BOARD DATE:	  27 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150005604 


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  The applicant requests his discharge under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be rescinded.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged under QMP as an act of retribution which he did not deserve.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Appeal of DA Imposed Bar to Reenlistment
* DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions)
* Orders revoking his promotion
* Orders awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal
* Letters of Appreciation with endorsements 
* Orders awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal
* Congressional correspondence
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), ending on 30 November 1988
* DA Form 2139 (Military Pay Voucher)
* Certificate of promotion
* Orders promoting him to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6

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 he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 11 June 1969 and he held military occupational specialty 94B (Cook).  

3.  He served in Vietnam from 30 January to 18 December 1970.  While in Vietnam, on 26 June 1970, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for unlawfully discharging a firearm. 

4.  He was honorably released from active duty on 19 December 1970 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation.   He was issued a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that captured his active service.

5.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 14 September 1973.  He served in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments and he was promoted to specialist five/E-5.   

6.  On 14 October 1975, he was convicted by a general court-martial of one specification of assault with a straight razor.  The court sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of pay for 6 months.  The convening authority approved his sentence on1 December 1975.  

7.  He was discharged from active duty on 24 October 1977 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He was issued a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that captured his active service. 

8.  Prior to his discharge, a waiver for disqualification for reenlistment (lost time) was approved to allow him to reenlist.  He reenlisted in the RA on 25 October 1977.  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments.  
9.  On 8 November 1978, in Germany, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for dereliction in the performance of his duties.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty. 

10.  He was promoted to SSG/E-6 in May 1981.

11.  On 21 March 1985, in Germany, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for one count of operating a vehicle while drunk in a reckless and wanton manner; one count of wrongfully operating a vehicle without a valid license; and one count of willfully and wrongfully damaging a brick wall, property of a German national. His punishment consisted of a reduction to sergeant (SGT)/E-5, forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.  He elected not to appeal. 

12.  On 30 September 1987, Headquarters, 257th Personnel Service Company published Orders 202-152 promoting him to SSG/E-6 effective 30 September 1987. 

13.  On 10 September 1987, by letter, the applicant was notified that Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) conducted a comprehensive review of his record during a recent DA Selection Board for potential denial of continued service under the QMP.  Based on this review, HQDA recommended the applicant be denied continued active service and that he should be barred from reenlistment.  During the review of his file by the QMP board, his record of service was considered including total performance and future potential for retention in the Army, and his Article 15s.  As a result, he would be involuntarily discharged from the Army.  He was also advised of his rights and options.

14.  On 22 September 1987, HQDA Separations Branch advised the applicant through his chain of command of the action by the QMP and provided the applicant with a statement of options.  He was advised of his right to appeal the bar to reenlistment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the QMP notification memorandum and indicated he desired to submit an appeal for retention on active duty.  

15.  On 18 April 1988, HQDA denied his request.  An official stated the appeal of the DA imposed bar to reenlistment was carefully reviewed by the Reenlistment Appeal Board; however, it was denied.  The appeal board considered the applicant's complete records, his appeal and documents submitted, and his chain of command's recommendations.  The board's decision was influenced by the applicant's disciplinary record.  His lack of judgment, self-discipline, and overall character were not consistent with the standards expected of a noncommissioned officer with his grade and experience. 

16.  Between 17 August and 13 September 1988, his Fort Dix, NJ chain of command submitted additional matters recommending his retention. 

* his company commander recommended removal of the HQDA Bar to Reenlistment and recommended his retention
* his battalion commander also opined that the QMP board failed to make their case against the applicant and recommended his retention 
* his brigade commander recommended his retention and opined that his duty performance had been excellent

17.  On 28 September 1988, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Dix, NJ published Orders 272-27 revoking his promotion to SSG/E-6. 

18.  On 30 November 1988, he was honorably discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 16-5 under the Qualitative Early Transition Program.  He completed 
11 years, 1 month, and 6 days of net active service during this period with 5 years, 7 months, and 20 days of total prior active service.  His DD Form 214 shows his rank/grade as SGT/E-5.  He was awarded or authorized the: 

* Army Service Ribbon
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* Good Conduct Medal (4th Award)
* Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* National Defense Service Medal
* Army Commendation Medal
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun Bar   (M-60)
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* overseas service bar

18.  Army Regulation 600-200 sets forth policy and prescribes 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 enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best-qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.


19.  The QMP is implemented and managed under the supervision of the Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC).  DA Centralized Selection Boards conduct screening and/or selection of Soldiers for this program as an additional mission when conducting Centralized Promotion Selection Boards.  Criteria include but are not limited to moral, professional, or ethical conduct incompatible with that expected of an NCO; the lack of potential to perform duties; inefficiency or substandard performance; a trend of disciplinary problems; or the inability to meet physical fitness standards or failure to comply with requirements of the Army body composition program.  The USAEREC Commander defines the objective of the QMP as being to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force by selectively retaining the best qualified Soldiers and denying further service to non-progressive or non-productive Soldiers.  It is used to eliminate Soldiers who do not meet performance conduct and attitude standards and do not have the potential for advancement.

20.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program) prescribes the criteria for the Army Retention Program.  Paragraph 10-5 in effect at the time provided for screening procedures and stated that appropriate Department of the Army Selection Boards would review the performance portion of the official military personnel file, the DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR) Part – I) and DA Form 2-1 (PQR Part – II), and other authorized documents.  From these documents, the board will evaluate past performance and estimate the potential of each servicemember to determine if continued service is warranted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The QMP requires that Soldiers demonstrate professional ability by performance of duty and maintain high standards of conduct.  The applicant's official military personnel file was reviewed by a DA selection board.  After a comprehensive review of his file, the board determined that he should be barred from reenlistment.  The QMP board determined the applicant did not meet performance, conduct, and attitude standards and did not have the potential for advancement.  

2.  During the review of his file by the QMP board, his entire record of service was considered.  As a result, he was selected to be involuntarily discharged from the Army.  He was also advised of his rights and options. The bar to reenlistment also automatically placed him in a non-promotable status.

3.  There are two ways to rescind a QMP selection for non-retention: 

	a.  In the case of a material error.  For example, if a QMP board recommended a Soldier be barred when the Soldier should not have been considered by the QMP board in the first place.  This is not the case here.  The applicant had derogatory information in his file that necessitated consideration by the QMP board.  There is no material error.

   b.  The derogatory information in the file were ordered removed by a competent authority such as the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board or this Board, which would have negated the need to be considered by the QMP board.  Derogatory information, in this case Article 15s, are removed if they were untrue or unjust.  Again, this is not the case here.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records and he provides none to show he was denied consideration of his Article 15 offenses by a court-martial, denied the right to consult with counsel, or denied the right to appeal.  As such, there is no reason to remove the NJP from his records. 

4.  The applicant did not provide evidence to corroborate a material error that would lead this Board to rescind the QMP recommendation to bar him from continued service. 

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)                                         AR20150005604



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150005604



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1