MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            30 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068584

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, 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 he be granted an early retirement or allowed to complete sufficient service to qualify for retirement.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was separated under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and barred from further service in the Regular Army or United States Army Reserve (USAR) based on an unjust Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) and Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER).  He also claims that he was unjustly punished based on the untrue allegations of students that were encouraged by a fellow instructor with whom he had an on-going conflict over student discipline.  He also comments that his whole chain of command supported his QMP appeal, and he could understand being kicked out of the Army if he had an affair with the student, but nothing ever happened, to include the fact that he never even asked her out.  His entire statement is enclosed.  

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

He continuously served on active duty for 17 years, 1 month, and 26 days, from 10 July 1984 through 5 September 2001, at which time he was honorably discharged in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6).  

On 5 October 1999, the applicant received a MOR for misconduct related to his attempt to initiate an inappropriate personal relationship with at least two female basic noncommissioned officer course (BNCOC) students.  

On 8 December 1999, the applicant received a NCOER covering the period July 1999 through October 1999, which evaluated him as a small group leader at the BNCOC.  In Part IV (Values and Responsibilities) the rater responded “No” to question 5 (Maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty).  In Part IVd (Leadership) the rater gave the applicant a “Needs Improvement” rating and explained it with the bullet comment “had inappropriate relations with a student.”  In Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) the rater evaluated the applicant as “Marginal” and the senior rater evaluated him as “Fair” in overall performance and “Poor” in overall potential for promotion.  The senior rater bullet comments included one that stated that the applicant “compromised standards of conduct expected of a NCO.” 

On 31 August 2000, 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 QMP.  This notification also informed the applicant that the QMP action was the result of a determination made by the Calendar Year (CY) 2000 sergeant first class promotion board, subsequent to their comprehensive review of his file.  They based their decision on the MOR, dated 5 October 1999, and the NCOER covering the period July 1999 through October 1999.  
An option election form was also provided to the applicant with the QMP notification correspondence from EREC.  He completed this form and elected to submit an appeal.  On 9 April 2001, EREC officials notified the applicant that his QMP appeal had been reviewed and carefully considered by a DA Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB), however, it had been disapproved.  The STAB judged that his past performance and potential performance were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer’s Corps and consequently, the DA bar to reenlistment remained in effect.  

On 5 September 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by him on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 19-12, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of non-retention on active duty.  This document also verifies that in connection with his discharge he received separation pay in the amount of $23,974.28 and that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JGH and a reentry (RE) code of RE-4.  

Army Regulation 635-200 prescribes the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted soldiers from the Army.  Chapter 19 contains guidance on the QMP program and paragraph 19-12 provides for the involuntarily separation of soldiers who are denied a QMP appeal.  

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code of JGH was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided for soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 
19-12, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of non-retention on active duty. Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

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 was separated under the provisions of the QMP and barred from further service based on an unjust MOR and NCOER.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims. 

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the MOR and NCOER in question were processed in accordance with applicable regulations, and that the applicant was afforded all rights associated with these actions.  In the opinion of the Board, notwithstanding his personal statement to the contrary, the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence to show that there was any error or injustice related to these actions.  

3.  The evidence of record also confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing, by reason of non-retention on active duty, was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations, subsequent to his being barred from reenlistment by DA under the provisions of the QMP and his appeal of this action being denied. 

4.  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, and that the assigned RE-4 code was and still is appropriate.  Thus, the Board finds no basis for granting the requested relief. 

5.  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.

6.  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

    AAO         HOF            TEO      DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068584	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/09/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 AR635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Non-Retention on AD (QMP) 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191	110.0200	
2.  193	111.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.