MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 JUNE 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070906

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  That her reentry (RE) code of “4” on her DD Form 214 be changed to an RE code of “3” so that she can enlist in the Army Reserve.  
APPLICANT STATES:  She received an honorable discharge and was originally going to appeal, but decided against it and opted to get out, which was a mistake on her part.  She wants to finish her time with the military.  She served 13 years, which is a long time just to throw it away.  She has made mistakes and learned from them.  She furnishes character references to support her request.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 5 January 1987 and remained on continuous active duty until her discharge in 2000.  She attained the rank of staff sergeant, was selected for promotion to sergeant first class, and has served in locations throughout the world, to include Fort Dix, New Jersey, Fort Lee, Virginia, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Fort Hood, Texas, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Sinai in Egypt, and Japan.  The applicant’s awards include three awards of the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, four awards of the Army Achievement Medal, four awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 2, two awards of the Multinational Force and Observers Medal, and the Kuwait Liberation Medal.  The applicant has completed the Basic NCO Course (BNCOC) and numerous logistic courses.  

The applicant’s NCO Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) dating from December 1992 through May of 1997, a total of six reports, show that her rating officials considered her an outstanding NCO. 

On 1 March 1998 the applicant was promoted to the rank of Sergeant First Class. The order effecting her promotion stated that she was promoted conditionally, and that the promotion order would be revoked if she failed to complete the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC).

The applicant’s restricted fiche of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows that she received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on        2 April 1998, for wrongfully using her official American Express government travel charge card on three occasions for the purpose of other than official  travel-related expenses away from her official duty station.  

The applicant’s NCOER for the 12 month period ending in May 1998 shows that her rater considered her among the best for overall potential for promotion and/or 

service in positions of greater responsibility.  Her senior rater stated that she had the ability to meet the technical standards for her specialty, the potential to develop into an NCO leader after ANCOC attendance, and that her performance was satisfactory.  He placed her in the third block from the top on both the senior rater overall performance section and the overall potential section of that report.  The applicant’s reviewer submitted a statement of non concurrence with the rater’s evaluation.  He stated, among other things, that she did not work as a member of the unit team, acted against the battalion commander’s guidance, and on one occasion undermined the authority of her supervisor.  He stated that she had repeatedly shown poor judgment by disrespecting her senior rater and other superiors.  He stated that she used the government issued credit card for personal benefit on more than one occasion and did not dispute the actions when confronted with the bill.  

On 31 August 1998 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for making and uttering a bad check in the amount of $150.00.  The record of that punishment indicates a continuation sheet; however, it is not included in her OMPF.

On 2 September 1998 she received an Article 15 written reprimand for writing checks with insufficient funds on eight occasions between February 1998 and May 1998. 

The applicant’s NCOER for the six month period ending in November 1998 shows that her rater stated that she did not maintain high standards of personal conduct.  He stated that she displayed poor judgment by writing over $2,000.00 in bad checks.  He stated that her overall potential was marginal.  The applicant’s senior rater stated that the applicant should not be promoted because of multiple actions of poor judgment, lack of integrity, and disregard of moral values.  He stated that she required close supervision during the rating period.  

On 1 October 1998 the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified the applicant that her name had been administratively removed from the promotion list due to her cancellation from ANCOC because of disciplinary action.  The order effecting her promotion was revoked.

In a 22 June 1999 memorandum to PERSCOM the applicant requested reinstatement to the rank of Sergeant First Class.  She stated that the proper procedures were not followed in revoking her promotion and removing her name from the promotion and the ANCOC list.  She stated that she was never informed by members of her command of the reduction, nor offered the opportunity to 

refute the accusations against her.  The removal action from the promotion and the ANCOC list was not reviewed by the General Court-Martial authority as required by regulations.  The Total Army Personnel Command could not find any action requesting her reduction, only the request for administrative removal from the ANCOC/promotion list.  With her memorandum she submitted statements of support from her first sergeant, company officers, battalion S-3, and battalion commander.

On 30 August 1999 the applicant received notification of a DA imposed bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  Her NCOERs for the period June 1997 to May 1998 and June 1998 to November 1998, and her record of nonjudicial punishment on 31 August 1998 were identified as the documents listed as a basis for her bar to reenlistment.

