RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:

           455-02-7254

      BOARD DATE:           29 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003098139


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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, in effect, that the separation program
designator (SPD) code and Re-entry (RE) Code on her 2002 separation
document be changed to permit her to return to military service and
continue with her Army career.  She asks that the training courses she
completed while in the Air Force be added to her separation document as
well as completion of the Department of Defense School of Military
Packaging Technology.  She also requests that her records be corrected to
reflect entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her separation and RE codes are
unjust because she was discharged from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) under
the Army’s Qualitative Management Program (QMP) because she never had the
opportunity to attend the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).
She argues that she completed all of her NCOES (noncommissioned officer
education system) courses while she was in the Air Force and feels that her
Air Force separation document was acceptable evidence of her training at
the time she enlisted in the Army.

3.  She states that she has attempted several times to have the Department
of Defense School of Military Packaging Technology added to her records
without success.

4.  She states that the National Defense Service Medal was given to
everyone.

5.  The applicant also appears to allude to the fact that she should have
received separation pay at the time she was discharged as a result of the
QMP because she had more than 6 years of active service and that she should
have been permitted to transfer to the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) or
the Retired Reserve.

6.  She states that she does not understand why she has two separation
orders.

7.  The applicant provides copies of her QMP notification, her appeal of
the QMP action, and the denial of her appeal.  She also submits a copy of
her completion certificate for the Department of Defense School of Military
Packaging Technology.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant served an
initial tour of active duty with the United States Air Force between August
1978 and August 1982.  She was separated in pay grade E-4 and had 3 years,
11 months, and 20 days of active Federal service at the time of her
separation.  Her Air Force separation document indicates that she completed
a 6 week basic military training course in September 1978, a 152 hour
Inventory Management Specialist Course in November 1978, a 19.5 hour Air
Force NCO (noncommissioned officer) Orientation Course (Phase I) in May
1981, and a 60 hour Air Force Supervisor’s Course (Phase II) in February
1982.  Her separation document indicates that she was promoted to pay grade
E-4 in May 1981.

2.  Following her separation from the Air Force, the applicant continued
her military service for nearly 13 more years as a member of the United
States Air Force Reserve.  During those 13 years, between August 1982 and
July 1995 she accumulated only membership points.  None of those years were
counted as “qualifying” years for retirement purposes.  She was, however,
according to copies of orders contained in her file, promoted to pay grade
E-6 (Tech Sergeant) in the United States Air Force Reserve, effective 1
November 1987.

3.  The applicant had no military affiliation between 18 July 1995 and 12
August 1997.

4.  On 13 August 1997 the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) for a period of 3 years.  Her date of rank for pay grade E-5
in the USAR is recorded as 27 May 1998.

5.  Documents in the applicant’s file indicate that she served on active
duty with the Office, Chief Army Reserve for 2 months and 29 days between
October and December 1998 and again for 4 months and 8 days between January
and May 1999.

6.  A March 1999 letter from the United States Army Reserve Personnel
Command informed the applicant that her name had been placed on an Order of
Merit List (OML) for entrance into the AGR program.  The letter informed
her that the OML was valid for 1 year and “current personnel needs are
being satisfied by a previous list.”




7.  Orders published on 1 April 1999 order the applicant to active duty in
“Active Guard/Reserve Status” for a period of 3 years.  Her reporting date
was established as 13 June 1999 and she was scheduled to attend AGR entry
training with follow-on training at the Unit Supply Specialist Course.

8.  The April 1999 orders were subsequently amended in May 1999.  Her
reporting date was changed to 1 August 1999, her AGR entry training between

2 August and 13 August 1999, and the Unit Supply Specialist Course between
16 August 1999 and 7 October 1999.

9.  Training certificates contained in the applicant’s file confirm that
she completed AGR entry training on 13 August and the Unit Supply
Specialist Course on 7 October 1999.

10.  In July 1999, prior to reporting for training, the applicant extended
her initial August 1997 enlistment an additional year and in August 1999
she extended another year and 19 days.  As a result of her extensions, her
separation date was ultimately adjusted to 31 July 2002.

11.  In October 1999, while attending the Unit Supply Specialist Course at
Fort Lee, Virginia, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice for being drunk while on duty.  Her
punishment included reduction to pay grade E-4, which was suspended for 1
month, forfeiture, extra duty, and restriction.

12.  In March 2000 the applicant completed the Hazardous Material Handling
Course conducted at the Department of Defense School of Military Packaging
Technology, Fort Meade, Maryland.  The course was conducted between 6 and
10 March 2000.

13.  On 26 April 2000, orders were issued placing the applicant in a
temporary duty status for 30 days commencing on 31 July 2000.  A separate
document in her files indicates that the temporary duty status was to
attend an inpatient treatment program in Norfolk, Virginia, associated with
her enrollment in the Army’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
(ADAPC) Program.

14.  On 27 July 2000, prior to the applicant’s departure for the treatment
program, orders were issued placing her in a temporary duty status to
attend the Unit Supply Specialist BNCOC (Basic NCO Course) commencing on 7
August 2000 for a period of 74 days.

