MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            l5 July l999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020672

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater  		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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:  That his RE code of RE-4 was assigned in error.  He does not believe he falls under the criteria for an RE-4.  He was told at the time of his separation that the code was assigned because, he was being separated for the second time.  He would now like to enlist in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  He submits a copy of his DD Form 2l4 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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

He had 21 months prior active duty in the United States Navy from December 
l972 through September l974, followed by inactive Naval Reserve and Army Reserve service.  On 24 May l977, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, and his service thereafter was continuous until he was honorably discharged on 1 March l990.

The applicant served in a number of capacities in military occupational specialty (MOS) 96B (Military Intelligence Analyst).  He was also a qualified Chaplain’s Assistant (MOS 71M), but his records do not show a duty assignment in this specialty.  

Throughout his career, most of his enlisted evaluation reports (EER’s) were highly satisfactory, with many of them being maximum ratings (125 out of 
l25 possible points).  However, during the period  June l987 through December l988, the applicant was assigned to two different duty positions involving intelligence duties with the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii.  His EER (DA Form 2166-6) for the rating period June l997 through February 1988 was not satisfactory (l13 points out of 125 points) and on his DA Form 2166-7 for the rating period February through December l988, he received a two-part fair ratings (second to the lowest rating) for his overall performance and his future potential.  Comments by the raters and indorsers indicated that his professionalism and leadership abilities were less than acceptable, he lacked leadership, he was a reluctant and unwilling supervisor and failed to achieve acceptable standards and consistency in job performance.  

Further, on 8 February l988, he was issued a letter of reprimand (LOR), by a lieutenant colonel, the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2 for the 25th Infantry Division.  This letter cited an instance of being disrespectful on 2l January l988 in his attitude, tone of voice and actions toward a first lieutenant, his immediate supervisor.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR, but elected not to make a statement.  The first general officer in his chain of command directed that the LOR be filed on the performance portion (fiche) of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

On 29 September l989, the applicant was notified by the Department of the Army (DA), that a bar to reenlistment had been imposed on him under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), after his OMPF had been reviewed by the 
CY89 Master Sergeant Promotion Selection/Sergeant QMP Selection Board.  The basis for the selection were the two EER’s from June l987 through December l988 and the LOR.  He was advised of his right to appeal the imposition of the bar.  

On 20 October l989, the applicant elected to appeal the bar.  However, on 
12 January l990, the applicant changed his mind and elected not to make an appeal of the bar and requested separation from active duty under the provisions of paragraph l6-5, Army Regulation 635-200, not later than l March l990, which was prior to the normal expiration of his term of service (ETS) of 28 September l995.  In the paragraph in which he made this election, it states, pertinent part:  “I understand that if my request for separation before my normal ETS is approved, it will be for my own convenience.  I also understand that once separated I will not be permitted to enter the Army at a later date.”

On the same date, he initiated a request for discharge through his chain of command, in which he requested discharge under the provisions of paragraph 
l6-5, Army Regulation 635-200, effective l March l990.  In the request, he again stated that he understood that once separated, that he would not be permitted to reenter the Army at a later date.

His request was approved by competent authority and separation was directed with an honorable discharge.  

On 1 March l990, the applicant was honorably discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, by reason of Reduction in Authorized Strength-Qualitative Management Program.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-4.  He was credited with 12 years, 9 months and 8 days active service on the enlistment under review, 2 years, 9 months and 1 day prior active service and 2 years, 8 months and 11 days prior inactive service. 

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 who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge. Incident to the request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.
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.  

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__GDP__  __DBW  _  __JLP___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020672	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990715	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900301	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, C 16 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A07.02	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	100.06	
3.	A01.01	
4.	A01.13	
5.	A92.17	
6.