MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           5 April 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030607

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 In effect, the applicant requests that her AWOL be reclassified as an authorized absence, her bar to reenlistment be rescinded, and that she be reinstated in the Army Reserve.
 
APPLICANT STATES:  That she was charged with AWOL without counsel and without being advised of her right to legal counsel.  This action was completed by the civilian unit administrator of her unit.  She states that she received a four day pass to attend her uncle’s funeral, and [while on pass] requested an extension.  Her commanding officer informed her to contact the unit administrator, and she tried to do so without success.  She had a problem with forgetting her keys, and a problem with a flat tire and a dead battery in her car.  However, she was in constant communication with unit personnel.  She requested a leave form from an NCO and the unit administrator, but neither responded to her request.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve for three years on                             18 September 1976 for training as a medical laboratory specialist.  She completed training in the medical laboratory specialist course on 10 June 1977.  

Her enlisted evaluation report (EER) ending in August 1982 shows that she was an E-5 attached to the 94th General Hospital in San Antonio.  Both her rater and indorser felt that her performance of duty was excellent and that she should be promoted ahead of her peers.

On 23 September 1992 she was relieved from the medical laboratory specialist (advanced) course because of academic failure.  The applicant received  maximum ratings on her EER for the 12 month period ending in August 1983, and received excellent ratings for the 12 month period ending in July 1985.

The applicant entered into the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program. She was a recruiter in August 1985 assigned to a recruiting battalion in Dallas, and received maximum ratings on her EER for the10 month period ending in October 1986, October 1987, and May 1988.

On her NCO evaluation report (NCOER) ending in November 1988, her rater considered her fully capable for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.  Her senior rater placed her in the second from the highest block in both overall performance and overall potential.

Her NCOER ending in November 1989 shows that her rater, her station commander, indicated that she was extremely competent, having achieved the recruiter ring, the highest recruiter award.  He considered her fully capable for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.  Her senior rater placed her in third from the highest block in both overall performance and potential.

The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-7 on 12 May 1990.  On                      10 August 1990 she completed the Advanced NCO Course.  Her station commander, her rater, stated on her NCOER ending in November 1990 that she was fully capable, and her senior rater placed her in the second from the highest block in both overall performance and potential.  For the report ending in November 1991 this same rater indicated that she was among the best in overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility.  Her senior rater again placed her in the second from the highest block in both overall performance and potential.  In the report ending in November 1992 this same rater stated that she was the only Reserve recruiter in the company that failed to achieve her mission, and that she did not contract a quality applicant 8 out of 12 months.  He also stated that she placed her personal needs before the mission.  He stated, however, that she was fully capable.  Her senior rater placed her in the third from the highest block in performance and potential.

She received a change of rater report for the period ending in June 1993.  Her rater stated that she had shown great improvement on mission accomplishment during the rating period and considered her fully capable.  Her senior rater stated that her overall performance was fair (fourth from the highest block) and placed her in the third from the highest block for overall potential.  He stated that she performed at minimum standards, but could perform at her present grade and position when motivated. 

On 9 July 1993 the applicant reenlisted in the Army Reserve for six years.

The applicant’s NCOER for the period ending in June 1994 shows that she was a medical laboratory NCO with the 73d Combat Support Hospital in Cedar 
Rapids, Iowa.  That report shows that her rater considered her fully capable.  Her senior rater placed her in the second from the highest block in both performance and potential.

The NCOER for the period ending in June 1995 shows that her rater stated that she was defensive in interactions with other members of the unit, and that she did not reward and encourage outstanding performance of subordinates.  The rater indicated that she needed improvement in both leadership and training.  She rated her overall potential as marginal.  Her senior rater considered her performance poor (lowest block) and her potential fair (fourth from the highest block).  The senior rater stated that her duty performance and overall behavior barely met the standards for her grade, she had forgotten she was an NCO and willfully jumped the chain of command.  She had disobeyed direct orders from commissioned officers, and would not accept constructive counseling, becoming defensive, evasive, and argumentative.
The NCOER for the period ending in April 1996, as an administrative specialist with the 4224th USAH in Cedar Rapids, shows that her rater indicated she needed improvement in leadership.  She considered the applicant’s potential as marginal.  The senior rater placed her in the third from the top block in both performance and potential, and stated that she needed to develop leadership and management skills, that she needed additional guidance and experience in supervisory positions, and that her potential was limited for increased responsibility.

In a 4 August 1997 letter the applicant’s former station commander, when she was a recruiter, provided a statement in support of the applicant’s NCOER appeal.

