MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039149

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 authorized full separation pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and was separated within 93 days of when he would have been eligible for full retirement benefits.  He further states that he did not appeal the bar to reenlistment because he had misunderstandings and a personality conflict with his Command Sergeant Major at the time and she was scheduled to serve on the board that would have heard his appeal.  He goes on to state that his wife was in the military and they both served in Southwest Asia during Operation Desert Shield and that shortly after her return she was medically discharged with a 40% disability.  He also states that he is 47 years of age and should have been processed through the medical disability system instead of being discharged; however, there is a provision of the regulation that supercedes medical processing when a Department of the Army reduction in force is involved.  He goes on to state that the separation regulation provides that full separation pay may be authorized in special cases where extenuating circumstances exists and he requests such consideration. 

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

He enlisted in Brooklyn, New York on 20 January 1976 and served until he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-5 on 19 February 1980.  He had served 4 years and 1 month of total active service and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).

On 2 April 1986, he again enlisted for a period of 4 years and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 April 1995.

On 14 September 1999 the applicant was notified that the Department of the Army Calendar Year Sergeant First Class Selection Board, after a comprehensive review of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), had determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on the presence of two records of nonjudicial punishment (DA Form 2627) in his OMPF.  He initially elected to submit an appeal; however, on 1 November 1999 he elected not to submit an appeal. 

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 1 February 2000 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, due to reduction in force.  He had served 17 years and 11 months of total active service was paid one-half separation pay in the amount of $23,355.45. 

A review of the records of nonjudicial punishment that served as the basis for his bar to reenlistment reveals that the first punishment was imposed on 3 February 1989 for operating a vehicle while drunk and the second punishment was imposed on 18 April 1997 for being drunk on duty.  A review of the restricted fiche of his OMPF also reveals that he received nonjudicial punishment on 5 December 1986 for striking another soldier in the face with his fist and on 28 July 1987 for drunken driving.

The applicant’s records also show that he was denied the award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period of April 1986 to April 1989.

A review of the applicant’s separation physical indicates that he was medically cleared for separation and there is no indication that he was or should have been referred to a disability separation board.

Department of the Army Circular 635-94-1 outlines the eligibility criteria for separation pay formulas as authorized by the department of Defense Instruction1332.29 dated 20 June 1991 and other Headquarters, Department of the Army guidance resulting from Public Law 101-510, the National Defense Authorization Act.  The circular also illustrates the various types of separations that are either eligible or ineligible for separation pay.  It states, in pertinent part that soldiers denied reenlistment under the QMP are authorized one-half separation pay.  In extraordinary circumstances, the Secretary of the Army may award full separation pay to soldiers otherwise eligible for one-half separation pay when the specific reasons for separation and the overall quality of the soldier’s service have been such that denial of full pay would be clearly unjust.

Army Regulation 601-280 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 enlisted soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to                non-progressive and non-productive 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 Department of the Army 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.  Soldiers who are within 2 years of qualifying for retirement on the date of separation will not be separated under this provision 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.  The Department of the Army bar to reenlistment under the QMP was imposed in compliance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

2.  The applicant was properly authorized one-half separation pay in accordance with the applicable guidelines and he has failed to show through the evidence of record or the evidence submitted with his application that his service was of such a nature to warrant full separation pay as an exception to policy.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been processed for medical disability separation has been noted by the Board and appears to be without merit.  There is no indication in the available evidence to suggest that he was not medically fit for separation at the time of his discharge. 

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

___be___  ___rvo __  __lds____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039149	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  291	128.0800/SEP PAY	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.