15.  The applicant’s file contains a Department of the Army Form 4187
(Personnel Action), which is signed by the applicant’s commander and dated
28 July 2000, requesting that the applicant be deferred from attending
BNCOC because of her enrollment in the ADAPC program.  There is no
indication in the applicant’s file regarding the disposition of the
deferment request.

16.  On 25 August 2001 the applicant acknowledged that she had been denied
continued service as an AGR Soldier under the United States Army Reserve
AGR Qualitative Management Program.  The counseling document indicated that
the applicant had been denied continuation because her records did not
reflect attendance at PLDC.  In acknowledging the counseling statement, the
applicant indicated that she was unaware that she needed to attend PLDC
because she was told that she was going to BNCOC and that BNCOC was
recommended on her last performance evaluation report.

17.  As part of the applicant’s counseling session she completed an
election statement on which she indicated that she would appeal the QMP
action.

18.  Based on documents contained in the applicant’s file, and submitted
with her application, it appears that the applicant’s appeal was initiated
on her behalf by a legal defense counsel at Fort Myer, Virginia.

19.  On 25 March 2002, while the applicant’s appeal was still pending, she
extended her enlistment an additional 6 months thereby establishing her
scheduled separation date as 31 January 2003.  Her extension was to permit
processing time for her QMP appeal action.

20.  An undated memorandum from the United States Total Army Personnel
Command in St. Louis to the Full Time Support Management Directorate in St.
Louis announced that the applicant’s QMP appeal had been denied and that
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 19 were to be complied
with.

21.  As part of her separation processing an order (C-07-291265) was
published attaching the applicant to the Transition Point at Fort George G.
Meade, Maryland “for separation processing” and a second order (D-07-
290166) actually discharged the applicant.  Both orders were published on
27 July 2002.  They were not duplicate discharge orders.






22.  On 21 September 2002 the applicant was honorably discharged.  It is
unclear why the applicant’s 2002 separation document indicates that she
entered active duty on 3 April 1998 and served continuously until her
September 2002 when documents in her file do not reflect that same
information.  Nonetheless, at the time of her discharge, based on evidence
in her Official Military Personnel File, the applicant would have had
approximately 3 years of continuous active duty from the time of her
entrance into the AGR program in August 1999 and her 2002 discharge.  She
would have had nearly 4 years of active service as a member of the United
States Air Force, and 6 more months of active duty while serving in the
Office, Chief Army Reserve between 1998 and 1999.  In total she would have
had approximately 7 years of active service, and approximately 13 years of
inactive service as a member of the Reserve.  Her years of membership in
the inactive Reserve were not qualifying years of service for retirement
purposes.

23.  The applicant’s 2002 separation document contained the statement “To
Be Determined” in item 25 (separation authority), but her separation code
was recorded as “JGH” and her RE Code as “4.”

24.  In March 2003 the applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge
Review Board requesting that her “character of/reason-authority and
separation code” be changed.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request but did direct that a new separation document be
prepared for the applicant showing that the separation authority (item 25)
was Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 19 vice “to be determined.”

25.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 19 provides for the voluntary and
involuntary separation of Regular Army NCOs and United States Army Reserve
NCOs serving in the AGR, under the QMP.  It states that unless otherwise
provided for by the regulation, a Soldier’s whose appeal has been denied
will be involuntarily discharged.

26.  The regulation also state that AGR Soldiers with at least 17 years, 9
months, but less than 20 years of qualifying [emphasis added] service for
non-regular retired pay at the time of notification of QMP selection, whose
appeal is denied and whose scheduled separation date occurs prior to the 20
year point, may extend their enlistments for the minimum period required to
qualify for nonregular retirement.  AGR Soldiers with 20 years or more of
qualifying service for non-regular retired pay may elect voluntary release
from active duty with concurrent transfer to the Retired Reserve.  AGR
Soldiers who do not meet the preceding service requirements may also
request voluntary discharge, but may not merely request release from active
duty.

27.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to 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 United States Army Reserve.
Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE
codes.  RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last
period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.  Soldiers who were
separated from their term of service with a Department of the Army imposed
bar to reenlistment in effect are ineligible for reenlistment and receive
an RE-4.

28.  Army Regulation 601-210 also advises that RE codes may be changed only
if they are determined to be administratively incorrect and that there is
no requirement to change a RE code in order to qualify for enlistment.
Paragraph
4-24 states that individual's who were barred from reenlistment by a
Department of the Army level bar, and received a RE-4, are ineligible for
enlistment and are not authorized waivers.

29.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character
alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of
separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to
provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are
intended exclusively for the internal use of Department of Defense and the
military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation
data.  This analysis may, in turn, influence changes in separation policy.
SPD codes are not intended to stigmatize an individual in any manner.  SPD
Code JGH applies to individuals who are separated as a result of QMP
actions.

30.  Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1, which outlines the policies
and procedures for entitlement to separation pay, and 10 United States Code
1174, state that Reserve personnel not on the Active Duty list when
separated, must have 6 years of continuous active duty immediately before
such separation.  A period of active duty is continuous if any break in
military service does not exceed 30 days. The applicant’s discharge order
confirms that she is not entitled to separation pay.



