RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003098094


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond Wagner                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Margaret Thompson             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that a Department of the Army bar to
reenlistment under the Army’s QMP (Qualitative Management Program) be
removed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during a uniform inspection he
was told that “Desert Storm” Soldiers were authorized to wear the Joint
Meritorious Unit Award (JMUA).  He states that as such, he put the award on
his uniform and had an official picture taken for inclusion in his “E-7
promotion packet.”

3.  He states that during a review for promotion he was identified under
the QMP for wearing an unauthorized award, “specifically the JMUA.”  He
states that ultimately he was exonerated and reenlisted for an additional 6
years.

4.  In 2000, he states, he sent in a new military photograph without the
JMUA but because the photograph was not placed in his permanent record his
old photograph remained.  He states that based on the old photograph “and
the JMUA still on [his] uniform” he was again identified under the QMP.

5.  The applicant states that he believes his record now contains the
proper military photograph and the bar to reenlistment should be removed as
erroneous.

6.  The applicant provides copies of his QMP actions and appeals as well as
three photographs.  Two of the photographs are original color photographs,
while the third is a black and white photocopy.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant has been
affiliated with the United States Army Reserve since 1978.  His military
service has included several periods of active duty, most recently as a
member of the AGR (Active Guard Reserve) Program.  He was promoted to pay
grade E-6 in March 1996.

2.  A 22 June 1998 letter to the applicant from the United States Army
Reserve Personnel Command informed the applicant that a Department of the
Army Qualitative Management Program Board convened on 3 March 1998 and that
after a comprehensive review of his official file, barred him from further
reenlistment in the AGR program.  The letter indicated that the board
considered his record of service, including his performance and future
potential for retention in the program, and enclosed a list of documents,
which indicated areas of deficiency or weaknesses that influenced the
board’s decision.  That list identified a hard copy of the applicant’s
photo and Department of the Army Form 2-1 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
as the items, which influenced the board’s decision.

3.  Neither the photograph, nor the Department of the Army Form 2-1,
utilized by the 1998 QMP board was available to this Board.  However, a
copy of the applicant’s Department of the Army Form 2-1, with the
handwritten date “980208” was included with some of the documents provided
to this Board by the applicant.  That document, which is partially cut off
on the left side, contained a typed notation “corrected copy.”  The awards
portion of the document indicates that the applicant had been awarded nine
Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, a Meritorious
Service Medal, a Combat Infantryman Badge, a Joint Service Commendation
Medal, and a Ranger Badge (officially known as the Ranger Tab), in addition
to various service awards.  The entry does not reflect entitlement to a
Joint Meritorious Unit Award.

4.  Documents in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File confirm
that as of February 1998 the applicant had been awarded three awards of the
Army Commendation Medal, and eight awards of the Army Achievement Medal.
There is no confirmation that the applicant had ever been awarded a
Meritorious Service Medal, a Combat Infantryman Badge, a Joint Service
Commendation Medal, or a Ranger Tab.

5.  The applicant’s appeal of his 1998 QMP action focused on his belief
that the bar to reenlistment was based on his wearing of a Joint
Meritorious Unit Award.  Members of his chain of command, who stated that
the applicant had made an “honest mistake” in wearing the JMUA, supported
his appeal.

6.  The applicant’s appeal was approved in August 1999 and the Department
of the Army level bar to reenlistment was removed.  In the approval
document it was noted that removal of the bar did not preclude future
selection boards from imposing another bar.  It suggested ways in which the
applicant could ensure that his official file accurately reflected
information concerning his military service. The approval document did not
specifically mention the applicant’s photograph or his military award
information.

7.  On 16 October 1999 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (AGR) for a period of 6 years.

8.  A 22 June 2000 letter to the applicant from the United States Army
Reserve Personnel Command again informed the applicant that a Department of
the Army Qualitative Management Program Board, convened on 29 February
2000, had identified him from further reenlistment in the United States
Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve Program.  The same documents (hardcopy
photo and Department of the Army Form 2-1) identified in the 1998 QMP
action were once again cited in the 2000 action.  There was no specific
indication regarding the exact discrepancies on the applicant’s photograph
or Form 2-1 which served as the basis for the QMP action.

9.  The applicant again appealed the QMP action and focused, once again on
his belief that the QMP action was based on his wearing of the JMUA.  In
the applicant’s statement, he noted that to his “knowledge the earlier
awards are on my microfiche” and that the “awards are documented on [his]
DA Form 2-1, and copies of [his] awards should be in [his] 201 file.”  He
states that if they are not in his 201 file, he was never told that the
documents were missing and that it would be difficult for him to “track
down these document” because his ex-wife destroyed them during their
separation.

10.  The appeal of the 2000 QMP action was denied in April 2001.

11.  Photographs included with the applicant’s petition to this Board were
taken in November 2000, December 2001, and July 2003.  None of the
photographs are consistent.  While the applicant’s Official Military
Personnel File confirms multiple awards of the Army Commendation Medal and
the Army Achievement Medal, as well as several awards of the Army Good
Conduct Medal, his most recent photograph (July 03) does not show him
wearing any Army Achievement Medals, oak leaf clusters on his Army
Commendation Medal, and no “knots” on his Army Good Conduct Medal.  The
decorations in the photograph are still inconsistent with the awards
reflected on the copy of his Department of the Army Form 2-1, which was
included with documents provided to this Board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant maintains that both of his QMP actions were based
on his wearing of an unauthorized JMUA, there is no evidence in available
records which confirms that was in fact that basis for either QMP action.

2.  Clearly the discrepancies between the applicant’s official photograph
and the information contained on his Department of the Army Form 2-1
contributed to the QMP actions.  It appears, however, that discrepancies
still exist and that the applicant, after having received fair warning in
1998, did little to resolve the discrepancies before the 2000 QMP board.

3.  In the absence of more compelling evidence that both the 1998 and 2000
QMP actions were both based solely on the applicant’s unauthorized wear of
the JMUA, there is no basis for overturning the 2000 QMP action.

4.  The applicant’s appeal of his 2000 QMP action was processed to
conclusion by the appropriate agencies with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He has submitted neither
probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RW__  ___LE___  ___MT __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ___ Raymond Wagner______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098094                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040826                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |136.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]