MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:           9 September 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003086908

	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:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan 		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 her bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) be lifted.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the QMP board that imposed the bar to reenlistment failed to carefully examine the Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) it used in making its decision.  She states that the QMP board failed to act in accordance with the Army pamphlet that provided guidance on the process when it used evaluations that were over five years old as a basis for barring her from reenlistment, and only reviewing three years worth of evaluations.  She claims that she received an unfair evaluation in the report that ended in December 1993, and she outlines several negative leadership traits displayed by her rater that contributed to this evaluation in her enclosed letter.  

The applicant asks that the Board note that she completed her last noncommissioned officer (NCO) course, and that the documents confirming completion of this course and other schooling she completed were absent from her record when it was reviewed by the QMP board.  She claims that she has always forwarded these documents for filing in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and does not understand why they were not on file in her record.  

In support of her application, she provides an extract of page 34 of Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 600-25; and copies of two NCOERs with ending dates in May 1990 and May 1995 respectively. 

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

On 10 October 2001, she was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of completion of required active service.  The separation document issued to her confirms that at that time she was serving on active duty in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program as a member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  It also shows that she had completed a total of 15 years, 6 months, and 29 days of active military service and 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prior inactive service.  This document further verifies that she held the rank of sergeant (SGT) and was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist) on the date of her separation. 

On 3 July 1997, the applicant was notified that a DA bar to reenlistment had been imposed on her under the provisions of the QMP.  She was also informed that her QMP selection was based on three annual NCOERs that covered the periods June 1989 through May 1990, June 1990 through May 1991, and January through December 1993.  

In the NCOER ending in May 1990, the applicant’s rater responded “No” to question 2 (Is committed to and shows a sense if pride in the unit - works as a member of the team) of Part IVa (Values/NCO Responsibilities).  The rater supported this response with the bullet comment “there is frequent contention between herself and other members of the full-time staff.”  In Part IVb-f the rater gave the applicant one Needs Improvement-Much rating, and three Needs Improvement-Some ratings.  In Part IVb (Competence) the rater gave the applicant a “Needs Improvement – Much” rating and supported this evaluation with the bullet comments “minimum improvement has been accomplished on unit personnel records” and “slow to learn and accept new responsibility.”  The first Needs Improvement - Some rating was in Part IVd (Leadership), which was supported with the bullet comment “very inflexible in dealing with subordinates, peers, and supervisors.”  The second was in Part IVe (Training) and was supported with the bullet comments “slow to assimilate new knowledge” and “displays an attitude of not wanting to learn.”  The third was in Part IVf (Responsibility) and it was supported with the bullet comment “does not have a commitment to keeping the MPRJ’s current and accurate.”  

In Part Va (Rater-Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility), the rater placed the applicant in the “Marginal” box.  In Part Vc (Overall performance), the senior rater placed the applicant in the four box (Fair) and in Part Vd (Overall Potential) the senior rater placed the applicant in the five box (Poor).  The senior rater provided the following bullet comments in support of his evaluations:  “very conscientious and tries hard, but very disorganized”; “can not handle in a timely manner the wide array of unit clerk responsibilities”; “adaptability well below the norm”; “exhibits limited administrative skills for her time in grade in admin NCO”; and “NCO has refused to sign this report.”  

The reviewer on this report provided a non-concurrence statement.  He indicated that while he concurred with the evaluations of the applicant by the rater and senior rater, he did not concur with the evaluation to the extent that it constructs an extremely negative, possibly irreparable word picture of the applicant.  He went on to state that although the applicant may not accomplish her assigned duties with the speed and efficiency that may be reasonably expected, he did not believe that she is inclined to be nonproductive and incorrigible.  

In the NCOER ending in May 1991, the rater responded “No” to question 5 (Maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty) and provided the following bullet comments: “trouble understanding and following chain of command”; time-clock oriented, not mission oriented”; and “constant reminder of lawful order.”  

The applicant received two “Needs Improvement – Some” ratings in Part IVb-f.  The first Needs Improvement - Some rating was in Part IVb (Competence) and it was supported with the bullet comments “little or no improvement on MPRJ’s (201 Files)”; “regulation knowledge - lacks implementation”; takes initial steps to accomplish tasks.  In Part Va (Rater-Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility), the rater placed the applicant in the “Marginal” box.  In Part Vc (Overall performance) and Part Vd (Overall Potential), the senior rater placed the applicant in the four box (Fair).  He provided the following supporting bullet comments:  “in-processes new service members in a professional manner”; fails to complete tasks given by supervisors”; and “refuses to sign”.  

