| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Walter Avery, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs | Member | |
| Mr. Jose A. Martinez | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to a “2.”
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he is requesting his RE-4 code be upgraded because it is unjust and prevents him from reentering the service.
He cannot enlist in the Army and continue his career because of a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment. The basis for the bar to reenlistment was two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) and a letter of reprimand. He notes that one NCOER evaluated him for a position he had never held before or trained for. The second NCOER improperly mentions his receipt of a letter of reprimand. He recalls the incidents leading up to his receipt of the letter of reprimand. He was unaware that his company commander had put out, in formation, that personal weapons were not allowed at an upcoming trip to a range. Therefore, he took his personal weapon, an AR-15. He restates that he was not present when the order was given. It was simply a misunderstanding between the commander and himself. The commander had a personal vendetta against him. He did not fight the letter of reprimand because his commander was making things difficult and said he would see his rebuttal before sending it forward. He figured he was better off not sending anything and just doing his best to overcome the incident and be the best possible soldier he could be. He transferred to a new unit where he performed very well. He requests the Board review his appeal packet. He has but one wish, to retire from active federal service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered the Active Guard and Reserve program on 10 July 1988 in military occupation specialty, 63B, light wheel vehicle mechanic.
On 3 June 1995, the applicant received a general officer signed letter of reprimand. It stated that on 1 April 1995, the applicant took his personal weapon for use during annual training after being told by both his company commander and first sergeant not to do so. When asked to identify the weapon, the applicant falsely stated that it was a unit weapon.
On 22 June 1995, the applicant acknowledged he had read the letter of reprimand and understood the unfavorable information presented against him and did not elect to make a statement or submit documents on his behalf.
On 29 January 1998, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of his selection for bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program (QMP). He indicated that he would appeal.
Submitted with his appeal were numerous letters of support. After receipt of the letter of reprimand the applicant transferred to a new unit. This new chain of command was unanimous in their support for the approval of his appeal.
On 15 August 1998, the separation authority rendered his decision on the applicant’s appeal. He noted that the applicant’s appeal possessed unanimous support of his company battalion, and major subordinate command commanders as well as civilian and military peers and/or Full Time Unit superiors. All described the applicant’s outstanding performance. Finally he noted the applicant’s response disputed the two lackluster NCOERs and his admission of poor judgment in his receipt of a general officer memorandum of reprimand. After weighing all the information presented and considering that only the best qualified soldiers perform in the Active Guard and Reserve program, his decision was not to support the applicant’s appeal.
Accordingly, at the grade of E-7, he was honorably separated on 3 May 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) of JBK and an RE code of 4. He had a total of 17 years, 0 months, and 28 days of active creditable service.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant appealed the NCOERs to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB).
AR 635-5, Table 2-2, SPD/RE Cross Reference Table, states that RE-4 will be used when the SPD code is JBK.
RE-4 applies to persons separated from service with a non-waivalbe disqualification. This includes anyone with a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation. They are ineligible for enlistment.
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 primary contention is that he was unfairly given a general officer signed letter or reprimand that was based on the actions of a company commander with an agenda against him. The applicant has submitted no evidence to support his contention. However, a reading of the letter of reprimand indicates that besides the company commander, the first sergeant also told the applicant of the new personal weapon policy. Most significantly, that when confronted, the applicant was untruthful. In addition, the applicant received a general officer signed letter of reprimand. It is extremely unlikely the company commander influenced the general’s decision. In fact, two separate general officers, with access to all pertinent information, concluded the applicant was deserving of adverse administrative actions.
2. The applicant made reference to the correctness of two NCOERs. His records do not reflect he appealed them to the ESRB; therefore, the Board will take no action.
3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s records and determined that his RE-4 code is the appropriate code for his discharge.
5. 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.
6. 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:
___dsj___ ___jam__ ____mhm GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records
| CASE ID | AR2002083071 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030520 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 179 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711784
The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment with the support of his chain of command to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board at the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC). The DASEB denied his request. The applicant received a reprimand from his company commander and a letter of concern from his battalion commander and was counseled on several occasions by his commanders regarding his conduct in these matters.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009327
An EREC memorandum for record, dated 4 May 1992, confirms that based on the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) decision of 23 April 1992, the applicant's appealed NCOER's were changed and replaced with corrected copies excluding the rater/supervisor's evaluations. Army Regulation 601-280, paragraph 10-8 in effect at the time, provided that a Soldier could appeal the bar to reenlistment imposed under the QMP based on improved performance and/or material error in the Soldier's record when...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012539
The applicant was relieved from recruiting duty and given a Relief for Cause NCOER. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program) states that the RE codes contained on military discharge documents determine whether or not one may reenlist in a military service at a later time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03094977C070212
In a 23 December 1997 memorandum to the Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, an Army captain, a legal assistance attorney at Fort Bragg, stated that after a careful review of the applicant's NCOER, the QMP appeal packet, and the investigatory letter drafted by the applicant's brigade commander, that it was clear that the NCOER was unjustly tainted by the unproven accusation of the applicant's accuser, and was not based on the applicant's performance during the period. The ESRB...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059256C070421
He states that he observed the applicant during the entire rating period of the contested NCOER. On 16 May 2000, the ESRB informed the applicant that they found that there was insufficient convincing evidence that the contested NCOER was inaccurate, unjust, or did not adequately reflect the applicant’s performance and potential during the rating period and denied his appeal. Therefore, the Board concludes that the contested NCOER should be removed from the applicant’s records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066559C070402
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that she submitted an appeal to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) requesting correction of an NCOER for the period of August 1993 to July 1994 and the removal of three NCOERs covering the periods from June 1995 to May 1996, June 1996 to October 1996 and November 1996 to October 1997. The applicant submitted an appeal of an NCOER covering the period from August 1993 to July 1994 and the three contested NCOER’s to the ESRB. After reviewing the evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609525C070209
On 9 September 1996, the DOD IG advised the applicant that the Department of the Army (DA) IG conducted an investigation; that the investigation substantiated five of her allegations, which included the contested NCOER, and did not substantiate two of her allegations; that the DOD IG reviewed the report of investigation and found it adequately addressed the allegations; that it concurred with its conclusion that her chain of command could not demonstrate the adverse actions taken against her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005821C070206
In January 1997, he filed an appeal with the ESRB to have the two contested NCOERs removed. However, although the applicant performed duties as a First Sergeant, he was a recruiter. Correction of the applicant's contested NCOERs to show they were relief- for-cause NCOERs rather than change-of-rater NCOERs would not have resulted in a reasonable chance he would have been selected for promotion (thereby warranting consideration by a STAB).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105238C070208
In this memorandum, he indicated that as the reviewer on the NCOER, he nonconcurred with rater and senior rater evaluations and was providing the attachment to clarify the situation and to indicate what he considered to be a proper evaluation of the applicant’s performance and potential during the period covered by the report. He also stated that upon returning to the unit, he was informed the findings of the CI were conclusive in that the applicant discharged his weapon inside a building...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071271C070402
In support of the application, counsel provides copies of the following documents: the ESRB response to the applicant’s appeal; the appeal packet he prepared on the contested NCOER for the ESRB’s review; a copy of the contested NCOER; the DASEB memorandum that approved moving the GOMOR issued to the applicant on 24 September 1996 to the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of the applicant’s OMPF; and the GOMOR and accompanying filing decision. Counsel contended that the NCOER in question was...