31.  Army Regulation 350-1 prescribes the policies, procedures, and
responsibilities for developing, managing, and conducting Army training and
education program.  It states that the goal of NCO training the NCOES is to
prepare noncommissioned officers to lead and train soldiers who work and
fight under their supervision, and to assist their leaders to execute unit
missions.  It notes that effective 1 October 1993, the Army linked NCOES to
promotion and that the linking ensures that NCOs have the appropriate
skills and knowledge required before assuming the duties and responsibility
of the next higher grade.  PLDC is a branch-immaterial course conducted at
Regional NCOAs (NCO Academies) worldwide and at TASS (The Army School
System) training battalions.  It provides basic leadership training for
soldiers selected for promotion to sergeant.  BNCOC is a branch-specific
course that provides Soldiers selected for promotion to staff sergeant with
an opportunity to acquire the leader, technical, and tactical skills,
knowledge, and experience needed to lead squad-size units.

32.  TRADOC Regulation 350-1 prescribes the institutional training and
education policies for officers, warrant officer, and noncommissioned
officer leader development.  It notes that constructive credit may be
granted in lieu of course attendance based on duty assignment history and
past academic experiences.  It states that Soldiers that successfully
complete any one of several specifically identified training course may be
granted PLDC course equivalency.  Some of those courses include the Reserve
Component Primary Leadership Course, Reserve Component Primary
Noncommissioned Officer Course; Reserve Component Primary Leadership
Development and a number of Marine Corps courses.  There were no United
States Air Force courses identified as meeting the equivalency requirements
for PLDC or BNCOC.

33.  That regulation goes on to state the Soldiers who believe they warrant
equivalency requirements may submit documentation to the appropriate
approving authority depending on their current component.  It also notes
that active and Reserve Component Soldiers promoted to their current
(emphasis added) rank prior to 1 October 1992 are considered as NCOES-
qualified commensurate with their current rank.

34.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for
completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it
states that item 14 (military education) will list formal in service
training courses successfully completed during the period of service
covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This
information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and
counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.
35.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent
part, for award of the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) for honorable
active service for any period between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954,
between 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, between 2 August 1990 and 30
November 1995 and commencing again on 11 September 2001.  For the purpose
of the award, the following persons are not considered as performing active
service:  (1) Guard and Reserve forces personnel on short tours of duty to
fulfill training obligations under an inactive duty training program; (2)
Any person on active duty for the sole purpose of undergoing a physical
examination; (3) Any person on temporary active duty to serve on boards,
courts, commissions and like organizations or on active duty for purposes
other than extended active duty.  The NDSM may be awarded to members of the
Reserve Components who are ordered to Federal active duty, regardless of
duration, except for the categories listed above.  Any member of the Guard
or Reserve who, after 31 December 1960, becomes eligible for the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal or the Southwest Asia
Service Medal is also eligible for the National Defense Service Medal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant may have completed several training courses
while a member of the United States Air Force, those courses are
appropriately reflected on her Air Force separation document and would not
be repeated on her Army separation document.

2.  The evidence does, however, confirm that the applicant completed a 1-
week Hazardous Material Handling Course conducted at the Department of
Defense School of Military Packaging Technology, Fort Meade, Maryland in
March 2000.  Her separation document should be corrected accordingly.

3.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to the
National Defense Service Medal based on her active military service after
11 September 2001.  Her records should reflect entitlement to that award.

4.  The applicant’s discharge as a result of her identification under the
QMP was appropriate.  She has provided no evidence that she completed PLDC
or its equivalent, which served as the basis for her QMP action.  Her
contention that she was recommended for and at one time scheduled for BNCOC
is not evidence that she met PLDC requirement.

5.  The applicant’s date of rank for her “current” grade (E-5) was in 1997,
not prior to 1992 as provided for by regulations.  As such, her current
grade would not have met requirements for credit for PLDC.

6.  Her separation code and RE code were appropriately assigned and
consistent with the basis for her separation.  That fact that she may be
unable to return to military service is not evidence of any error or
injustice, nor does it warrant a change in either code.

7.  While the applicant may have had more than 6 years of active duty
service, those years were not continuous and did not immediately precede
her 2002 separation.  As such, the applicant would not have been entitled
to separation pay as a result of her involuntary discharge.

8.  The applicant also did not have the required qualifying years of
military service to warrant transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve of
Retired Reserve.  The procedures for involuntary discharge as a result of
the QMP action for a Soldier in the applicant’s situation provided only for
discharge and not release from active duty.

9.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, she does not have two discharge
orders.  One order merely attached her to the transition activity for
separation processing (C-07-291265) and the other was her actual discharge
order (D-07-290166).

BOARD VOTE:

___JS___  ___RD __  ___TO __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing that she completed the 1 week, Hazardous Material
Handling Course at Fort Meade, Maryland in March 2000; and


      b.  by showing that she is entitled to the National Defense Service
Medal.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
changing her SPD and RE Codes, listing of Air Force course on her
separation document, and payment of separation pay.




            ______John Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098139                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040729                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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