In the NCOER ending in December 1993, the rater responded “No” to question 
2 (Is committed to and shows a sense if pride in the unit - works as a member of the team) and question 5 (maintains high standards of personal conduct on and off duty) and provided the bullet comments “soldier is reluctant to take on additional duties” and “soldier needs to overcome hesitancy and indecisiveness”. The applicant received two “Needs Improvement - Some” ratings in Part IVb-f.  The first was in Part IVb (Competence) and the rater provided supporting bullet comments that stated that the applicant was detailed to support subordinate units and that she had shown improvement in her abilities to complete assigned tasks. The second Needs Improvement - Some rating was in Part IVd (Leadership) and the rater commented that the applicant’s leadership and guidance lacked substance and purpose.  

In Part Va (Rater-Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) of the report ending December 1993, the rater placed the applicant in the “Marginal” box.  In Part Vc (Overall performance) the senior rater placed the applicant in the 3 box (Successful) and in Part Vd (Overall Potential), the senior rater also placed the applicant in the three box (Superior).  The senior rater provided the following bullet comments:  “soldier often needs direct supervision”;” lacks complete knowledge of job task”, “accomplishes task as instructed”, and “willing to learn, but not proactive”.  

There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever appealed any of three NCOERS in question to the Enlisted Special Review Board.  However, she did appeal her QMP selection.  On 16 June 1998, a memorandum prepared by the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, notified the applicant that a 
Standby Advisory Board (STAB) that convened on 5 May 1998 to consider the USAR AGR QMP appeals had adjourned on 11 June 1998, and had denied her QMP appeal.  

In support of her case, the applicant provides an extract of page 34 of DA Pamphlet 600-25, dated 30 April 1987.  This extract contains a statement that indicates that QMP board members will review Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) scores for the past five years to see if you have established a trend (that is consistently improved scores, consistently high scores, consistently low scores, or erratic scores).  

Chapter 19, Army Regulation 635-200 contains the current QMP policies and procedures for voluntary and involuntary separation, for the convenience of the Government, of Regular Army NCOs and USAR NCOs serving in AGR status under the QMP.  It states that NCOs whose performance, conduct, and/or potential for advancement do not meet Army standards, as determined by the approved recommendations of a Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) centralized selection boards responsible for QMP screening, will be denied continued service. 

Section II of chapter 19, of Army Regulation 635-200 contains guidance on the Qualitative Screening Process.  It states that screening for QMP is accomplished by HQDA boards that may be convened for other purposes as well, such as promotion selection.  The appropriate board reviews the OMPF and Personnel Qualification Record (DA forms 2A and 2-1) or Enlisted Record Brief, official photograph, and other authorized documents pertaining to soldiers in the QMP zone of consideration.  This material forms the basis for the board's evaluation of the soldier's past performance and potential for continued service, leading to a determination of whether the soldier does or does not warrant retention.  

Paragraph 19-7 of the same regulation outlines the QMP selection criteria and it states that QMP selection criteria includes but is not limited to the following factors:  moral or ethical conduct incompatible with the values of the NCO corps and the Army ethic; lack of potential to perform NCO duties in current grade; decline in efficiency and performance over a continuing period, as reflected by NCOERs or failure of noncommissioned officer education system (NCOES) courses; recent or continuing disciplinary problems, as evidenced by conviction by court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative reprimand; and other discriminators such as imposition of a field commander's bar to re-enlistment, inability to meet physical fitness standards, and failure to comply with requirements of the Army body composition program.

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 her QMP selection was not accomplished in accordance with the governing Army policy.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  
2.  The Board carefully considered the information contained in the DA Pamphlet extract provided by the applicant.  However, it finds this document provides no information that is relevant to the QMP selection criteria in effect at the time of the applicant’s selection, or currently outlined in the governing regulation.  The information referred to by the applicant pertains to evaluation scoring system that was used when the EER was in use prior to the implementation of the NCOER in September 1987.  The QMP selection criteria outlined in the current regulation, which was also the criteria used at the time of the applicant’s selection provides for QMP selection decisions based on a complete review of all the information on file in the soldier’s OMPF and the collective best judgment of QMP board members.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that a HQDA QMP board that convened on 
6 May 1997, selected the applicant to be barred from further reenlistment in the AGR program in accordance with the applicable regulation and policy in effect at the time.  The applicant appealed this decision, and her appeal along with her records were reviewed by a properly constituted HQDA STAB that convened on 5 May 1998.  The STAB members after carefully reviewing the applicant’s record voted to deny her appeal.  

4.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the QMP process.  Therefore, the Board finds no error or injustice related to this process that would warrant granting the requested relief at this time.  

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

WTM___  __TAP__  __SLP ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086908	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/10/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C4	
DISCHARGE REASON	Comp of Req Svc	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  7	100.0600	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.