ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170012664 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reversal of his involuntary separation in accordance with Army Directive and change his non-retention on active duty through the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) to retained or retired. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Enlisted Record Brief * DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) * Memorandum for President, QMP Board, dated 19 May 2016 and 5 September 2016 * Letters of Recommendation (8) * Notification of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service Under the QMP, dated 8 August 2016 * Statement of Options, QMP, dated 15 August 2016 * Orders 319-001 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letter from Congressional Inquiry Division FACTS: 1. The applicant requests the Board change his separation code as well as the narrative reason for separation. He should be granted retention and full military retirement. He believes the U.S. Army and the QMP Selection Board committed an error in their decision to deny his request to continue active duty service. a. He believes the QMP Selection Board’s failure to fully apply Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) contributed to cause of his denied request. According to AR 635-200, the Army’s duty includes (a) diligent efforts be made to identify Soldiers who exhibit a likelihood for early separation and to improve their chances for retention through counseling, retraining, and rehabilitation prior to initiation of separation proceedings. (b) Soldiers who do not conform to required standards of discipline and performance and Soldiers who do not demonstrate potential for further military service should be separated in order to avoid the high costs in terms of pay, administrative efforts, degradation of morale, and substandard mission performance. He believes he performed to the highest level the Army calls for. He believes the evidence he submitted from various Army personnel concerning his character/duties as a Soldier were never considered by the Army or the QMP Board. b. He believes the Army/QMP should have investigated the female Soldier as to why or what caused her to fail in her duties of the day in question. Also, she should be questioned about his character/qualifications and on how well he trained her and prepared her for her assignment. He believes the Army/QMP should have medically examined her before they initiated their task of putting him out of the Army. c. He believes he was a model Soldier and senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the Army, as it was reference by the evidence from various outstanding Soldiers that wrote their support on his behalf. He feels his constant pleas/cries to his superior concerning this Soldier and her lack of physical fitness because of her pregnancy and her mental unsoundness was not heard, whether intentionally or by an honest mistake. He believes the punishment does not fit the call for the separation code and narrative reason of JGH and non-retention on active duty. He feels his decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons displays his true character. He believes Army/QMP unjustly decided his fate. He believes if any punishment was to be given a reprimand or a reduction in grade should have been the action taken, but not his career. c. He was falsely accused and separated from the Army prematurely. The leadership went off of hearsay and perception. He wants what he has earned, which is his retirement. His retention NCO told him early retirement was 16 years. His 16th year anniversary would have been in May and he was forced to separate in March. 2. The applicant provides: a. DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER)) shows the following: * part IV(a) (Army Values), item 2 (Duty. Fulfills their obligations.), “No” was annotated * part IV(b) (Competence) needs “some improvement” was annotated * part IV(d) (Leadership) and part IV(e) (Training) needs “much improvement” was annotated b. Memorandum, SUBJECT: Notification of Denial of Continued Active Duty Service Under the QMP, dated 8 August 2016, notifying him that he is being recommended for denial of continued active duty service. On 15 August 2016, he signed a Statement of Option, QMP, where he indicated he would submit an appeal within 30 days. c. Two memorandums for the QMP Board President dated 19 May 2016 and 5 September 2016 in which he presents matters of extenuation and mitigation for the QMP Board to consider. He states his most recent NCOER is the only negative NCOER in his service record and it not congruent with his 15 years of service and does not accurately describe his character and ability for continued service. He states the negative NCOER is as a result of a Soldier having poor performance in the field despite his training. In addition, he explained the reasons for being late to formations. Finally, he stated he was never too friendly with his Soldiers. d. Eight character reference letters in support of his appeal to the QMP Board’s decision to deny his continued active duty service to retain him on active duty. (1) Sergeant First Class (SFCX___ states he has supervised over 200 Soldiers and the applicant exemplifies the qualities required of today’s Army training. He met the applicant while stationed at Fort Sill, OK. He was one of the most reliable and meticulous instructors. He ranked within the top three NCOs in the platoon and top 10% of instructor in the company based on class grade point averages. His integrity and moral character have been exemplary through his career. (2) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) X___ wrote two character reference letters. The first letter, dated 29 April 2016, was written when he was LTC. The second letter, dated 8 September 2016, was written after he was promoted to Colonel. He states he is an officer with over 21 years of service. He was able to observe the applicant and his leadership of his Soldiers. His section was well-trained, disciplined, and he spent many hours working with his Soldiers in all leadership capacities. (3) Staff Sergeant (SSG) X___ states the applicant is one of the most loyal and dedicated senior NCOs he has worked with. Soldiers disagreed with his leadership style, but it was because they were used to getting their way. He tried to mimic the applicant’s leadership style. He could count on him to help at the drop of a hat. His team was recognized many times for being second to none among other coalition forces throughout the base. (4) Sergeant Major (SGMX___ states the applicant was a solid performer and a key contributor to the successful accomplishments of the Division G-6. The applicant had a genuine care and concern for Soldiers. He was selected to fill a platoon sergeant vacancy. (5) Captain X___ states he both served and deployed with the applicant. He was a valuable member of the team with a great work ethic. He treated his Soldiers with dignity and respect. He was a kind, thoughtful, compassionate, and dedicated leader. He is the type of senior NCO that exemplifies the NCO Creed and the Army values. (6) Command Sergeant Major (CSM) X___X___ states the applicant’s abilities are commensurate of a SFC with 15 years of experience. He possesses the knowledge and physical ability to train Soldiers. (7) LTC X___ states he worked with the applicant indirectly for a year before their deployment and then for four months during their deployment. He states the applicant was nothing but an exemplary Soldier and leader to his team. He truly embodied what a senior NCO is required to BE, KNOW, and DO. Though he has not followed his career beyond their time deployed he knows the applicant has the same drive and passion he witnessed during the time they worked together just in the handful of emails where the applicant asked for his support in the appeal process. d. Memorandum, SUBJECT: Appeal of Involuntary Separation under the QMP, [Applicant], dated 17 October 2016 which states his case did not meet the criteria of material error, newly discovered evidence, or the subsequent removal of documents from the Soldier’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) to be eligible for QMP appeal. The applicant’s appeal was returned without further action. e. A letter from the Congressional Inquiry Division, dated 23 May 2017, informing U.S. Representative M.S. the applicant will be informed directly once the Army Board for Correction of Military Records has made a decision. