP appeal process she was told that it was too late to add any more documentation to the appeal. She raises this issue to show that her AER from Germany was not accepted. She offers a statement from her supervisor that relates that, at some unspecified time, she told him of this occurrence. In another letter she explains that she left her unit in Germany on emergency leave, that the unit was deactivating at the time, that her records were lost and that she was separated on temporary records.

She also submits copies of supporting documents from her chain of command.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 20 January 1987, progressed normally and was separated with an honorable characterization of service due to sole parenthood. On 22 March 1991, she was transferred to the Army Reserve (USAR) control group in pay grade E-4. Item 14 (Military Education) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reads "Unknown//Nothing Follows." Item 18 (Remarks) indicates that she was separated on "temporary records and soldier's affidavit."

She affiliated with a USAR troop program unit and, on 3 August 1997, she entered active duty in pay grade E-4 with the AGR Program.

She was promoted to sergeant (E-5), on 26 March 1998. Her attendance at PLDC was postponed in 1999 due to a leg problem. In 2000 her attendance at PLDC was rescheduled because of a conflict with a USAR exercise and, on 14 February 2001, she was dis-enrolled, without prejudice, from PLDC for medical reasons.

---

On September 2001 the applicant was counseled that the staff sergeant promotion/QMP board at USAR Personnel Command had identified her for denial of continued service due to lack of evidence in her Official Military Personnel File that she had completed the PLDC. It also noted that her OMPF was deficient in that her official photograph had expired and there were no noncommissioned officer evaluation reports since October 1998.

The applicant was administratively reduced to specialist (E-4) under the provisions of paragraph 7-12, Army Regulation 140-158 on 24 September 2001.

The applicant appealed the QMP and stated that she was aware of the schools that she had missed because of physical problems and that she was still recovering from major surgery. She stated that she could perform any task that she was assigned and that she wanted to stay in the AGR Program. Her request was favorably endorsed by her supervisor, a sergeant first class and by her company commander. A standby selection board, convened by the Total Army Personnel Command recommended the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel deny her appeal.

The applicant was separated on 25 October 2002 under the QMP. She had 5 years, 2 months and 23 days of total active service and 6 years, 1 month and 28 days total inactive service. Her awards consisted of the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

The copy of the AER submitted by the applicant is both somewhat illegible and unintelligible. For example, an entry in the "Comments" section appears to read "Completed in learning center hours during non-duty time." The reviewing officer's signature block is apparently blank and the distribution boxes have not been completed.

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 meet 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, the DA promotion selection boards regularly screen records for pay grades E-5 through E-9. 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.

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 proffered AER is unconvincing. Its accuracy cannot be verified. The Board notes that it is incomplete, confusing and not entirely legible. Furthermore, the applicant clearly believed that she had to attend PLDC. She tried to do so for at least three years. Only after she suffered elimination under the QMP and reduction in rank, did she offer, in support of her own case, that she had previously completed PLDC.

2. Finally, the applicant has offered no explanation either for the delay in raising her alleged prior completion of PLDC or for her apparent failure to mention it at the time of her original separation from active duty.

3. 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.

4. 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

___SAC_ __RKS __ _AU_____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075047
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030211
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	100.06
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.