APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the only reason she received a general discharge was because she failed the physical fitness test by four seconds. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: She was born on 19 November 1974. She completed 12 years of formal education. On 28 January 1993, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75E10 (Personnel Actions Specialist). The highest grade she achieved was pay grade E-2. On 25 January 1994, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice( UCMJ), for failure to repair and for dereliction in the performance of her duty. Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $213 pay (suspended), 14 days restriction and extra duty. On 22 February 1994, the applicant accepted an NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for making a false statement. Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 and a forfeiture of $213 pay. On 12 April 1994, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The commander’s decision was based on the applicant record of misconduct, her habitual lateness, her insubordination and her inability to pass the physical fitness test. On 1 August 1994, the applicant accepted an NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for two occasions of failure to repair. Her imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and extra duty. During a 12 month period, the applicant was counseled on twelve different occasions for five occasions of failure to repair, for three occasions of writing bad checks, for three occasions of failing the physical fitness test, for disobeying a lawful order and for being overweight. On 11 August 1994, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. She was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings. On 7 September 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance and action which indicated that she could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her, she waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. On 29 September 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 4 October 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. She had completed 1 year, 8 months and 7 days of creditable active service. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her discharge. 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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 4. 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director