National Perspective : THE MILITARY : GI Fights to Keep Job Till Retirement : Army seeks to oust 17-year veteran over years-old bad mark. Others face same fate.

Staff Sgt. Jim Boyd still speaks proudly of his 17-year association with the Army, of how it rescued him from the mean streets of North Philadelphia and offered him opportunity, education and the promise of a financially secure future.

“I don’t regret the choice I made,” he said, sitting in his attorney’s office. “You take a person in my situation--poor--and the Army gives you a way to better yourself. I don’t know anything else that would have done so much for me. But I gave a lot back to the Army, too, and that’s what makes me feel so bad about this.”

Like thousands of other soldiers, James T. Boyd, 41, is a victim of the peace dividend and has, in effect, been fired, less than three years short of completing the 20 years needed for retirement. Instead of the $863-a-month lifetime pension and medical benefits he and his wife, Daisy, had counted on to start a second career in a small business back home in Pennsylvania, Boyd will leave the Army with nothing but his separation papers.

Boyd, who has a flawless disciplinary record, is making, as the Army puts it, the “involuntary transition to civilian status” under the Qualitative Management Program. The policy permits the military to dismiss career noncommissioned officers without benefits if a substandard evaluation report at some point in their past would make them ineligible to re-enlist. Among those facing the same fate as Boyd are some formerly overweight soldiers whose appearances now meet military standards.

What Boyd finds particularly perplexing is that the Army encouraged him to re-enlist for a six-year term in 1987. That contract extends past the date on which he would be eligible for retirement. Now, the Army says it is terminating the contract because Boyd’s performance was substandard in Korea during two tours in the ‘80s when his military occupation speciality was changed from administration to intelligence.

“The thing that’s sad is I really tried,” Boyd said. “I really tried hard. I took correspondence courses to improve myself. I know I made mistakes in that job--once I got the grid coordinates wrong--and I may be just an average soldier. But I still think the capability’s there. I know I perform well when I’m in a job I can handle.”

Although he admits he was over his head in the supervisory intelligence job, Boyd is considered a competent, dependable worker by his commanders here at Ft. Carson and is respected for his tenacity in earning a degree in business administration from the University of Maryland during six years of night classes.

“If this battalion was to deploy to war,” said one of his officers at Ft. Carson, Maj. Randal Castro, “I would want Sgt. Boyd with me.”

Added his commanding officer, Lt. Col. Wayne Boy, with the 4th Engineer Battalion of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized): “ . . . Boyd is a winner . . . . He is a model of selfless dedication . . . . He gets the job done where it counts--at the tactical unit level . . . .”

Pentagon spokesmen deny that the dismissal of Boyd and others is related to the Army’s plans to reduce its ranks by more than 200,000 men and women by 1995. Rather, they say, the 20-year-old Qualitative Management Program is a tool to weed out noncommissioned officers whose performance and aptitude would make them ineligible to re-enlist. The Army did, though, cite budgetary constraints last year when it suspended a soldier’s right to appear before a review board to appeal early dismissal under the program.

Boyd agrees that re-enlistment is a privilege, not a right, but contends that all he wants to do is fulfill the contract he has with the Army.

He has enlisted the help of his congressman, Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), and retained Colorado Springs attorney David Babinski to seek an injunction preventing the Army from dismissing him. A U.S. District Court temporarily barred Boyd’s discharge pending a hearing Thursday.

The judge’s decision to issue or deny a permanent injunction could affect hundreds of soldiers. If the request is turned down, Boyd, the father of two, plans to return to Philadelphia to seek employment. Until Boyd has found a job, his wife of 22 years will continue working here as a military counselor to soldiers preparing to leave the Army.

“Do I think the Army did me wrong?” Boyd asked. “Yes and no. I know I had a problem in that intelligence (job). The Army should have recognized that. And I should have, too, and requested reassignment. But I can’t figure out why they waited all this time to check me out and decide I wasn’t qualified. This is my life they’re dealing with.”