MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            26 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2002068288

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 the reason for his discharge be changed to medical retirement, that his reentry (RE) code be upgraded, and that he be provided retirement benefits that includes medical and dental.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was on a firing line exercise and after his gun jammed, he was pressured to correct the jam and to fire again.  He did fire again, however, he was disciplined for taking too long.  This pressure carried over into Desert Storm, and continued until he was discharged in 1992.  He claims that the stress he was under from his superiors really wore him down mentally.  Finally, he claims that at the time of his discharge, he was never told he could appeal the separation or the RE code.  Further, he did not have the mental strength to do so at the time.  In support of his application, he provides copies of documents from his record and he also indicates that he included a letter from a doctor, dated 18 October 2001, which was five days after the date of the application.  However, this letter was not attached to his application and not available to the Board for review. 

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

He served on active duty in the Regular Army for 17 years and 20 days until 
18 March 1992.  At that time, he was honorably discharged in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was SSG/E-6.  It also shows that he received the following awards during his active duty tenure:  Army Achievement Medal (5); Army Service Ribbon; Expert Marksmanship Badge (Rifle-Hand Grenade-45 Caliber Pistol); Air Assault Badge; National Defense Service Medal (2); Good Conduct Medal (5); Overseas Service Ribbon; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon; Anti Aircraft Artillery Qualification Badge; Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars; Driver/Mechanic Badge; and Saudi Arabia Kuwait Liberation Medal.  There are no other acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition reflected in his record.  

The applicant received a relief for cause Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering the period February 1990 through April 1990.  His battery commander at the time, who was the reviewer on the report, included a statement with the NCOER that explained that the applicant was relieved from his duties as a squad leader based on his inability to perform the duties of a squad leader and to train the members of his squad.  

In his statement, the battery commander further indicated that the applicant’s inability to perform his duties was clearly displayed during the unit’s Army Readiness and Training Evaluation Plan/Program (ARTEP) that was conducted from 23 to 27 April 1990.  The applicant received a second relief for cause NCOER covering the period May 1990 through February 1991.  The reviewer/battery commander on this second report was different from the one on the previous relief for cause NCOER.  

On 13 January 1992, the applicant was notified by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) that he had been barred from reenlistment by Department of the Army (DA) under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). This notification also informed the applicant that the QMP action was the result of a determination made by the 1991 sergeant first class promotion board, subsequent to their comprehensive review of his file, based on the two relief for cause NCOERs on file in his records. 

An option election form was also provided to the applicant with the QMP notification correspondence and he was advised that if he elected to appeal, he must submit the appeal through his chain of command in time to arrive at EREC not later than 60 days from the date he completed the option election form.  He was also provided the address and telephone number of an EREC office responsible for answering any questions he may have in regard to the QMP action or the appeal process.  The option election form completed by the applicant is not in the record.  However, by his own admission, he elected not to appeal the QMP action at the time.  

There are no medical records on file that show the applicant suffered from a medical condition while on active duty that would have warranted separation processing through medical channels; or that he was medically disqualified for retention or separation at the time of his discharge.

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation, 18 March 1992, confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 16, paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early transition program.  This document also verifies that he received half separation pay and that he was assigned a RE code of RE-4 based on the authority and reason for his discharge. 

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, sets forth the policy and prescribes the 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 enhance quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to
non-progressive and nonproductive soldiers, and 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 members in pay 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.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-8 provides for the early separation of soldiers due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers may be separated prior to expiration of enlistment of fulfillment of active duty obligation when authorization limitations, strength restrictions, or budgetary constraints require the Regular Army active duty enlisted force to be reduced in number.  

Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides instructions for determining the RE code for active Army soldiers separated for cause.  It states, in pertinent part, that the 
RE code of RE-4 will be assigned to soldiers 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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contentions that the reason for his discharge should be changed to medical, that his RE code should be upgraded from RE-4, and that he should be provided retirement benefits, to include medical and dental.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was discharged by reason of reduction in force, after being barred from reenlistment by DA under the provisions of the QMP.  It further verifies that he was appropriately assigned a RE code of RE-4 in accordance with applicable regulations.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The applicant’s record is void of any indication, and he has failed to provide independent evidence, that shows he suffered from a disqualifying medical condition that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the relief requested is not warranted in this case.

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

__GDP     __DSJ __  __REB___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068288	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/03/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C16	
DISCHARGE REASON	RIF/QMP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  338	136.0000	
2.  4	100.0300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.