BOARD DATE:	  16 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009565 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was separated by reason of sufficient service for retirement, vice reduction in strength under the Qualitative Early Transition Program.

2.  The applicant states his record is missing support letters from his previous unit, the 128th Aviation Company in the Republic of Korea.  In an attached 
3-page self-authored statement, he further states:

	a.  He entered the Army in December 1972 and was discharged in 1990 under the Reduction in Force (RIF) Program.  He was a career Soldier and he was on his way to achieving his goal of completing 20 years of active service; he was dismissed at 17 years and 4 months.

	b.  As a noncommissioned officer (NCO) at the time, this was unfair since he did not benefit from counsel, a separation hearing, or a separation physical.

	c.  He was notified that he had been selected for RIF only 2 weeks prior to his departure from an overseas assignment in Korea; he was enroute to an assignment at Fort Carson, Colorado.  He solicited several officers and NCOs to write letters of support on his behalf.  These letters were compiled and mailed together in a single packet.

	d.  When he arrived at Fort Carson, Colorado, he was informed that none of the units there had a need for Soldiers with his grade; he was considered excess. After about 8 months, he was summoned to the office of his battalion command sergeant major, where he and his first sergeant were informed that he would need to submit another appeal packet in reference to the RIF.  He inquired as to the status of the letters he requested from the various officers and NCOs in Korea; he was informed that the letters were probably thrown in the trash.  Nevertheless, he was instructed to get new letters of support.

	e.  Due to a lack of authorizations in Fort Carson units, he was moved around post to various units and none of the units personnel were willing to write him a letter of support.

	f.  He is a Vietnam-era veteran who served all of his deployments without hesitation.  He's trained subordinates, peers, and officer candidates alike.  He attended all of the schools required for his grade and took courses to achieve promotion.  

	g.  There was only one negative incident in his career, in which he received company-grade nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  He was not barred from reenlistment; he did reenlist after receiving NJP.  He was allowed to reenlist; however, he wasn't allowed to retire.

	h.  He gave 17 years and 4 months of hard, dedicated service with no breaks in service.  Even though he received an honorable discharge, he is a careerist who wanted to complete 20 years of service.  He should not have been denied what he rightfully deserves.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter from the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, dated 17 February 2014
* DD Forms 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 22 November 1972, 27 December 1972, 2 October 1975, 10 May 1979, 3 August 1982, and 3 February 1986
* DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training), Headstart Orientation to German,   14 May – 18 May 1984
* Certificate of Training, Inter-service Construction Equipment Operator Course
* Certificate of Graduation, Primary NCO Course, 9 August – 19 September 1974
* DA Form 669 (Educational Development Record)
* DA Form 669 (Army Continuing Education System Record)
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
* two DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), for the periods ending 1 October 1975 and 9 May 1979
* DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 6 April 1990 

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 27 December 1972.  His record shows he served through multiple periods of reenlistment or extension, in multiple military occupational specialties, and on 1 March 1980, he was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5, effective 4 February 1980.  

3.  His record contains a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 10 April 1985, that shows he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for disrespecting a commissioned officer and for disobeying the lawful order of a commissioned officer, on or about 6 March 1985.  

4.  His record contains a memorandum, dated 14 October 1988, subject:  Department of the Army (DA)-Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  This document notified him that the Calendar Year 1988 Master SGT/SGT QMP Selection Board reviewed his official military personnel file (OMPF), and after a comprehensive review, the board considered his record of service including performance and future potential for retention in the Army, and barred him from reenlistment.  This selection was based on the DA Form 2627, dated 10 April 1985, that was filed in his OMPF.  The notification documents alludes to a DA Form 4941-R (Statement of Options), enclosed for his review and further action at enclosure 2; however, the Statement of Options is not available for the ABCMR's review.

5.  By a separate letter to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency, Alexandria, VA, dated 15 November 1988, the applicant makes known his intent to appeal his QMP selection.  
6.  His appeal was carefully reviewed by a DA Standby Advisory Board and was disapproved.  The board judged that the past performance and estimated potential of the applicant was not in keeping with the standards expected of the NCO Corps and stated the bar would remain in effect.  He was informed that:

* separation proceedings must be initiated no later than 60 days following the date of notification of disapproval of his appeal
* he could request that an administrative separation board convene to recommend his retention (until his regular expiration of term of service) or elimination
* he would be discharged under the appropriate chapter of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel)

7.  He was notified by separate memorandum from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA on 6 March 1990, that he would be separated as a result of budgetary and manpower restrictions under the Enlisted Qualitative Early Separation Program.  He acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum on 16 March 1990.  He was further notified:

* his separation would occur within 90 days of the receipt of this notification
* he would be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, and his narrative reason for separation would read "Reduction in Authorized Strength – Qualitative Early Transition Program"
* he had the option to request a separation physical; however, his release from active duty would not be delayed for that purpose

8.  He was honorably discharged from the Army on 6 April 1990.  The DD Form 214 he was issued on the date of his discharge shows he completed a total of 
17 years, 3 months, and 10 days of total active military service.  He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, by reason of "Reduction in Strength – Qualitative Early Transition Program."

9.  He provides copies of numerous service documents from throughout his period of military service.  Collectively, these letters reflect positively on his character and qualities as a Soldier and NCO.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed the Army's enlisted administrative separation policy.  Paragraph 16-8 provided for the early separation of Soldiers due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  It states that Soldiers may be separated prior to expiration of their enlistment or fulfillment of active duty obligation when authorization limitations, strength restrictions, or budgetary constraints require the Regular Army active 
duty enlisted force to be reduced in number.  The QMP is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers, (3) deny continued service to nonproductive Soldiers, and (4) encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for correction of his records to show he was separated by reason of sufficient service for retirement, vice reduction in strength under the Qualitative Early Transition Program was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record shows the decision to bar the applicant from reenlistment was based primarily on the NJP he received on 10 April 1985.  

3.  A DA board reviewed the applicant’s OMPF under the Army’s QMP and barred him from reenlistment.  He was notified by memorandum on 14 October 1988 of his right to appeal.  He appealed his selection under the QMP and his appeal was disapproved.  As a result, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, by reason of reduction in strength.  

4.  There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show his Article 15 was erroneously prepared, issued contrary to law and/or regulation, or otherwise flawed or unjust.  Likewise, there is no evidence in the available record and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show his selection under the QMP was procedurally flawed or otherwise unjust or inequitable based on procedures in effect at that time.

5.  The applicant did not have 20 years of active duty service; therefore, he was not entitled to be retired and was appropriately discharged.  Accordingly, there is an insufficient basis to grant the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X_____  __X______  __X__  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.



      _________X______________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130022350



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009565



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1