MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            27 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034886

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to a code that will allow him to reenter the Army.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his was discharged under the Qualitative Early Transition Program and he cannot understand why he was given an RE code of RE-4.  He further states that his Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) shows that he would receive a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) and he never received that document.

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

On 13 October 1983, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a petroleum supply specialist.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.

The applicant went AWOL on 18 June 1989 and he remained AWOL until he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 21 June 1989.

On 10 June 1992, the applicant was notified that the Calendar Year 92 Master Sergeant Selection Board reviewed his Official Military Personnel File and the board determined that he was barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  He was also informed that he had 60 days to submit an appeal to the bar through his chain of command.  There is no evidence of record that shows that he ever submitted an appeal to the bar to reenlistment within the 60-day timeframe.

Accordingly, on 7 November 1992, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-8 as a result of a reduction in authorized strength under the qualitative early transition program.  He had completed 9 years and 22 days of total active service and he was assigned an RE code of RE-4.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was separated on temporary records and it also indicates that he would be issued a DD Form 215 to provide missing information or to correct information.

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.  Paragraph 16-8 provides that personnel will be 

notified of the separation by appropriate commanders and be provided the basis for the separation.  Personnel discharged under these chapters will be assigned an RE code of RE-4.

Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, 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 soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive 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 subprogram.  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.

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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  He was discharged under the QMP as a result of a reduction in strength under the qualitative early transition program and he was appropriately assigned an RE code of RE-4.

3.  Although the applicant was separated using temporary records, the information currently reflected on his DD Form 214 appears to be correct and no information was omitted,  Therefore, he was not issued a DD Form 215.

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

___klw __  ___tap __  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034886	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  471	144.0720/A07.20	
2.  488	144.2400/A24.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.