MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035210

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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 the Department of the Army (DA) imposed bar to reenlistment imposed on him under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be removed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he accepted on 6 February 1987 was unjust because the officer in charge failed to review all the circumstances surrounding his missing movement.  He claims that the bar to reenlistment imposed on him was initiated in a command climate of force reductions which created an extreme screening process that resulted in many soldiers being unfairly and unjustly barred from reenlistment.  He contends that his local chain of command had to follow this policy even though it was against their professional judgement.  He concludes that his love of justice and service to his country compels him to request this action which would allow him to complete his military career with the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant is an honorably discharged veteran who served over 14 years and that this included service in Southwest Asia.  The applicant’s record shows that he was awarded four Army Good Conduct Medals (AGCM) during his tenure in service.  By definition, the AGCM is awarded on a selective basis to each soldier who distinguishes themselves from among their fellow soldiers by their exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity.   Counsel contends that the soldier was clearly a soldier who distinguished himself from his peers and was an excellent soldier barring the incident which lead to his DA bar to reenlistment.  Further, the applicant should have been given the opportunity to finish his 20 years and retire.  Counsel concludes that at a time when readiness is at an all time low, they feel clemency is warranted and ask that after reviewing the evidence, the Board resolve any doubt in favor of the applicant.

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

He served on active duty in the Regular Army for 14 years, 5 months, and
17 days until being discharged on 30 September 1992, in the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG).  

On 15 January 1992, the applicant was notified that he had been selected by the Calendar Year (CY) 1991 Sergeant First Class/Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) promotion selection board to be barred from reenlistment under the provisions of the QMP.  Enclosed with this notification was a list of documents that most contributed to the board’s decision to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  This list included three DA Form 1059s (Academic Evaluation Reports) and a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ).

The first DA Form 1059 contained on the QMP document list was dated 
4 September 1980.  This AER evaluated the applicant on his performance in the Watercraft Operator Course at Fort Eustis, Virginia, which he attended from 
18 July to 4 September 1980.  Block 13 (Performance Summary) of the report contained an evaluation that stated that the applicant “marginally achieved course standards” and the supporting comment in block 16 (Comments) indicated that the applicant had been recycled once for academic reasons and had experienced difficulty in comprehending the material.  

The second AER used as support for the QMP action covered the period 19 June to 10 July 1981 while the applicant was attending the Watercraft Operator Primary Technical Course.  He was again evaluated as “marginally achieving course standards” and this was supported with the comment that he had difficulty comprehending the material and he lacked sufficient navigational skills.

The last AER used as a basis for the QMP selection covered the period 
13 September to 12 October 1984 and evaluated the applicant during his attendance at the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).  The Performance Summary of this report contained an evaluation on the applicant that indicated that he “failed to achieve course standards.”  The comments supporting this evaluation stated that the applicant had been released from the course for academic reasons and that he was unable to attain course standards in the areas of character of a leader, leadership styles, and principles of motivation.  

The last document identified in the QMP process was NJP the applicant accepted on 6 February 1987 for negligently missing the movement of his section.  His punishment for this offense included his being reduced in rank to Sergeant (SGT) and a forfeiture of $599.00 per month for 2 months.  Block 7 of the DA Form 2627 indicates that the applicant elected not to appeal the NJP at the time it was administered.  

On 4 March 1992, the applicant submitted an appeal to the DA QMP bar action. He stated that the first AER was the result of his being new to the Marine Field and this caused him to have trouble comprehending the material and the second AER was the result of his having marital difficulties that distracted him from his studies.  In addition, he states he overcame the reasons for his 1984 PLDC failure, as evidenced by his passing the course in 1985; and that the NJP he accepted in 1987 was the result of a change in the operational order which changed the reporting time for departure from the unit area.  His company and battalion commanders recommended approval of his QMP appeal; however, his brigade commander and his commanding general recommended the appeal be disapproved. 

On 16 June 1992, the applicant was notified that his appeal packet and records had been reviewed by a Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) and that his appeal was disapproved.  The appeal denial letter explained that the board judged the applicant’s past performance and estimated that his potential was not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps and consequently his DA imposed bar to reenlistment would remain in effect.  

In the QMP denial letter, the applicant’s chain of command was advised that he must be separated not later than 30 September 1992 and that the narrative reason for his separation would be “Reduction in Authorized Strength-Qualitative Early Transition Program.”  Accordingly, on 30 September 1992, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 
635-200.

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 to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and 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 obligations.  Paragraph 16-8 provides for the early separation of soldiers due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers may be separated prior to expiration of enlistment of 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.  

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 that his NJP was unjust and that his QMP bar to reenlistment was imposed in a climate of force reductions through a rigid screening process.  However, the record shows that the applicant accepted the NJP action and that he elected not to appeal the NJP at the time it was administered.  In addition, the DA bar to reenlistment imposed on the applicant was a result of his being identified under the qualitative screening subprogram after his records were screened by a DA promotion selection board. 

2.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to make his case for retention through the QMP appeal process, which he did.  However, after his appeal packet and records were carefully reviewed by a properly constituted STAB, the appeal was denied and he was discharged accordingly.  

3.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

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 this 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

___tdh __  __gw____  ____ao__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035210	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/09/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C16	
DISCHARGE REASON	Reduction In Authorized Strength-QMP 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  7	100.0600	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.