MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            13 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR199903324

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 not barred from reenlisting.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was given a bar to reenlist based on a skill qualification test (SQT) failure.  He contends the test was not properly administered and that the test no longer exists in the Army. 

In support of this application the applicant submits seven character reference letters that were written to support his application for the Active Guard Reserve program.  The letters state that the applicant gets along with other people, is a hard worker, has a positive character, and is reliable, competent, and dependable.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1989 and was trained as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.  His DD Form 214 reflects that he was discharged on 26 November 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, for a locally imposed bar to reenlist and issued an honorable discharge.

On 27 June 1989, 31 August 1989 and 1 March 1990 the applicant was counseled for poor job performance.

On 5 January 1990 the applicant’s pay was garnished for non-payment of child support.

On 9 April 1990 the applicant received a letter of reprimand for non-payment of a loan from the Army Emergency Relief Fund.

On 19 June 1990 the applicant was counseled for leaving his place of duty without permission.

On 12 July 1990 the applicant was counseled for failure of his SQT.

On 23 July 1990 the applicant’s company commander notified him of her intention to impose a bar to reenlistment.

On 31 July 1990 the applicant authored a memorandum stating he did not wish to appeal his bar to reenlistment.

On 8 October 1991 the applicant signed a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) which reflected the following statement in the remarks section:  “…I also understand that once I am separated I will not be permitted to re-enlist at a later date.”

In accordance with Army regulations, the bar to reenlistment was reviewed by his commander within 6 months after its imposition. The commander decided that the bar should remain in effect.  Thereafter, the applicant chose to request early separation because of the bar, and on 26 November 1991 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations; paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate 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.  The record contains no evidence to indicate that the applicant’s bar to reenlistment was based solely on the failure of his SQT, or that the test was improperly administered.  Rather, it appears that the bar to his reenlistment was the result of persistent misconduct on his part. 

2.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress or that the applicant did not understand the full future ramifications of his decision.

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

__jlp ____  ___mhm_  ___jea___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033624	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000713	
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.	100.06	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.