MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 July 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072109

	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:

	M . 		Chairperson	
	M . 		Member	
	M . 		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 she be granted a retirement in lieu of the current honorable discharge, of 31 December 1990, she now holds.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was wronged by her noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) because they were both testing for the same rank.  She claims that her NCOIC did not like females, and that she had two strikes against her because she was both female and black.  She also contends that  she always took pride in her work, but her NCOIC still gave her a bad evaluation report.  In support of her application, she submits a packet containing several complimentary documents that she received throughout her tenure on active duty.  Among other documents, this packet includes letters of appreciation, training certificates, and letters of support for her QMP appeal.  

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

On 19 October 1976, she entered active duty and continuously served for 
14 years, 2 months, and 13 days until being honorably discharged on 
31 December 1990, in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG).

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms that the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was SSG.  It also shows that the only awards she received during her active duty tenure were as follows:  Army Achievement Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 2; Good Conduct Medal 4th Award; and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Rifle).  There are no other acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition reflected in her record.  
On 15 December 1989, the applicant was notified by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) that she 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 1989 sergeant first class promotion board, subsequent to their comprehensive review of her file.

Enclosed with the EREC QMP notification was a list of documents with specific areas of weakness that were noted by the promotion board and were used as the basis for the QMP bar to reenlistment.  The list included the following four Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EERs) that were issued for the reasons and periods indicated:  Annual, April 1979 through October 1984; Change of Rater, May through November 1986; Relief for Cause, December 1987 through January 1988; and Annual, February 1989 through January 1990.  There were different raters on these reports, two held the rank of SSG and two the rank of first lieutenant (1LT).  The rater on the relief for cause report was a 1LT, but the official that actually relieved the applicant was the reviewer, a lieutenant colonel.  

The applicant appealed the QMP action, and on 20 September 1990, EREC officials notified her command that the appeal had been denied.  The notification indicated that a DA Standby Advisory Board (STAB) had carefully reviewed her case, and found that her past performance and estimated potential were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Corps.  

On 31 December 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to her at this time, confirms that she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early transition program.  

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.  

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 contention that she should be granted a length of service retirement in lieu of her current honorable discharge, but it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The applicant contends that the QMP action taken against her was unjust because it was the result of her being wronged by her NCOIC because they were testing for the same rank.  However, the Board finds no evidence to support this claim.  The evidence of record confirms that she was barred from reenlistment by DA under the provisions of the QMP based on four sub-standard evaluation reports.  It further verifies that the raters on these four reports were all different and only two held the same rank as the applicant.  

3.  The record also confirms that the applicant appealed the QMP action and that after carefully being considered by a DA STAB, this appeal was denied.  Thus, 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.

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

__KAK__  _ _AOA __  __RJW__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072109	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/12/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C16	
DISCHARGE REASON	QMP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  338	136.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.