2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded and that item 29 on his DD Form 214 be corrected (erroneous dates of time lost 940302-940331). 3. He was born on 29 October 1973. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 1 August 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. His Armed Forces Qualifications Test score was 50 (Category III). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63G10 (Fuel and Electrical Systems Repairer). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4. 4. On 28 January 1994, while assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for two occasions of disobeying a lawful order and for dereliction in the performance of his duties. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty. 5. On 2 March 1994, the applicant’s record indicated that he called his unit informing his supervisor that he was lost in Austin, Texas. However, his record indicates that he returned to duty the same day at 1325 hours. There is no other evidence in his record which indicates that he was reported for being AWOL. 6. On 2 April 1994, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $102 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty. 7. On 18 April 1994, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The decision was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory duty performance, misconduct and actions which indicate that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. 8. During a 12 month period, the applicant was counseled on ten different occasions for eleven occasions of failure to repair and for failure to pay his debts. 9. On 28 June 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he 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 misconduct and action which indicated that he 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 him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. 10. On 19 July 1994, a mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. 11. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge. On 8 August 1994, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge. He had completed 2 years, 11 months and 9 days of creditable active service. 12. 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. 13. On 30 January 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 14. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, in a telephonic comment to the Board, advised that it had verified from the master military pay files that the applicant’s pay record shows no lost time. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 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. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. There is no evidence in the applicant Official Military Personnel Record nor in the master military pay files which indicates that he went AWOL during his military career. Therefore, item 12c (net active service this period) and item 29 (dates of time lost during this period) on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. 4. While there does not appear to be any basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge, there are equitable reasons for deleting the dates of time lost. 5. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 (Corrections to the DD Form 214), Certificate of Release or Discharge by showing that the individual concerned had completed 3 years and 8 days of net active service, item 12c on his DD Form 214; and by deleting the date of time lost item 29 from his DD Form 214. 2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON