MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032831

	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. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm 		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 enlistment date be corrected and that he be assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) Code which will allow reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was unjustly assigned an RE code of RE-4.  He was discharged as a result of the Reduction in Strength-Qualitative Early Transition Program and not as a result of unfavorable actions.  He also believes that his enlistment date is incorrectly shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 15 June 1990.  He submits a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of enlistment under review, Department of the Army (DA) Forms 2166-6, Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EER), for the rating period between June 1984-May 1985, promotion orders dated
8 May 1975 and 5 August 1976, and a copy of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).

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

That prior to the enlistment under review, he had completed three honorable periods of service in the Regular Army (RA) from 17 September 
1974-7 September 1976, from 8 September 1976-11 March 1979, and from 
12 March 1979-16 May 1984.  He was issued a DD Form 214 for the periods of service from 17 September 1974-7 September 1976, and from 8 September 1976-11 March 1979.  However, he was not issued a DD Form 214 for his period of service from 12 March 1979-16 May 1984. 

On 17 May 1984, the applicant renlisted in the RA for 6 years and pay grade 
E-5.  On 5 October 1984, he was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, which was the highest grade that he achieved.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 05B and MOS 31C (Radio Operator). 

A summary of the applicant’s available EER’s (DA Forms 2166-6) is provided below.  Only the average score is shown with 125 being the maximum score achievable.

Score/
Period 	          Rater/SR Rank    Position		                 Type Report

Jun 84-May 85	118.5	    SSG    Opns Comm SSG               Annual
Jun 85-Oct 85	114.5	    SSG    Opns Comm SSG               Change of Rater
Nov 85-Sep 86	117.5      SSG    Team Chief                         Change of Rater
Oct 86-Sep 87	119         SSG    Opns Comm SSG               Annual	

The rater stated in part C1 of the DA Form 2166-6 EER for June 1984-May 1985, that the applicant demonstrated weakness in his relations with soldiers, but that he had taken corrective action to improve those weaknesses.  The indorser stated in part C2 that he believed the applicant’s judgement and self-discipline would improve with experience and increased responsibility and authority.

The rater stated in part C1 of the June 1985-October 1985 EER that the applicant’s overall performance had been inconsistent, and that self discipline and motivation had been the main reason for his inconsistency.  The indorser stated in part C2, that the applicant’s performance had been inconsistent, that his performance was not always up to par when he was unsupervised and that his attitude was not what was expected of a soldier with his grade and time in service.

In part C1 of the November 1985-September 1986 EER the rater stated that the applicant was fairly competent and that his leadership abilities were somewhat lacking.  The indorser stated in part C2 that the applicant had excelled as a leader and recommended that he attend advanced noncommissioned officer training courses.

The rater stated in part C1 of the October 1986-September 1987 EER that the applicant’s performance had been commendable, but that he had been reluctant to assume the full responsibility required for government property accountability. The indorser stated in part C2 that the applicant needed to perfect his professional talents and to more fully develop his leadership skills. 

On 7 December 1974, and on 18 August 1978, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) actions were imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 5 December 1974 and on 12 August 1978, respectively.  His punishments included forfeiture of pay, reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 (suspended) and extra duty.

On 10 June 1985, a third NJP was imposed against him for knowingly disobeying an order when he violated Army policy and wrongfully engaged in intimate physical contact with a private on 1 June 1985, and for wrongfully being in her room on 23 June 1985.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade 
E-6 to pay grade E-5 (suspended), forfeiture of pay extra duty and restriction.

On 20 June 1989, a Department of the Army E-7 Promotion Selection Board identified the applicant for a DA Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  On 20 June 1989, the applicant was notified of the basis for the bar to reenlistment.  
The notification cited the applicant’s EER’s from June 1984-May 1985, from June 1985-October 1985, from November 1985-September 1986 and from October 1986-September 1987 and the NJP actions that he received on 7 December 1974, 18 August 1978 and on 10 June 1985 as the bases for the DA Bar to Reenlistment.  On an unknown date, he appealed the DA Bar to Reenlistment.

On 8 January 1990, a Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board denied the applicant's appeal based on the premise that his past performance and estimated potential was not in keeping with the standards expected of noncommissioned officers.

On 15 June 1990, 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, 3 months and 4 days of active service this period and he had completed 4 years, 5 months and 25 days of prior active service.

He was issued a DD Form 214 that shows his prior period of enlistment from 
12 March 1979-16 May 1984 as well as his current period of enlistment from 
17 May 1984-15 June 1990.

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 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.  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 a DA imposed bar to reenlistment/reduction in force are disqualified to reenlist and the disqualification is nonwaivable.

Army Regulation 635-5 provides the policy and guidance for the issuance of a DD Form 214.  Prior to 1978, DD Forms 214 would be issued at the completion of each period of active service, i.e. at the end of each period of enlistment, and all appropriate entries for service computation, awards, decorations, schooling and the like would be covered on that document.  Since that time, a consolidated DD Form 214 is prepared covering the entire period of active duty, no matter how many reenlistements the report covers.

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.  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 his current RE code.  He was barred from reenlistment under the QMP after a DA Selection Board reviewed his records and determined that he was no longer eligible for reenlistment due to his past performance and conduct. Essentially, the Army found that the applicant had no potential for meaningful service beyond his ETS.  

4.  He 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 accordance with Army Regulations now in effect, if a soldier immediately reenlists, he is not issued a new DD Form 214.  That period of active duty service is accounted for on the DD Form 214 at the time of final discharge.  Therefore, the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct in that it accounts for all periods of service between 1979 and 1990.  His two prior periods of honorable service were recorded on earlier DD Forms 214.

7.  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____  ___jea___  __reb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

	

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032831	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000808	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900615	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Barred from Reenlistment	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0600	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.