RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  23 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003221 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols

Chairperson

Mr. John T. Meixell

Member

Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

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, that his reentry (RE) code 4 be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like the opportunity to join the Michigan National Guard.  He further states that the RE code 4 is not justified with the separation code "JCC," reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early transition program.  At the time of his discharge the Army was drawing down in its strength and he had to leave for quality reasons.  

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with the period ending 30 April 1992.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant had prior service.  On 24 October 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 1 November 1988.

3.  By memorandum dated 15 January 1992, the applicant was notified that the Calendar Year 1991 Sergeant First Class Promotion Board Qualitative Management Program (QMP) Selection Board reviewed his Official Military Personnel File and, after a comprehensive review of his file, determined he was to be barred from reenlistment.  The applicant's Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report for the period ending December 1988 was cited as the document identifying a specific area of weakness as the basis for his bar to reenlistment.  

4.  There is no evidence to show the applicant appealed the cited evaluation report or his bar from reenlistment.
5.  On 30 April 1992, he was honorably separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-8 in the rank and grade of SSG/E-6.  He had completed a total of 14 years, 2 months, and 19 days of creditable active service. 

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with the period ending 30 April 1992 in item 
26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JCC"; in item 27 (Reentry Code) shows the entry "4";  and in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry "REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZED STRENGTH – QUALITATIVE EARLY TRANSITION PROGRAM."    

7.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program), chapter 10 at the time set forth policy and prescribed 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 nonprogressive 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, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards.  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.

8.  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.  The SPD code of JCC was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for Soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), by reason of non-retention on active duty.  

9.  Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table states that when SPD is JCC and the Soldier separates with a Headquarters Department of the Army bar to reenlistment under the QMP then RE code 4 will be given.  

10.  RE code 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is non-waivable.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was involuntarily separated on 
30 April 1992 under the QMP.  By regulation, this mandated that he be separated from the Army and assigned an RE code 4.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations, to include the RE code 4 assignment.  Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the Board concludes that the assigned RE code 4 was appropriate.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LE  __  __JTM __  __RTD__  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.




   ____ Lester Echols __
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR2007003221
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
23 AUGUST 2007
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MS. MITRANO
ISSUES         1.
100.0300.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.