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. On 25 May 2001, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA). He immediately reenlisted in the RA on 3 August 2004, 16 April 2007, 23 October 2009, and 11 December 2014. He served in various stateside and overseas assignments. b. On 17 December 2015, the applicant received a relief for cause NCOER covering 7 months of rated time from 1 March through 1 November 2015 for his duties as platoon sergeant. This NCOER shows in: * part IV(a) (Army Values), item 2 (Duty. Fulfills their obligations.), “No” was annotated * part IV(b) (Competence) needs “some improvement” was annotated * part IV(d) (Leadership) and part IV(e) (Training) needs “much improvement” was annotated c. In Part V(a) (Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the rater placed an "X" in the "Marginal” block. d. In Part V(c) (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block and in Part V(d) (Senior Rater – Overall Potential for Promotion and/or Service in Positions of Greater Responsibility), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Poor/5" block. e. The rater and senior rater signed the NCOER and the reviewer concurred with the rater and senior rater and authenticated this form by placing his digital signature in the appropriate place. The applicant also signed it. f. On 8 August 2016, he received a memorandum from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) notifying him of the recommendation to deny him continued active duty service. On 15 August 2016, he acknowledged receipt of the denial on a Statement of Options, QMP and stated he would submit an appeal. g. On 5 September 2015, the applicant submitted an appeal. He recounted his military service, explained the discrepancies in his NCOER, and requested to be retained. Included with his appeal were eight character reference letters. h. On 17 October 2016, AHRC explained to the applicant that his appeal did not present material error, newly discovered evidence, or the subsequent removal of documents from the Soldier AMHRR and was, therefore, ineligible for QMP appeal. i. On 14 November 2016, he received orders which indicated his date of discharge would be 1 March 2017. j. On 1 March 2017, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 19 (QMP), separation code JGH, narrative reason or separation as non-retention on active duty, and issued an honorable discharge. His DD Form 214 reflects that the completed 15 years, 9 months, and 7 days of active service. It also shows he was awarded or was authorized the: * Iraq Campaign Medal with Three Campaign Stars * Army Commendation Medal (5th Award) * Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) * Meritorious Unit Commendation (2nd Award) * Army Good Conduct Medal (5th Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (3rd Award) * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon (5th Award) 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers denied continued service under the QMP may appeal and request retention on active duty based on improved performance and/or presence of a material error in the Soldier's record. 5. By regulation (AR 635-5-1) separation program designator (SPD) codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. Table 2-3 identified the following involuntary discharge SPD code JGH as non-retention on active duty and the regulatory authority AR 635-200, paragraph 19-12. 6. By regulation (AR 15-185), an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions and letters of support were carefully considered. The evidence shows the applicant was selected for involuntary separation after a QMP Board convened. The purpose of the QMP board at that time was to identify selected NCOs for possible involuntary separation; specifically, those with a general officer memorandum of reprimand, conviction by a court-martial or Article 15, relief-for-cause NCOER, a "No" in the Army values in an NCOER, a senior rating of "4" in an NCOER in the overall performance or potential blocks, and/or NCO Education System failures. The evidence shows the applicant received a "No" rating in the Army values and a “4” rating in the senior rater portion of the contested NCOER related to his overall performance with a “5” rating for his potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility. He appealed the contested NCOER and the involuntary separation. His appeal did not present material error, newly discovered evidence, or the subsequent removal of documents from the Soldier AMHRR and was, therefore, found ineligible for a QMP appeal. He was subsequently separated with over 15 years of service. Based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Board agreed there was no error or injustice in this case. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 19-11, states: a. Soldiers denied continued service under the QMP may appeal and request retention on active duty based on improved performance and/or presence of a material error in the Soldier's record. The Soldier may submit only one appeal, and requests for reconsideration of denied appeals are not authorized. The Soldier is permitted to include relevant material in support of the appeal. b. Appeals are addressed by the QMP appeals board, normally conducted in conjunction with Headquarters, Department of the Army, Centralized Promotion Selection Boards, and this board considers all information previously reviewed by the QMP board, as well as any information included in the appeal. The mere fact a Soldier's performance has improved, or that the Soldier's file contains a material error, is not necessarily sufficient to overcome the reason for QMP selection. c. The appeals board may determine the reason for QMP selection still applies, even in the light of the improved performance or correction of an error. Successful appeals result in removal of the denial of continued service determination. 3. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designation Codes) provides separation program designator (SPD) codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. Table 2-3 identified the following involuntary discharge SPD code JGH as non-retention on active duty and the regulatory authority AR 635-200, paragraph 19-12. 4. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. a. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. b. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170012664 7 1