On 14 September 1999 the applicant’s battalion commander counseled the applicant concerning her bar to reenlistment, informing her that she had three options in response to the notification of her bar – (1) appeal the action, which had to be submitted through her chain of command in sufficient time to arrive at EREC (Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center) not later than 60 days from      14 September 1999, and if her appeal was not submitted within 45 days to her commander, she would be separated within 60 days; (2) not appeal, in which case she would be separated within 90 days of the date of her option statement; (3) request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8.  He informed her that she had 5 days to elect an option and return the election to him.  The applicant signed the counseling form.  The Statement of Option (DA Form 4941-R) shows that the battalion commander certified that he counseled the applicant on 14 September 1999.  That form shows that the applicant did not elect an option.

On 8 December 1999 she submitted an appeal to the bar to reenlistment, stating that the QMP board failed to weigh her improved performance after August 1998, and that her outstanding performance clearly demonstrated her potential for future service.  She stated that her entire military career was exemplary, and that the Article 15 she received for writing six bad checks was no fault of her own, but that of her spouse, from whom she was legally separated.  She stated that she received both an Article 15 and a letter of reprimand for the same incident, and had to attend a class on check writing and financial management.  That and her subordinates observing that she had to perform extra duty, humiliated her.  She stated that she had been administratively reduced without being informed, which was unfair.  She cited the NCOER she received about using poor judgment, and stated that the incident was more personal than professional.  She stated that the QMP board focused upon the Article 15 and the two NCOERs in making its 

decision; however, prior to those actions she was a superior soldier; and subsequent to those actions, she excelled and distinguished herself.  She stated that she realized that she made a mistake, but since then had done everything in her power to change her life.  With her appeal she submitted memorandums of support from her first sergeant, her company officers, officers in her battalion, and Corps Support Command officers.  Her battalion commander recommended approval of her appeal.

On 3 February 2000 the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8.  She had 13 years and 27 days of service.  Her DD Form 214 shows a separation (SPD) code of “JCC” and a reentry (RE) code of “4.”  She received separation pay of $16,431.48.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 states that soldiers who receive a conditional promotion will have their orders revoked and their names removed from the centralized list if they fail to meet the NCO Education System (NCOES), i.e., ANCOC, requirement.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-8 of that regulation concerns early separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints, and states, in effect, that when authorization limitations, strength restrictions, or budgetary constraints require the size of the enlisted force to be reduced, the Secretary of the Army, or his designee, will authorize voluntary or involuntary early separation.  The Commander, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) will implement this program by issuing separation instructions pertaining to a specific class or category of soldiers.  Early separation under this paragraph is for the convenience of the government.  Personnel separated under this paragraph will be discharged or released from active duty, as appropriate.

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.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.  A soldier who has completed 18 years or more of service on the effective date of the DA bar to reenlistment memorandum may be extended to reach retirement eligibility.     

Qualitative screening for soldiers in the rank of SSG (pay grade E-6) through 1SG/MSG (pay grade E-8) is accomplished by regularly scheduled HQDA promotion selection boards.  Bars to reenlistment for soldiers identified by the selection boards and approved by the DA Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel will be imposed as directed by the commander of the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC).  The soldier is notified and may appeal his bar to reenlistment.  Appeals will be acted upon by the next standby advisory board (STAB), normally conducted in conjunction with centralized enlisted selection boards.  The soldier will be notified on the results of the his appeal.

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.

That regulation identifies the reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Those codes are used for administrative purposes only and used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure.  The code RE-4 applies to persons separated from his last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.  This includes anyone with a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years of service.  

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 applicant’s removal from the promotion list and the revocation of the order promoting her to sergeant first class was correct and in accordance with the regulation in effect at that time.

2.  The evidence indicates that although she did appeal the bar to reenlistment, the appeal was apparently not processed, as it was dated well after the date that it was required to be submitted.  She herself states that she decided to get out, instead of appealing the bar to reenlisment.  The applicant’s discharge was proper and her reentry code on her DD Form 214 is correct.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request.   

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 that 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

__JNS __  __EJA___  __TL____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070906	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020625	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	4	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.