RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010903 


	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. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Ms. Sherry J. Stone

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 discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the comments made by his commander at the time, were derogatory.  His commander described him as "an extremely lazy and hostile individual who harbors a strong resentment for authority.  His failure to perform the basic tasks of being a Soldier has clearly identified this man as being a substandard individual."  The applicant concludes that such judgment was offensive and degrading considering that he volunteered to serve as a member of the Armed Forces to protect this country. 

3.  The applicant provides the following documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

	b.  Memorandum, dated 8 September 1972, titled:  Elimination Under the Qualitative Management Program.

	c.  Recommendation for Employment, dated 23 May 1985, Sprint GTE Communication Corporation.

	d.  Letter of Appreciation, dated 11 February 2000, Compaq Corporation.

	d.  Undated character reference letter, Wolf Solutions.

	e.  Electronic mail (email), dated 15 February 2001 and 8 May 2001, commending the applicant's performance.

	f.  Undated Letter of Appreciation, Compaq.

	g.  Letter, dated 2 February 2000, award of a cash bonus.

	h.  Employee Contribution Assessment Form, dated 7 January 1999.

	i.  Compaq Corporation Performance Management/Development Planning, during the period September 1999 to December 1999; January 2000 to December 2000; and January 2001 to December 2001.

	j.  Applicant's Performance Plan and Review (PPR) for 2003 and 2005
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 records show that he was inducted (not voluntarily enlisted) into the Army of the United States on 10 April 1972.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).  The highest rank he attained during his military service was private/pay grade E-1.

3.  The applicant's records show that he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Combat Support Training Brigade, Fort Dix, New Jersey, and that that he was counseled repeatedly, on multiple occasions during the period June 1972 through August 1972, by his commander, first sergeant, and platoon sergeant for his poor attitude, poor appearance, poor performance of duties, and failure to perform his duties.

4.  The applicant's records show that he was counseled on 7 September 1972, regarding deficiencies noted in his conduct and performance of duties.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a memorandum recommending the applicant's separation under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion.  The immediate commander cited the following reason for non-promotion:

	"Applicant is an extremely lazy and hostile individual who harbors
	a strong resentment for authority.  His failure to perform the basic
	tasks of being a Soldier clearly identified him as a substandard 
	individual who does not meet the 	minimum required in today's Army.
	This command strongly recommends that the applicant be separated
	from the Army as expeditiously as possible and a General Discharge 	Certificate be awarded." 
5.  On 8 September 1972, by memorandum, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant's elimination under the Qualitative Management Program and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

6.  On 12 September 1972, the applicant's brigade commander also recommended his elimination under the Qualitative Management Program with a General Discharge Certificate

7.  On 19 September 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge from the Army under the authority of Department of the Army Message 242110Z, dated September 1971 (Extension of Qualitative Management Program to Grades E-1 and E-2) and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  On 6 October 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions by reason of Qualitative Management Program and that he completed 5 months and 27 days of creditable military service.

8.  The applicant submitted several post service letters of appreciation and commendation as well as his evaluations.

9.  There is no indication in the applicant's records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.

10.  Department of the Army Message, DAPE-MPP, dated 24 September 1971, Extension of Qualitative Management Program (QMP) to Grades E-1 and E-2, extended the QMP to include the ranks of E-1 and E-2.  The policy was designed to enable commanders to immediately separate individuals whose performance of duty, acceptability for the service, and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for enlisted personnel in the Army.  The policy was limited to (a) individuals who failed to be advanced to the grade of E-2 after four months time in service; (b) individuals who failed to be advanced to the grade of E-3 after four months time in grade as an E-2; and (c) individuals who were reduced to grade E-1 or E-2 who were subsequently not promoted to E-2 or E-3 within the above time frames following reduction.  Either an HD or GD were authorized for members separating under these provisions. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The immediate commander's memorandum initiating elimination action against the applicant appears to be a reflection of the applicant's performance and potential at the time.  Since his platoon sergeant, first sergeant, and commander were aware of his performance at that time and recorded on the memorandum what they considered a fair and accurate assessment, any retrospective views do not overcome the assessments made when this memorandum was submitted.

2.  Evidence of  record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable policies and regulations in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Thus, the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable, and accurately reflects the overall quality of his active duty service. 

3.  Post-service achievements, accomplishments, or performance do not erase the applicant's performance during his military service.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show evidence, 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.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp___  __mjf___  __sjs___  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.




							William D. Powers
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010903
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071211
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19721006
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.