MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           21 October 2003    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088164

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones		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 his records be corrected to show he was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) upon his separation in 1986.  He also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add his completion of the non-resident Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) and to show his transfer to the IRR.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have been placed in the IRR upon his separation to fully account for his remaining service obligation.  He was given a local bar to reenlistment by his platoon leader when he failed BNCOC.  His platoon sergeant advised him to enroll in the BNCOC correspondence course program, which he did, but his platoon leader was furious when he learned he did so.  His platoon leader told him to sign a request for early separation or he would initiate action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 and give him a general discharge.  The applicant refused to do so.  After a couple of months, the brigade legal clerk showed him where a chapter 13 had been initiated but the Staff Judge Advocate or Inspector General's office had disapproved it.  Attached to the packet, however, was information on how a soldier could legally be separated under a chapter 13.  

The applicant states he felt angry, hurt, and hopeless.  His platoon leader prematurely tried to end his career without allowing him the full opportunity to complete the BNCOC correspondence course and overcome the bar to reenlistment.  To keep his self-respect, he signed the request to separate early.  He has been told by the Alabama National Guard Inspector General that if he is credited with IRR service then his BNCOC correspondence course would count for promotion eligibility.

Supporting evidence is as listed on the DD From 149.

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

After having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 1977.  He was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 effective  1 January 1981 in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer). He reenlisted on 24 April 1981 for 6 years, making his expiration term of service (ETS) 23 April 1987.

A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) dated 4 March 1985 shows the applicant was an academic release from the 12B BNCOC for receiving four NO GOs on task Calculate Breeching Charges and three NO GOs on task Calculate Timber Cutting Charges.

On 19 April 1985, the applicant's company commander initiated a locally-imposed bar to reenlistment on him, citing his BNCOC failure and four counseling statements.  One of the counseling statements indicated that the applicant had failed BNCOC twice.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf, wherein he stated that he was going to continue to drive on to achieve military standards in the areas he needed improvement.  On 25 April 1985, the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment.

An undated DA Form 1059 indicates the applicant enrolled in the non-resident 12B BNCOC on or about 6 August 1985.

On 20 September 1985, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b(3).

In a memorandum dated 15 November 1985, the applicant's platoon sergeant stated that he could not justify lifting the applicant's bar to reenlistment.  Since the applicant's bar was initiated in April 1985, the platoon sergeant provided him suggestions and recommendations to help him perform his job up to standard.  The platoon sergeant stated the applicant showed no potential to do his job even to the lowest of standards.

In an undated memorandum for record, the applicant's platoon leader noted that he had seen no improvement in the applicant's performance and no desire to improve himself.  

In a memorandum dated 20 November 1985, the applicant's company commander stated that he had personally counseled the applicant on his weaknesses in combat engineering skills.  The commander stated that the applicant's platoon sergeant had given the applicant a written test covering the skills that led to his failure of BNCOC.  The applicant took the test after he had supposedly been studying the areas on it and failed.  The company commander recommended that the bar to reenlistment remain in effect.

On 29 November 1985, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of his request for separation.  He directed that the applicant would not be retained in the IRR.

On 10 January 1986, the applicant was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5.  He had completed 8 years, 3 months, and 7 days of creditable active service that period.

The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he completed a 2-week BNCOC course in 1979.  A Certificate of Training on file in his Military Personnel Records Jacket indicates this was 80 hours of Basic Non-commissioned Officers Leadership Development Training.

The Army Institute for Professional Development sent an undated (but presumably issued after 1 June 1986) letter addressed to all BNCOC and Advanced NCOC students.  The letter informs them that the Army no longer authorized BNCOC and Advanced NCOC for completion by correspondence.  However, since the addressed students were enrolled in one of the courses prior to 1 June 1986, they would be afforded the opportunity to complete their course enrollment.  Due to computer support problems, their deadline had been extended from the previously announced date of 1 October 1986 to a new deadline of 1 June 1987.

By letter dated 30 April 1987, the Army Institute for Professional Development announced that the applicant successfully completed all requirements for the 12B BNCOC on 29 April 1987.

On an unknown date, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard.  By endorsement dated 23 December 1997 addressed to the National Guard Bureau, the Alabama Army National Guard Military Personnel Officer requested reconsideration to grant the applicant constructive credit for completing the Active Component BNCOC.  

Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes criteria for the Total Army Retention Program.  At the time, chapter 6 prescribed procedures to deny reenlistment to soldiers whose immediate separation under administrative procedures was not warranted but whose reentry into, or service beyond ETS with, the Active Army was not in the best interest of the military service.  Untrainable soldiers would be identified as soon as possible with a view toward eliminating them from the service.  When discharge under administrative procedures was not warranted, action would be taken under this regulation to bar the person from further service with the Regular Army.  Those soldiers were often identified by failure to perform the basic tasks required of their primary military occupational specialty and failure to perform other basic soldier tasks.  Soldiers who believed they would be unable to overcome a bar to reenlistment could apply for voluntary separation.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets policy and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, paragraph 16-5b authorized soldiers with a locally-imposed bar to reenlistment who perceived that they would be unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment to request immediate separation.  The criteria in chapter 1, section VIII would govern whether the soldier was released from active duty with transfer to the IRR or discharged.  Section VIII stated that only those soldiers with no potential to meet mobilization requirements would be discharged.  Before making a "no potential" determination, the separation authority must have given due consideration to all pertinent factors to include the positive motivation that a full mobilization could have on the soldier and the probably maturing effect of 2 or more years in age.  At the time, members who had less than 3 months to serve on their statutory or contractual obligation, whichever expired later, would be discharged.
Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

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.  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.

2.  Whether to discharge the applicant or transfer him to the IRR was a decision for the separation authority.  The Board notes the applicant's contention that his platoon leader was, in effect, out to get him out of the Army no matter what.  However, the Board also notes that both the applicant's platoon sergeant and company commander indicated he still had weaknesses in combat engineering skills 6 months after his bar to reenlistment was imposed.  The Board notes that there is evidence of record to show the applicant had failed BNCOC twice.  

3.  The Board notes that the applicant did not complete the non-resident BNCOC until after his normal term of service would have expired.  The Board has determined that it would have been unrealistic for his chain of command to wait so long to see if completion of a correspondence course would have improved his duty performance in a satisfactory manner.  

4.  The Board concludes that the separation authority gave due consideration to all pertinent factors in the case of the applicant, a soldier who had 8 years of active duty at the time of his separation.  There is no evidence to show that the applicant's performance history over the 6 months or more prior to his separation did not justify the separation authority making the decision to discharge, rather than transfer, the applicant.

5.  The DD Form 214 is meant to provide a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of separation from active duty.  The Board concludes that it would not be appropriate to add the non-resident BNCOC course to the applicant's DD Form 214 as he had not completed that course prior to his separation.

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

__mhm___  __wdp___  __fcj___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088164	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031016	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.