MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034160

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and subsequent discharge be voided, that he be reinstated to active duty, and that he be paid all back pay and allowances from the date of his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly discharged for two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) which indicated that he was overweight and that he was disqualified for award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL).  However, subsequent to the date the reports were rendered it was determined that he had an underlying medical condition that contributed to his weight problem and as a result was subsequently awarded the GCMDL.  He also states that the reports are not indicative of his performance and that his commander at the time imposed nonjudicial punishment against him for the first time in his career and unjustly placed it in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  As a result, he was barred from reenlistment under the QMP and his battalion and brigade commanders would not support his appeal.  Consequently, he was discharged after 13 years of service and had a wife and 6 kids to support. He goes on to state that he now has 7 children and that he has only had one run in with the law in his life and was on probation for a theft conviction until February 2000. 

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

He enlisted in New Orleans, Louisiana on 14 July 1983 for a period of 4 years, training as a light weapons infantryman, and a cash enlistment bonus of $5,000.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 September 1988.

On 12 January 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty (staff duty).  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended) and extra duty.  The imposing commander directed that it be filed on the performance fiche of his OMPF.

On 29 September 1995 he was notified that the Department of the Army Calendar Year (CY) 1995 Sergeant First Class (SFC) Promotion Selection Board had determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP based on the presence of an NCOER covering the period from December 1989 to November 1990 indicating deficiencies/ weaknesses in performance/efficiency, and two NCOER’s covering the period from March 1991 to March 1992 and April 1992 to October 1992 indicating deficiencies in physical fitness/weight.  It further identified the presence of a record of proceedings of nonjudicial punishment dated 12 January 1993 and a letter of disqualification for the GCMDL dated 15 June 1992.  

The applicant elected to appeal the bar to reenlistment under the QMP and did so on 17 November 1995 with three letters of support from his first sergeant, sergeant major, and company commander.  However, the battalion and brigade commander recommended disapproval of his request.

A Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board reviewed his appeal and denied his request.  In doing so it directed that he be separated from the service no later than 31 July 1996 with entitlement to one-half separation pay.

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 31 July 1996 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8 due to reduction in force.  He had served 13 years and 17 days of total active service and received $14,292.72 in separation pay.

A review of the NCOER’s cited as the basis for his bar to reenlistment shows that for the NCOER ending on November 1990 while stationed in Korea, he received all “success” ratings” under performance and a “fully capable” rating under potential for promotion from his rater.  The supporting comments from the rater indicate that he was inconsistent on meeting standards and suspenses, that he needed to show more concern for the mission, and that he needed to set higher standards on training for his soldiers.  The comments by the senior rater in support of his “fair” rating under performance and lowest “superior” rating under potential indicate that the applicant had not mastered the squad leader position but that he had the potential to be a good squad leader.

The NCOER ending on March 1992 while at Fort Benning, Georgia shows that the applicant received all success ratings from his rater with supporting comments indicating that he did not meet the height and weight standards of the regulation.  He also rated the applicant’s potential for promotion as fully capable. The senior rater gave the applicant the lowest successful and superior ratings under performance and potential.

The NCOER ending October 1992 shows that he received a “needs improvement” rating from his rater under physical fitness.  The supporting comments indicate that he did not meet the body fat standards of the regulation but was making progress.  He received a “fully capable” rating under potential and the highest “successful” rating and medium superior rating from his senior rater.

There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant ever appealed any of the NCOER’s in any form other than his appeal of the QMP or that he ever appealed to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board to have the record of nonjudicial punishment transferred to the restricted fiche of his OMPF.

His records also show that on 19 June 1992 the applicant’s commander signed a disapproval for award of the GCMDL indicating that the applicant was flagged at the time due to being overweight and was ineligible at that time for award of the GCMDL.

On 12 February 1993 the applicant’s commander lifted the flagging action on the applicant because it was determined that he had an underlying medical condition.

On 3 August 1995 orders awarding the applicant the fourth award of the GCMDL were published for the period 14 July 1992 to 13 July 1995.

Army Regulation 601-280 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 quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified enlisted soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to                non-progressive and non-productive 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 Department of the Army 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.

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 Department of the Army bar to reenlistment under the QMP was imposed in compliance with the applicable regulation with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that the documents which served as the basis for his selection under the QMP were not sufficient to justify the imposition of the bar, not has sufficient evidence been provided to justify removal of the bar to reenlistment.

3.  The Board also notes that even if the two NCOER’s which refer to his failure to meet weight standards and the denial of the GCMDL were removed from his OMPF, the remaining NCOER and the properly filed record of nonjudicial punishment contained in his OMPF are sufficient either together or separately to warrant a bar to reenlistment under the QMP.

4.  Furthermore, the applicant had a responsibility to review his OMPF to ensure that his record was accurate.  He also had the option to submit a letter to the selection boards in his own behalf to explain anything he felt would not be adequately explained by reviewing his OMPF.  In addition, he had the right to appeal the evaluation reports, the record of nonjudicial punishment and the denial of the GCMDL; yet he did nothing in that regard.

5.  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.

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

__rgh___  __jps____  ___be___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034160	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  7 	100.0600/QMP	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.