RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003777


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |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 his separation be changed to a medical
retirement.

2.  The applicant states he was “medically discharged” with four years left
before retirement.  He was barred from reenlistment because of medical
reasons.  He feels he could have retired if he had been allowed to
reenlist.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel states the applicant was discharged after receiving a bar to
reenlistment.  Counsel avers that the applicant was unjustly treated when
it came to his medical issues and should have been given a medical
retirement.  Under today’s standards, he would at least have been given
this option.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 April 1974.  He was
promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 10 May 1981 in military occupational
specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

3.  On 15 December 1989, the applicant received a Department of the Army
(DA) Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program
(QMP).  Three Enlisted Evaluation Reports/Noncommissioned Officer
Evaluation Reports, for the periods ending September 1983, February 1988,
and April 1989, were cited as the documents which contributed to the
decision to bar him from reenlisting.  The areas of deficiency/weakness
noted in all three of those reports
were the areas of competence, leadership, personal values, and
responsibility and accountability.  Neither these three evaluation reports
nor any other evaluation reports are available in the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant appealed the DA imposed bar to reenlistment.  His appeal
is not available; however, he was notified by endorsement dated 20
September 1990 that his appeal was denied.

5.  On 27 December 1990, the 762d Medical Detachment provided a memorandum
for the Commander, Outprocessing Center, Vicenza, Italy.  The memorandum
noted that the applicant desired a separation physical; however, due to
time constraints that medical facility did not have the time to complete
one.  The 762d Medical Detachment requested that a separation physical be
completed at the Outprocessing Center.  There is no further evidence that a
separation physical was completed.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) is not available.  However, a DD Form 214 worksheet shows that
he was discharged on 31 December 1990 under the provisions of Army
Regulation    635-200, paragraph 16-5 a or b, due to a Headquarters, DA
Imposed Bar to Reenlistment or a Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment, and
that he had completed 16 years, 8 months, and 16 days of creditable active
service.

7.  Army Regulation 601-280, 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 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  In pertinent part, it states that the mere presence
of an impairment does not, of
itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In
each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical
disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier
reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contended he was barred from reenlistment because of
medical reasons.  However, there is no evidence of record and he provides
none to show that was the reason he was barred under the QMP.  Although the
applicant’s evaluation reports are not available, the DA Imposed Bar to
Reenlistment under the QMP notice cited three reports as the documents
which contributed most to the decision to bar him from reenlisting.  The
areas of deficiency/weakness noted in all three of those reports were the
areas of competence, leadership, personal values, and responsibility and
accountability.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not
credible to believe that any deficiencies in the area of personal values,
at least, were the result of medical reasons.

2.  In addition, the applicant contended that he felt he could have retired
if he had been allowed to reenlist.  As this indicates he believed he was
physically fit enough to serve an additional four years on active duty,
such a statement is a direct contradiction to his contention that he should
have been medically retired.

3.  Counsel contended that, under today’s standards, the applicant would at
least have been given the option of being medically retired.  A medical
separation is not an option based upon a Soldier’s desires.  A Soldier is
processed for a medical separation only when there is evidence that the
Soldier cannot perform his military duties because of physical disability.
As noted above, the applicant indicated that he believed he was physically
fit enough to serve an additional four years on active duty.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __fcj___  __cd____  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.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003777                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070906                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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