The applicant has twice been awarded the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Gold Recruiter Badge with two sapphire achievement stars; and has received three awards of the Good Conduct Medal, and three awards of the Army Achievement Medal, among her other awards.  She has also received numerous certificates of achievement.

On 17 June 1997 the Total Army Personnel Command notified the applicant that her appeal to the bar to reenlistment under the Army Reserve AGR Qualitative Management Program had been disapproved. 

A 10 April 1999 DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) indicates that the applicant had an approved 4 day pass from 23 April 1999 to 26 April 1999.  The remarks section of that form has the words:  “Called to extend until Thursday spoke to Sgt ___ and Sgt ___.  Mr. [unit administrator) was not in the office        26 Apr 99 0715 Extension is until Thursday 29 Apr.  30 Apr 99 I called to inform Mr. [unit administrator] that my keys for the house and car were left in St. Thomas and I [Undecipherable] flat tire and battery dead.”  Another DA Form 31 shows that the applicant requested leave from 23 April 1999 to 29 April 1999.  The remarks section of that form shows that she indicated that on the above date she spoke with two unit NCOs during the absence of the unit administrator informing them of the need to extend her stay (her niece suffered a heart attack). She returned on 29 April.  Her key was left in St. Thomas and she had a flat tire and a dead battery.  She spoke to one of the unit NCOs.

A 26 April 1999 facsimile transmittal sheet indicates that the applicant requested an answer from her commanding officer to the charge of AWOL, that she had called twice, that she had enclosed a DA Form 31 with the chargeable dates for her absence to the Virgin Islands on 27 through 29 April 1999, and that she was awaiting a reply.  She stated on the bottom of that sheet to disregard the          DA Form 31. 

Another DA Form 31 dated 4 May 1999 shows that the applicant requested        10 days leave from 23 April 1999 to 2 May 1999.  She provided information in the remarks section of that form similar to the information in the remarks section of the aforementioned DA Forms 31.  That request was approved with what appears to be the signature of her commanding officer.  Two other DA Forms 31, requesting leave from 23 April 1999 to 2 May 1999, both dated 4 May, again approved with what appears to be her commanding officer’s signature, are provided by the applicant.  A note on one, indicates that the applicant’s signature was needed, and that the commanding officer signed the request on 7 July 1999. A note on the second indicates that the commanding officer signed on                 7 July 1999 after providing the 65th IG with some documentation.  That note also states that applicant signed on 7 July 1999.
 
A 17 May 1999 DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows that the applicant was AWOL effective 0700 hours on 23 April 1999.  That form indicates that the applicant did not turn in a DA Form 31 as asked by the unit administrator prior to departure and did not turn in the DA Form 31 when returned to duty.  That form was apparently signed by the unit administrator for the commanding officer.  On 17 May 1999 another DA Form 4187 was prepared showing that the applicant was present for duty from an AWOL status effective 0900 hours on 2 May 1999.  That form was signed by the unit administrator.

In a 27 May 1999 letter to her commanding officer the applicant apparently forwarded a copy of a DA Form 31 for the commanding officer’s signature, and requested a reply concerning the AWOL charge, and any actions being taken against her. 

The applicant’s leave and earning statement for the period 1-30 June 1999 shows that she was AWOL from 23 April 1999 to 2 May 1999.

An order published by the Army Reserve Command shows that the applicant was discharged from the Army Reserve/Active Guard Reserve on 8 July 1999 and that she was entitled to half separation pay. 

Information obtained from the applicant’s former commanding officer on             27 March 2000 is that the period of AWOL from 23 April 1999 to May 1999 was changed to show that period as ordinary leave.  

Information obtained from the Fort Buchanan Inspector General on                     27 March 2000 confirmed the aforementioned information.  He also stated that the AWOL period had been corrected by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis, correcting all the entitlements in her pay account.  The IG stated that the applicant was supposed to have separated from the Army at Fort McPherson, Georgia; however, she had not proceeded to that location as ordered, and was discharged in Puerto Rico.  Her discharge was honorable and her DD Form 214 showed no AWOL time.

Army Regulation 140-111, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment for continuing service on Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status under the USAR QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet USAR AGR standards. It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the AGR career enlisted force,                (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers up to 29 years of active Federal service (3) deny reenlistment for continuing AGR service to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment. 
 
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 applicant’s AWOL period has since been changed to ordinary leave.  No further action on this request is required by the Board. 

2.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that her bar to reenlistment was improper, erroneous, or unjust.  She has provided no good argument or any reason to rescind that bar, or to reinstate her in the Army.  

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request.   

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 the aforementioned 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

___sk___  ___rvo___  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030607	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  261	100.06	
2.	110.00	
3.	123.01	
4.		
5.		
6.