MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066259

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 discharge be voided and that he be granted a 15-year retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was denied a 15-year retirement because he had been barred from reenlistment based on his academic failure of service schools; however, none of these events occurred at the 15-year mark in his career.  He also states that at the time of his academic failures, he was experiencing severe family problems.

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

He enlisted on 29 March 1974 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 May 1990.

On 10 July 1992, the calendar year 1992 master sergeant selection board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), based on the presence of three noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) indicating weaknesses in performance and efficiency and three academic evaluation reports (AER) indicating that he failed to meet course standards for the drill sergeant course in 1988, the master gunners course in 1989, and the noncommissioned officer advanced course in 1991.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever appealed any of the cited reports.

The applicant submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment under the QMP in October 1992.  However, his appeal was denied and he was directed to be separated no later than 30 June 1993. 

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 30 June 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, due to reduction in authorized strength.  He had served 17 years, 10 months and 24 days of total active service and was paid $22,245.30 in separation pay.  A review of the applicant’s records fails to show that he ever applied for a 15-year retirement. 

The applicant applied to the Board on 27 June 1996, requesting that he be reinstated on active duty.  The Board denied his request on 24 December 1997.

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 enlisted career force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to non-progressive 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 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.

The PERSCOM message number 93-164, dated 20 April 1993, announced the criteria for the fiscal year 1993 early retirement program (the first year the program was offered). It stated, in pertinent part, that soldiers with at least 15 years of active federal service (AFS) but less than 20 years of AFS, in selected pay grades and military occupational specialties, could apply for early retirement. Personnel approved for early retirement will receive the same benefits as individuals with 20 years or more service, except that their retired pay will be reduced.  It also stated that individuals who had already separated under provisions of any other voluntary or involuntary separation program were not eligible for early retirement.  Additionally, personnel with a bar to reenlistment were not eligible for separation under the Voluntary Early Retirement Program.

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.  Accordingly, the applicant was properly authorized to receive one-half separation pay based on his selection under the QMP.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been allowed to apply for retirement is without merit.  The applicant had already been barred from reenlistment under the QMP and was therefore not eligible to apply.

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 this 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

___ao___  ___mm__  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066259	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/06/30	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, para 16-8	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  338	136.0000/15-YR RET	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.