RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005381


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |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, a change to Item 26 (Separation
Code) and Item 27 (Reentry Code) of his 28 February 1996 separation
document
(DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated with a reentry
(RE) code of RE-4 and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JCC
because he received separation pay.  He claims he paid the money back in
2003 in order to receive disability compensation, and he would now like to
enlist in the Army National Guard (ARNG) or United States Army Reserve
(USAR).

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
his application.

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's record shows that on 5 June 1986, after serving in the
USAR from 1982 to 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active
duty.  He held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B
(Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic), and sergeant is the highest rank he
attained while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's record is void of the initial notification packet;
however, it does contain appeal documentation that confirms a Department of
the Army (DA) Bar to Reenlistment was imposed on the applicant under the
provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

4.  On 27 June 1995, the applicant submitted an appeal of the QMP action.
In his appeal, he stated that his appeal was because there was insufficient
justification for the action, and based on his improved performance.

5.  On 25 October 1995, the Commander, United States Army Enlisted Records
and Evaluation Center (EREC) notified the applicant's command that his QMP
appeal had been carefully reviewed by a Department of the Army (DA) Stand-
By Advisory Board (STAB) and disapproved.  The notification memorandum
indicated that the STAB judged that the past performance and estimated
potential of the applicant were not in keeping with the standards expected
of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  The applicant's discharge under the
provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
reduction in force, and assignment of an SPD code of JCC and RE code of 4
code was directed not later than 28 February 1996.

6.  On 28 February 1996, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing a total of 10 years, 1 month, and 20 days.  The DD Form 214 he
was issued confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-
8, Army Regulation and that the narrative reason for his separation was
"Reduction In Force".  Item 26 shows he was assigned the SPD code of JCC
and Item 27 shows he received an RE code of RE-4.

7.  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 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 force.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference
Table stipulates that when a Soldier separates with a DA bar to
reenlistment under the QMP RE-4 will be assigned.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to change his SPD and RE codes was carefully
considered.  However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
granting the requested relief.

2.  By regulation, SPD code JCC and RE code RE-4 are the proper codes to
assign members separating under the provisions of paragraph 16-8,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in force, who have had a
DA bar to reenlistment imposed under the provisions of the QMP.

3.  The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant had a DA bar
to reenlistment imposed after he was identified under the QMP, and that his
separation was directed upon completion of the QMP appellate process.
Therefore, the SPD and RE code assignment were appropriate and remain valid
based on the authority and reason for his separation.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LCB__  __MJNT__  __EIF___  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.




                                  _____Larry C. Bergquist___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2007000538                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/11                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1996/02/28                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Para 16-8                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Red In Force - QMP                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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