RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 November 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001683 


	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. Judy L. Blanchard

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Stanley Kelley

Chairperson

Ms. Diane J. Armstrong

Member

Ms. Delia R. Trimble

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, in effect, an upgrade of his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 to allow reenlistment into the National Guard.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the JCC code is due to a reduction in force rather than Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  He further states, that a National Guard recruiter, who had access to the reenlistment code regulation, brought to his attention that the JCC was a Narrative disparity.    

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate Of Release Or Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form 214), a list of military reenlistment eligibility codes and its definition copy a of the regulation stating JCC (Early Release – Reduction in authorized strength), rather than Narrative for QMP. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 25 February 1993.  The application submitted in this case is dated 
2 February 2005.  

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
31 March 1977, he was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88N10 (Traffic Management Coordinator).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was staff sergeant (SSG).  His record also shows that during his tenure on active duty, he completed four overseas tours in Germany and an overseas tour in Portugal.  He earned the following awards:  the Army Service Ribbon; the National Defense Service Medal; the NCO Professional Development Ribbon; the Army Achievement Medal (2); the Joint Service Army Commendation Medal (2); the Overseas Service Ribbon (3); the Army Good Conduct Medal (3); the Drivers Badge; the Antartic Service Medal; and the M -16 Expert Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant pay grade E-6 on 1 March 1990.
4.  The documents associated with the applicant’s QMP action are missing from his record.  However, his record does show that he received a DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the QMP.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the QMP selection and completed an election form in which he chose to appeal the DA imposed bar to reenlistment.  

5.  On 5 November 1992, the applicant’s appeal of the DA imposed bar to reenlistment was disapproved by a DA Standby Advisory Board.  The Board judged that the past performance and estimated potential of the applicant was not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  The applicant was informed that he must separate from the U.S. Army no later than 28 February 1993.  His separation will be under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8.  (Reduction in Authorized Strength – Qualitative Early Retention Program).  

6.  On 16 November 1992, the separation authority directed that the applicant be honorably discharged under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early retention program, and that he be assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of JCC and an RE code of RE-4.  

7.  On 25 February 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early retention program.  At the time of discharge, he had completed 15 years, 10 months, and 25 days of active military service.

8.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 25 February 1993 confirms that the authority for his separation was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 and that the narrative reason for his separation was authorized strength-qualitative early retention program.  This document also verifies that based on the authority and reason for discharge, the applicant was assigned a SPD code of JCC and an RE-4 code.  

9.  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.  It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of JCC is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early retention program.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table included in the regulation establishes 
RE-4 as the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.  
10.  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 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.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued Army service.

11.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, 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 enhance quality of the career-enlisted force, selectively retain the best-qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive soldiers, and encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early retention program.  The SPD code of JCC is also the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early retention program.  As a result, the RE-4 code and the narrative reason for separation were and still are appropriate.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  This includes the assignment of his SPD and RE codes.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued Army service.



4.   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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 25 February 1993; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
24 February 1996.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SK __  __DJA __  __DRT __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




_____ Stanley Kelley_____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001683
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20051108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.