MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029707

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 his discharge due to a Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (DA QMP) bar to reenlistment be voided and that he be granted a length of service retirement based upon his original expiration term of service (ETS) date of 10 April 2000.

APPLICANT STATES:  That a brief will be submitted in the future.  Such a document is not available to the Board.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior active service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on              5 August 1982.  He was promoted to Master Sergeant, E-8 on 1 February 1994.
He last reenlisted on 11 April 1995 for 5 years.

There is nothing derogatory on the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File, Commendatory and Disciplinary Data section.  His non-commissioned officer evaluation reports (NCO-ER) show that he received mostly “excellent” ratings with some “success” ratings; all “among the best” potential ratings from his raters; and mostly “1” ratings (“1” being the highest and “5” the lowest) for performance and potential from his senior raters.

The applicant’s restricted fiche is not available. 

On 18 January 1996, the applicant was notified of his DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP. (On 13 December 1999, the QMP Branch at the Enlisted Records Center (EREC) informed an analyst with the Board that the QMP was based on a general officer letter of reprimand he received on 1 May 1995 for driving under the influence (DUI) and a relief-for-cause NCO-ER he received for the period August 1994 – April 1995.  One of the comments on that NCO-ER was “lack of judgment during off-duty times.”  His appeal is not available and he does not provide a copy of it; however, the QMP Branch states he appealed the QMP based upon a material error in that he had been exonerated of the DUI charge in a court of law.  His immediate commanders recommended approval of his appeal but the commanding general recommended disapproval.  His appeal was denied.

On 14 January 1997, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, reduction in force.  He was authorized half separation pay.  He had completed 17 years, 5 months and 9 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, at the time set forth policy and prescribed 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.  The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram.  Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for 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, paragraph 16-8, directs the early release of soldiers when budgetary or authorization limitations require a reduction in enlisted strength. 

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant stated in his appeal that he was exonerated of all DUI charges in a court of law but he provided no evidence to show that he did not drive under the influence.  The Board is cognizant of the fact that civil courts frequently dismiss cases or reduce charges based upon technicalities or other issues that have nothing to do with a defendant’s innocence of the offense charged.  He has provided no evidence to the Board to show he did not commit the offense for which he received the letter of reprimand.

3.  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

__tnk___  __eb____  __mdm___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999029707	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.