MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999104788

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 he be retired and granted full benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with more than 18 years of service.  He feels that his separation was unjust; that he received poor legal advice.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years on 2 July 1962. On 8 September 1962, he enlisted in the Regular Army and served 3 years before being honorably discharged on 9 September 1965.  During this initial period of service, he had 2 days of lost time and received 3 NJP’s (nonjudicial punishments) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (two for failure to repair and one for dereliction of duty).  He was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 6 days of service.  The applicant next reenlisted on 21 December 1970 and remained on continuous active duty until separated with an honorable discharge on 17 April 1986 under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.  He had a grand total of 18 years, 6 months, and 3 days of creditable active service when separated.

The applicant’s record reflects that he was a supply sergeant serving in the grade of E-6 (staff sergeant).  Early in his career, he had been a unit armorer and had done a creditable job; however, as he progressed in rank and became more involved in small unit supply operations, his performance began to suffer.  During a 78-month period, he received 9 substandard enlisted efficiency reports (EER’s) and suffered a relief from his duties while in Germany in March 1983.  His EER scores placed him in the bottom 5 percent of all supply sergeants in the Army.  Furthermore, he was overweight and enrolled in the Army’s mandatory weight control program, and had physical limitations caused by back pain and tendonitis in both heels which caused him to have a profile against certain activities.

In 1983, the applicant was identified for a Department of the Army-imposed bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  Nine substandard EER’s and three NJP’s were cited as the reason for the bar.  The applicant appealed his bar to reenlistment and his appeal was denied by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) on 19 September 1985.  There is nothing in the record to explain the length of time involved in the appeal process.

In January 1985, the applicant was transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia, and assigned duties as the supply sergeant of the 547th Medical Company.  His duty performance was determined to be substandard and he was relieved of his duties and assigned to work at the Fort Stewart Outdoor Recreation Services office.  On 27 August and 9 September 1985, he was given a physical and mental status examination which cleared him for separation.  On 30 September 1985, he was officially notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance.  He acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel on 3 October 1985, and requested a hearing before a board of officers.  The hearing was conducted on 18 December 1985 and the applicant was represented by counsel.  His history of poor duty performance was detailed, as were his limited successes.

The board voted to recommend that he be separated for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.  The recommendation was supported by the entire chain of command and forwarded to HQDA for ultimate approval as the applicant had more than 18 years of creditable service.  The HQDA approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be honorably discharged.  He was separated with an honorable discharge on 17 April 1986 by reason of unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.  The regulation further provides that, when a soldier with 18 years or more of active Federal service is recommended for involuntary separation, the recommendation will be sent to HQDA for final determination.

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 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.  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.

2.  The applicant had a long history of substandard performance characterized by EER’s which placed him in the bottom 5 percent of all staff sergeants in the supply field.  He was relieved of his duties as a company supply sergeant on two separate occasions for failure to do his job.  A DA-imposed bar to reenlistment was imposed against him for substandard duty performance.

3.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations.  He was afforded competent legal counsel who advised him to request a hearing before a board of officers.  At that hearing, he was represented by counsel who pleaded his case and provided witnesses on his behalf.  Per Army regulation, the board’s recommendation was forwarded to HQDA for a final determination.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with the his overall record of military service.

4.  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

___JEV _  __MKP __  __JHK __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014788	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860417	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Harrell	
ISSUES         1.	136.0000	
2.	144.4900	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.