MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 January 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058206

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 his Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (DA QMP) bar to reenlistment be removed and he be reinstated in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was treated unfairly by his chain of command.  He has tried to make the best of a negative experience.  It has been his experience that it is easier to fix his equipment than to exchange it (his military occupational specialty is 88M, Motor Transport Operator).  Since this group of noted noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs), he has started to improve himself.  His later NCOERs reflect different perceptions of his work that reflect his improved skills.  His QMP action was a wakeup call that he would not wish on his worst enemy but he has grown from this experience.  He provides two letters recommending his retention in the AGR as supporting evidence.  

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

After having had prior active service from July 1970 – February 1972 as an inductee, he reenlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 13 June 1976.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-7 on 1 April 1989.  Around October 1990, he was voluntarily ordered to active duty in an AGR status.  

On 8 January 1998 (the original notification is not available), the applicant was identified as being selected for a DA QMP bar to reenlistment.  His NCOERs for the periods ending May 1994, May 1995, and May 1996 were identified as the documents which contributed to the decision to impose the bar to reenlistment.

The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending May 1994 showed his rater rated him as a “success” in all five areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”  His NCOER for the period ending May 1995 showed his rater rated him as a “success” in all five areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”  His NCOER for the period ending May 1996 showed his rater rated him as “needs some improvement” in the area of competence with several negative comments and a “success” in the other four areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”

The applicant’s four NCOERs while in an AGR status received prior to May 1994 showed his rater rated him as a “success” in all five areas of NCO responsibilities on three NCOERs and as two “excellence” and three “success” in the five areas on the fourth NCOER with an overall potential rating of “fully capable” on all four NCOERs.

The applicant appealed the bar to reenlistment.  His appeal is not available.  His company commander and battalion commander recommended disapproval of his appeal.  His appeal was disapproved.  
The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending May 1997 showed that his rater rated him as a “success” in all five areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”  His NCOER for the period ending May 1998 showed that his rater rated him as an “excellence” in the area of training and as a “success” in the other four areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”  His NCOER for the period ending May 1999 showed that his rater rated him as an “excellence” in the areas of competence and training and as a “success” in the other three areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.”  His NCOER for the period ending February 2000 showed that his rater rated him as an “excellence” in the area of responsibility and accountability and as a “success” in the other four areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “fully capable.” His NCOER for the period ending February 2001 showed that his rater rated him as a “success” in all five areas of NCO responsibilities with an overall potential rating of “among the best.”

Army Regulation 140-111 prescribes policies and procedures for the USAR Reenlistment Program.  Chapter 10 describes the qualitative screening program. The program is based on the premise that reenlistment for continuing service on AGR status is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet USAR AGR standards.  It is designed to selectively retain the best-qualified soldiers up to 29 years of active federal service and to deny reenlistment for continued AGR service to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers.  Bars to reenlistment imposed under the provisions of the QMP, while denying a soldier continuing service on AGR status, will not deny the soldier an opportunity to reenlist in the USAR for continuing service n another status if otherwise qualified.  The regulation states that the records of   E-6s, E-7s, and E-8s will be screened by the regularly scheduled USAR AGR Enlisted Selection Boards.  The appropriate board will review the performance portion of the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The selection board will evaluate past performance and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service on AGR is warranted.  Bars to reenlistment for soldiers identified by the selection board will be imposed as directed by the Commander, U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM).  Soldiers selected for a DA bar to reenlistment will be informed and provided a copy of the performance portion of their OMPF.  Documents which most significantly contributed to the board’s decision to impose the bar will be identified.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Full Time Support Management Directorate, AR-PERSCOM.  That office stated that the applicant had recourse to appeal the NCOERs that contributed to the decision to bar him but he did not appeal any of them.  He appealed his QMP bar to reenlistment but his appeal was denied on 26 August 1999.  AR-PERSCOM had to release him from active duty on 2 January 2002.
A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment or rebuttal.  He stated that since the rating periods in question he has performed all his required duties and has maintained evaluations above what is required.  Counseling was not properly conducted; therefore, the evaluations in question are inaccurate.  He provided an additional letter of support.  

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 this requirement.

2.  One purpose of the USAR AGR QMP is to selectively retain the best-qualified soldiers and to deny reenlistment for continued AGR service to nonprogressive soldiers.  The applicant blames unfair treatment by his chain of command during the periods of the three cited NCOERs for poor ratings; however, a review of all his NCOERs while in an AGR status show that he was never more than an average soldier.  His overall potential was rated as “among the best” on only one NCOER, the very last one on file.  As a Sergeant First Class, he was not progressive and not “best-qualified” and his selection for a USAR AGR QMP was a reasonable result of his performance history as recorded on his NCOERs.  

3.  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

__inw___  __hof___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058206	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.