MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  9 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000048164

	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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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:  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:  That in order to join the Army Reserve he needs to get his reentry code upgraded to the highest level.

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

He reenlisted in the Regular Army with prior service as a private first class E-3 on 24 January 1978 and attained the rank of staff sergeant E-6 on 13 August 1987.  He did not have a break in service.

On 15 January 1992 a Departmental bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), in accordance with Army Regulation 601-280.  The bar was based on his performance of duty and failure to maintain standards.  His performance and leadership demonstrated his failures for the following rating periods: June 1988 through March 1989, April 1989 through March 1990 and April 1990 through July 1990.

On 28 April 1992, his command recommended reconsideration of his selection for separation under QMP.

The applicant’s appeal to the Bar to Reenlistment was disapproved by the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board on 5 November 1992.

He was honorably discharged on 24 February 1993 under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 for Qualitative Retention Program.  He had 15 years of active service and he was assigned code RE-3.

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 applies to personnel separated prior to expiration of term of service or period for which ordered active duty for early separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  The service of an individual discharged under this authority will be characterized as honorable unless an entry-level separation is required.

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, the DA promotion selection boards regularly screen records for grades E-5 through E-9.  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. 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-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-4 applies to personnel separated from last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification and includes personnel separated with a DA Bar to Reenlistment in effect.

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 view of all of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change or removal of his assigned RE-3 code, or to removal of his non-waivable disqualification.  He has not shown error or injustice, or any other satisfactory justification for the relief he now requests.

2.  His contentions have been noted by the Board; however, his records nor his application does not support them.  There is no basis for removal of the code or of the disqualification which established the basis for the code.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations, with due process.  Code RE-3 was erroneously assigned based on the discharge for the Qualitative Retention Program.  Code RE-4 was applicable.

3.  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.

4.  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

__mm__  __ea__  __cg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048164	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.	100.06	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.