MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            20 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028571

	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.

	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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:  In effect, that his reentry (RE) code be changed.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that a letter of reprimand (LOR) issued him does not accurately reflect his 16 years of honorable service.  He claims the situation that resulted in the LOR was purely domestic and that various parties took sides and arrived at conclusions without the advantage of having all the information.  He contends because he was an Afro-American married to a German born wife, racial considerations came into play in the decision to issue him a LOR.  He states the problems began after he and his wife had been experiencing marital difficulty.  He and his wife were divorced in 1985, and he was awarded custody of the children.  Complaints to the unit commander were initiated by his wife and she was allowed to live in quarters for 4 months and then remained on post with a friend for another 2 months.  He did not work closely with his unit commander and his only exposure to the commander was based on the complaints of his wife and the commander indicated that the children belonged with his wife.  After constant complaints were made by his wife and the situation got out of hand and this resulting in such a confused state that he isn’t sure if the LOR was issued out of genuine concern for his children, misinformation, or racial considerations, but whatever the reason, the LOR, in his opinion was extremely unjust given his unblemished career to that point.

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

On 3 May 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and served continuously for 16 years, 1 month, and 8 days, until he was honorably discharged, in the rank of sergeant first class/E-7, on 14 June 1996. 

The record shows that on 29 September 1995, a local bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant.  Although the specific documents cited are not on file, the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate listed a letter of reprimand, dated 16 August 1995; a formal counseling statement, dated 16 May 1995; a letter of reprimand, dated 20 December 1993; a military police report dated 24 March 1995; in addition, to some other documents in support of this bar action.

On 11 October 1995, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for unlawfully striking a female, not his wife, in the face, and for on diverse occasions, wrongfully having intercourse with a women, not his wife.  His punishment for this offense was a written reprimand.

On 21 March 1996, a memorandum of reprimand (MOR) was issued as punishment for the NJP outlined above.  It reprimanded the applicant for serious misconduct.  This misconduct resulted from an adulterous sexual relationship the applicant carried on for several months which ended in his unlawfully striking the women with which he had this relationship.  

The Calendar Year 1996 Master Sergeant Selection Board reviewed the applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF) and determined that he would be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and provided the applicant a sealed envelope which listed the documents which were the basis for their decision.  Neither this envelope nor the list of documents contained therein was contained in the record reviewed by this Board.

On 6 May 1996, the applicant was notified of the QMP action and was advised of his options.  He chose option, 2 which was that he would not appeal the action and that he would be involuntarily separated, under the provisions of paragraph 
16-8, Army Regulation 635-200.  Accordingly, on 14 June 1996, the applicant was honorably discharged after completing 16 years, 1 month, and 8 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, 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 quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified soldiers Army Regulation to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. 

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.

AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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.  The SPD code of JCC was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided Paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200.  Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated who are under a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 allows soldiers who receive Department of the Army imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment to apply for immediate discharge.  Paragraph 16-8 specifically applies to personnel separated due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  

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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions and determined that they are not supported by either the evidence of record nor the independent evidence submitted by the applicant and do not provide a basis for relief. 

2.  The Board found no evidence in the available records to demonstrate that the applicant was the victim of racial prejudice and concluded that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

3.  The applicant was properly assigned an RE 4 based on his being under a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment at the time of his discharge. In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry code eligibility code was and still is appropriate.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

5.  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

__be____  __rgh ___  ___gg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028571	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.