MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            13 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999020690

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Ms. Sherri V, Ward		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his records be changed to show he was retired in lieu of discharged for reduction in force.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had sufficient service to have his discharge upgraded to retirement.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 13 August 1979, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

In September 1993, the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan.

The applicant lived in off post housing with his wife and three children, where they developed problems with insects, mainly centipedes.  It appears the applicant complained to the Family Housing Division, and requested, as an exception to policy, to be moved to government quarters at the Sagamihara housing area.  His request was disapproved, and he moved his family back to the United States.  

There are no current documents in the applicant’s available records.

In statements from the applicant and his wife, they indicate he received an Article 15, under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and alluded to the fact that it concerned unauthorized telephone use from Japan to the United States, however there is no copy of an Article 15 in the applicant’s available records.  They also make reference to a fraudulent enlistment in 1993, however there is no evidence in his records that addresses this issue.

The applicant states that he received a “Relief For Cause” NCOER, for the period October 1995 to December 1995, a copy of which is not in his records.

On 16 April 1969, he was barred from reenlisting as a result of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) because of an NCOER for the period October 1992 to January 1993, and a DA Form 2627 (Records of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ).

On 9 May 1996, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to appeal his bar to reenlistment but declined, with the understanding that he would be discharged within 90 days.

On 5 August 1996, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, for reduction in force.  His Report of Separation indicates he had 16 years, 11 months and 23 days of active Federal service, and received $22,045.80 in separation pay.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, 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 (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.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligation.  Paragraph 16-8 applies to early separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  When authorization limitations, strength restriction, or budgetary constraints require the size of the enlisted force to be reduced, the Secretary of the Army, or his designee will authorize voluntary or involuntary early separation.  Soldiers who are within 2 years of qualifying for retirement on the schedule separation date will not be processed under this paragraph unless directed by the Secretary of the Army.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant have failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  The applicant was separated due to reduction in force, under the Qualitative Management Program, because of a substandard NCOER and an Article 15 
being placed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

4.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulation with no indication of procedural error which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5.  Considering the fact that the applicant was not within 2 years of qualifying for retirement his DD Form 214 accurately reflects the appropriate separation authority and narrative reason for his separation. 

6.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___fe____  ___cla___  ___svw_  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020690	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000413	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 136.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.