MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044608

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg 		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 two applications, correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was an outstanding soldier, selected for promotion to the pay grade E-7, wants to serve 3 more years and retire.  He only has a letter of reprimand in his records.  He received an honorable discharge, therefore, his RE code should be RE-3, not RE-4.  

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

He initially enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the Army Reserve (USAR) for 6 years on 25 May 1983.  On 11 January 1984, he was discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years.  On 21 August 1984, he reenlisted in the RA for 6 years in pay grade E-5.  On 20 August 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged at the expiration of his term of service. His military occupational specialty (MOS) was MOS 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember) and the highest rank he had attained was sergeant, pay grade E-5.  He was credited with 9 years, 2 months and 26 days active duty and no other service from 25 May 1983.  However, this appears to be in error since he did not begin his active service until 11 January 1984.  Therefore, his creditable active service was actually only 8 years, 7 months and 10 days. 

On 19 January 1993, he reenlisted in the RA for 3 years in pay grade E-5, for duty in MOS 13M.  On 12 July 1995, he again reenlisted for 3 additional years in the RA.  On 1 October 1995, he was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.  His MOS remained 13M.  

On 15 January 1997, the applicant received a written Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) from a brigadier general, the III Corps Artillery Commander at Fort Sill, Oklahoma for being arrested on 20 December 1996 for the criminal offense of driving on the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge, Indiahoma, Oklahoma, while drunk.  His breathalyzer test read a blood alcohol level of .17.  He submitted a rebuttal to the MOR.  His chain of command recommended that the MOR be filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The brigadier general agreed and directed that it be filed in his OMPF.  There is no evidence of record that he ever appealed or requested removal of the MOR from his records.

On 19 December 1997, he reenlisted in pay grade E-6 for 5 years.  A review of the applicant's OMPF shows that his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) between January 1993 and August 1999 were essentially average reports.  He satisfactorily accomplished his duties, he was recommended for promotion with his peers, his senior raters indicated his overall performance was successful (2nd out of 5 blocks, 1 being the highest, 5 the lowest) and his potential was superior, again 2nd out of 5 blocks, 1 being the highest, 5 the lowest.  However, comments on the evaluation reports by rating officials show him as being only an average noncommissioned officer.  

On 30 August 1999, the applicant was notified that a Department of the Army (DA) Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) had been imposed by the Calendar Year 99 Sergeant First Class(SFC)/
Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course Promotion/Selection Board.  The primary basis for the QMP Bar was the MOR.  

He appealed the QMP Bar, which was denied on 7 April 2000.  The Department of the Army board which denied his appeal judged that his past performance and estimated potential was not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  The denial went on to note that he would be separated from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 not later than 31 July 2000.  The narrative reason for the separation to be placed on the DD Form 214 (Report of Separation or Discharge from Active Duty) would be "reduction in force."  The RE code to be assigned would be RE-4, and the separation program designator (SPD) would be JCC.  He would be entitled to half separation pay.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 31 July 2000 as directed.  He was credited with 7 years, 6 months and 12 days active service on the enlistment periods since January 1993.  This period of service, coupled with his more than 
9 years prior service totaled 16 years, 10 months and 26 days (or 16 years, 
1 month and 22 days actual service based upon his adjusted first period of service).  His awards and decorations included the Army Commendation Medal (three awards), the Army Achievement Medal (three awards), the Army Good Conduct Medal (five awards), the National Defense Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze service stars, the Southwest Asia Cease Fire Medal (unknown award), the Kuwait Liberation Medal (KLM-SA), the Kuwait Liberation Medal (KLM-K), the Noncommissioned Officer Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon (three awards), and several marksmanship and driver and mechanic badges.  He was entitled to half separation pay, but the amount is not shown on his DD Form 214.   

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.

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.  RE codes are not assigned by the USAR at the time soldiers are discharged from that component.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  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 Army RE codes.  The respective services also may issue periodic instructions to recruiting personnel for additional restrictions and changes in criteria for reenlistment of former service members, based on the needs of the armed service involved.  

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is not waivable, such as discharges by reason of DA imposed bars 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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The Board has examined the circumstances surrounding the imposition of the DA Bar to Reenlistment and can find no error or injustice in the process.  His records were reviewed, his potential was judged not consistent with the standards of the Army and the bar to reenlistment was imposed.  He was given the opportunity to appeal the bar, and it was denied.  Therefore, his administrative separation was directed to be effective on or before 31 July 2000.  He was to be assigned an RE code of RE-4 to preclude further service in the RA. 

3.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant was ever selected for promotion to pay grade E-7.  In fact, the board which initially found him not suitable for continue service was an E-7 promotion selection board.   
4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The QMP is a reduction in force technique used by the Army, and the RE code of RE-4 precludes the return of soldiers to the RA.  

6.  Therefore, there is no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification which established the basis for the RE code assigned in his case.   

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

__jh_____  __cla ___  __hbo ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044608	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20000731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 16	
DISCHARGE REASON	A07.20	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	A01.01	
3.	A01.14	
4.	A92.00	
5.	A92.17	
6.	134.00.