MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 July 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019358

	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. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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:  Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence that he would like to change the reason for his discharge from Separation Code JCC (Reduction in Authorized Strength—Qualitative Early Transition Program) and his RE code from RE-4 to RE-3 so that he can enter the National Guard.  He states that he should not have the RE-4 for reduction in strength and a bar to reenlistment.  He includes a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) , a copy of his appeal, dated 7 June 1988) of a Department of the Army (DA) imposed bar to reenlistment, with favorable command endorsements from his unit, battalion and brigade commanders and a letter of recommendation from a major which had been with his appeal. 

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

He had 3 years prior honorable service with the United States Marine Corps from 8 March 1972-7 March 1976.  His separation rank was as a corporal, and he had served as a mortarman.  He was awarded the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Meritorious Unit Citation.  

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1975, in pay grade E-4.  He completed airborne training, and was assigned to duties as an Infantry rifleman. 
He had two nonjudicial punishments (NJP), imposed under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 27 January and 6 December 1976, respectively, for sleeping on his guard post during an exercise, and for threatening to kill a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and disrespectful language to the same NCO.  His punishments included reduction to pay grade E-3, both reductions suspended upon appeal, forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.   

He was promoted to the rank of sergeant on 10 May 1978, but was reduced to the rank of specialist on 11 January 1980 as the result of NJP for exposing his buttocks to a group of students while serving as an instructor.  His appeal of the punishment was denied.

He was promoted again to the rank of sergeant on 7 February 1982 and to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, on 7 March 1983.  

On 6 August 1985, he received a fourth NJP for failure to repair.  His only punishment was the forfeiture of $220 pay.  His appeal was denied.

On 17 February 1988, he was notified that a DA bar to reenlistment was imposed against him under the provisions of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP). The four NJP actions, as well as three Enlisted Evaluation Reports and a DA Form l059 (Academic Evaluation Report) were cited as the a basis for the DA bar.  

The first of the three cited EER’s (none of which appear to have ever been appealed) covered the rating period June 1982-May 1983.  He received 112 out of a possible 125 points for duties as an Infantry squad leader.  The rater and indorser stated that he could perform his duties when not injured and had been counseled.  Improvements had been noted.  He needed to complete Basic and Advanced NCO courses (BNCOC and ANCOC). 

The next cited report was from June 1984 through April 1985, while serving as an instructor.  He received 104 out of 125 points.  He basically was unable to properly manage and teach one course of instruction, and he was then assigned to another, less demanding course of instruction.  He also failed an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  He was not recommended for promotion.  He was encouraged to complete military and civilian education courses and to sharpen his leadership skills.

The last cited report was from May through September 1985 as an Infantry squad leader.  He received 112 out of 125 points.  Again, his skills as a squad leader were found to be weak and he was physically unable to keep up with younger soldiers.  He was encouraged to take basic skill courses and it was recommended that he serve as an instructor of basic skill classes.

The applicant attended BNCOC from 10 November through 19 December 1986.   He initially failed the course academically and was declared an academic failure on 8 December 1986.  A DA Form l059 was prepared to this effect.  He appealed the failure, and was reinstated in the course and marginally completed the course later in December.  He basically had trouble with academic classes but performed well in field related skill classes.  

The applicant initially appealed the inclusion of the data concerning his failed BNCOC Academic Evaluation Report, but this was denied.  On 7 June 1988, he submitted an overall appeal of the imposition of the bar.  He acknowledged some of his failures, his early NJP punishments and that he should have taken more academic and military leadership courses.  He cited his last EER from a battalion command sergeant major for his duties from October 1986 through September 1987 as a battalion reenlistment NCO, which was a maximum score of 125 and he performed his duties in an outstanding manner.  Several letters of recommendation were also included with the appeal.  His unit, battalion and acting brigade commanders all recommended approval of the appeal, but the division commander recommended disapproval.

On 7 July 1988, the applicant’s appeal of the bar to reenlistment was denied.  On 15 July 1988, he was notified that the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), as the result of budgetary and manpower restrictions, had directed that he be separated within 90 days, since his appeal of the bar to reenlistment, in his case, had been denied.  

On 26 October 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, by reason of Reduction in Authorized Strength-Qualitative Early Transition Program.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-4.  He was credited with 11 years and l5 days on the period of service under review, 5 years 4 days and 19 days prior active service and 6 months and 6 days inactive service.  His awards and decorations included the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon (with numeral 2) and the Overseas Service Ribbon.  His separation document should have also shown three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  (Note:  An administrative correction to his records will be requested.  See NOTE: below.)

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. Paragraphs 16-5 and 16-8 apply to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers, who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and whose appeals have been denied, to either voluntarily request to be separated or to be separated prior to the normal expiration of their term of service by direction of the Department of the Army.  Soldier’s being so separated will be assigned an RE code of RE-4.

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.

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 enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

Reenlistment eligibility code RE-4 indicates that the soldier is not permitted to reenlist in any element of the Army.  

In connection with his application to this Board, the applicant also requested review action by the Army Discharge Review Board.  However, since he only requested that board to consider a change in his RE code, which the ADRB is not authorized to do, the case was referred to this Board for review and action.  

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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of that disqualification which established the basis for the RE code.  The RE code was not assigned in error and still is appropriate.  

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.

NOTE:

The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division-St. Louis is requested to issue a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to show in item 13 that the applicant received three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CMF__  __TNK___  __RJW__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019358	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990722	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19881026	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, C16	
DISCHARGE REASON	A07.20	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A110.00	
2.	A100.06	
3.	A01.01	
4.	A01.13	
5.	A92.17	
6.