MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030196

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 reentry eligibility (RE) Code be changed to a code of RE-1 so that he will be allowed to be reinstated on active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has 15 years of honorable service and he would like his bar to reenlistment removed so that he can continue his career in the military.  The applicant states that a Department of the Army (DA) Bar to Reenlistment that he received was based on one letter of reprimand (LOR) and not on his lack of soldiering skills.  There were mitigating circumstance for his actions.  He submits DA Forms 2166-7 Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER’s)) for six periods of service between February 
1991-January 1998; a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record); his appeal of the DA Bar to Reenlistment; and his DD Forms 214 (Certification of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the periods of service from 24 June 1982-23 June 1986 and from 5 November 1986-31 July 1998.

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he had completed an honorable period of service in the United States Marine Corps from 24 June 1982-23 June 1986.

On 5 November 1986, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-4. On 1 February 1991, he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5.  On 1 November 1993, he was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, which was the highest grade that he achieved.  He was honorably discharged on 21 March 1995. 

On 22 March 1995, he reenlisted in the RA for 4 years in pay grade E-6, his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and to be assigned to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. 

A summary of the applicant’s available NCOER’s is provided below.  Note that for DA Form(s) 2166-7 the rating system depicted below is limited to three entries:  The first entry is derived from Part Va (the rater’s rating of the noncommissioned officer’s (NCO’s) overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility), expressed in Roman numerals, with 
“I” (Among the Best) the highest and “III” (Marginal) the lowest; and the last two entries are derived from Part Vc (the senior rater’s (SR’s) rating of the noncommissioned officer’s (NCO’s) overall performance) and Part Vd (the SR’s rating of the NCO’s overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility) respectively, also expressed in Roman numerals, with 
“I thru III” indicating a rating of “Successful/Superior”, “IV” indicating a rating of “Fair”, and “V” indicating a rating of “Poor.”
Score/
Period 	          Rater/SR Rank    Position		                Type Report

Feb 91-Jan 92	II/II/I	    SGT     Fire Team Leader	     Annual
Feb 92-Nov 92	II/III/III	    SGT     Fire Team Leader	     Change of Rater
Dec 92-Nov 93	II/II/II	    SSG     Scout Squad Leader         Change of Rater
Dec 93-Jul 93	II/III/III     SSG     Weapons Squad Leader   Change of Rater
Dec 93-Jul 94	II/III/III     SSG     Weapons Squad Leader   Change of Rater	
Aug 94-Apr 95	I/II/II        SSG     Squad Leader                   Change of Rater
May 95-Jan 96	II/II/II       SSG     Squad Leader                   Change of Rater
Feb 96-Jan 97	II/II/III      SSG     Squad Leader                   Annual
Feb 97-Jan 98	II/III/III     SSG     Squad Leader                   Annual

The applicant’s NCOER’s for the rating periods between February 1991 and January 1998 Part IVa show that he was rated fully capable during all periods in which he was rated except for the rating period between August 1994 and April 1995.  During that rating period he was rated among the best.   In Part IVc, he was rated as successful for all periods rated.  In Part IVd, he was rated as superior during for all periods rated.

On the 2 February 1996-1 January 1997 NCOER, which was identified as the basis for the DA Bar to Reenlistment, the rater annotated “No” in Part
IVa(1) (Maintains High Standards of Personal Conduct On and Off Duty).  He also commented that the applicant had received a letter of reprimand from the battalion commander for his off duty conduct.  In Part Ve (Overall Performance and Potential) the senior rater stated that the applicant should be assigned only to positions of equal responsibility, that he consistently strove to improve himself professionally and that he performed his duties to standard with minimal guidance.

A Criminal Investigation Division Report, dated 26 November 1996, shows that the applicant, his fiancée and his fiancée’s 15 year old daughter resided together.  The 15 year old minor ran away from home and cohabited in government quarters with a 29 year old married specialist, pay grade E-4 for a week.  The specialist’s wife was living away from home because they were having marital problems.

On 25 November 1996, the applicant learned that while the minor was away she had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with the 29 year specialist.  The applicant went to the specialist’s quarters and confronted him about his relationship with the minor.  The specialist denied that he knew the minor and attempted to flee from the scene.  The applicant’s fiancée tripped the specialist and the applicant managed to strike him twice with an aluminum baseball bat.  The specialist sustained minor injuries.  The specialist was charged with carnal knowledge and adultery.  The applicant was charged with aggravated assault, but the disposition of the charge is unknown.

On 13 December 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for assaulting the specialist on 25 November 1996. 

On 26 December 1996, the applicant requested that the LOR be filed locally only and not in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  On 31 January 1997, his request was denied.

On 28 July 1997, a DA E-7 Promotion Selection Board identified the applicant for a DA Bar to Reenlistment under the Quality Management Program (QMP).  On 28 July 1997, the applicant was notified of the basis for the bar to reenlistment.  The Board cited the NCOER, dated February 1996-January 1997, and the LOR, dated 13 December 1996, as the basis for the bar. 

An undated memorandum shows that the applicant appealed the DA Bar to Reenlistment.  He cited four reasons as the basis for his appeal:  that he had served over 14 years of faithful service and he had never received any type of nonjudicial punishment.  He also stated that his NCOER for the rating period February 1996-January 1997 did not correctly reflect who he really was and the LOR that he received was due to mitigating circumstances.

On 24 September 1997, the DA Separation Evaluation Board (DASEB) denied the applicant's appeal.

On 31 July 1998, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 16, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of reduction in force and assigned an RE code of RE-4.  He had completed 11 years, 8 months and 26 days of active military service on the enlistment under review.  He had also completed 4 years of prior active military service.

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 non-progressive 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 program.  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 estimates 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.  A soldier is entitled to only one appeal of the bar to reenlistment, and relook boards are not authorized.

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 enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

An RE code of RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service. Those individuals discharged under the provisions of chapter 16, Army Regulation 635-200, as a result of reduction in force are disqualified to reenlist and the disqualification is nonwaivable.

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 was properly separated in accordance with the regulations, then in effect, governing those soldiers denied reenlistment under the QMP.

3.  The applicant has provided this Board with no evidence that supports a basis for removal of the DA Bar to Reenlistment.  He was bared from reenlistment under the QMP after a DA Selection Board reviewed his record and determined that he was no longer eligible for reenlistment due to past performance and conduct.  Essentially, the Army found that the applicant had no potential for meaningful service beyond his ETS.  

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned an RE code of RE-4 in accordance 
with regulations then in effect. 

5.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification which established the basis for the RE code.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

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

__lls____  __aao___  __ra_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

	

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030196	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Barred from Reenlistment	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0600	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.