MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061185

	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:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  Change of his reentry (RE) code from 4 to an acceptable one.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged under the Voluntary Separation Program during the Reduction in Force.  He had no disciplinary problems and his record shows this.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD Form 149.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 March 1979.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 June 1986.   

By memorandum dated 26 September 1995, the applicant was notified that he had been determined to be barred from reenlistment under the Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The documents that led to his bar are not identified in the available records.  The evidence of record shows that he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 2 March 1993 for driving while intoxicated.  His noncommissioned officer evaluation report (NCOER) for the period ending February 1993 contained several negative comments about his personal conduct off duty and his NCOER for the period ending March 1995 contains several negative comments about his off duty conduct.

On 12 October 1995, the applicant elected not to submit an appeal and understood that he would be separated within 90 days as of the date of his option statement.  

On 5 January 1996, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, reduction in force.  He was given a separation code (SPD) of JCC and an RE code of 4.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10 at the time set forth policy and prescribed 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.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time paragraph 16-8 directed the early release of soldiers with a QMP bar to reenlistment when budgetary or authorization limitations required a reduction in enlisted strength.

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 U.S. 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 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.  

Army Regulation 635-5-1, SPD/Reentry Code Cross-Reference Table states that RE code 4 will be used when a soldier is discharged under the QMP.

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.  The applicant was not separated under an enlisted voluntary separation program.  He was identified for a Department of the Army QMP bar to reenlistment.  He elected not to appeal the bar and he was discharged.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The reentry code of 4 is correct for the reason he separated.

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

__rvo___  __rks___  __dph___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061185	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.