MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036533

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 he be allowed to return to active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was separated under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) due to the Army’s draw down based on his academic performance.  He states that he successfully completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) on 3 March 1991 and was promoted to sergeant on 1 May 1992.  He goes on to state that he failed to complete the Basic Non Commissioned Officers Course (BNCOC) because he was in an emotionally distressfully situation as his wife’s father was diagnosed with lung cancer and her father subsequently died while he was in school.  He states that he was torn between being able to support his wife who was pregnant and staying focused on the tasks at hand.  He continues by stating that his decision not to appeal his discharge under the QMP was due to his spiritual immaturity at the time and if the QMP board had used the whole soldier concept in evaluating his performance as an NCO he would not have been selected to be discharged.  He concludes by indicating that he has completed numerous courses since his discharge and is requesting that the DA imposed bar to reenlistment be lifted and that he be assigned a reentry (RE) code that would allow him to reenter the Army.  In support of his appeal he submits a copy of what appears to be his father-in-law’s Certificate of Death, a copy of his daughter’s Certificate of Live Birth, a copy of his Service School Academic Evaluation Report showing that he completed the (PLDC), copies of his NCO Evaluation Reports, a memorandum dated 23 January 2000 from a command sergeant major, a letter dated 23 January 2000 from the pastor of a church, a letter dated 20 January 2000 from a sergeant first class (SFC) career counselor, an undated letter from a retired SFC, an undated letter from a retired captain, all attesting to the applicant’s character and recommending that he be allowed to return to active duty.  He also submits a copy of his Certificate of Completion from the Augusta Association of Life Underwriters.

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

After completing 3 years, 5 months and 25 days in the USAR, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years on 14 August 1987 in the pay grade of E-2.  He remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February 1988, to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 January 1989 and to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 May 1992.

The available records show that the applicant failed the PLDC for the periods covering 17 May through 7 June 1990 and 6 July through 2 August 1990.  He passed the PLDC on 22 March 1991.  The available records further show that he failed the BNCOC for the period covering 2 August through 30 August 1993; but subsequently completed the BNCOC on 29 November 1994 and graduated in the top 20% of the class.

On 16 April 1996, the applicant was notified by the CY 1996 Master Sergeant Selection/Sergeant QMP Board that after a comprehensive review of his Official Military Personnel File, he was being barred from reenlistment under the QMP.  Although the information is unavailable for review, the QMP board forwarded him a list of his areas of deficiencies and included a statement of options.  The QMP board also informed him that if he chose to appeal the decision, he should submit his appeal through his chain of command within 60 days after he completed his statement of options.

The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not on file.  The Certificate of Release or Discharge, DD Form 214, indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged on 27 July 1996, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-8, under the QMP as a result of a reduction in force.  He had completed 9 years, 2 months and 24 days of total active service and he was assigned an RE code of RE-4.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification such as 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 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.  Paragraph 16-8 provides that personnel will be notified of the separation by appropriate commanders and be provided the basis for the separation.
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 (1) enhance 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.

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

2.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, the evidence of record clearly shows that he twice failed the PLDC and he also failed BNCOC.  He was afforded the opportunity to appeal the QMP board’s decision and he opted not to do so at a time in which his chain of command could have provided input.  Although he may now believe he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct.

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

___cmf __  __fe ____  ___rjw __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036533	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996/07/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	488	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  471	144.0720/A07.20/Bar to reenlistment	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.