APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: She states that she should have received an honorable discharge instead of a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enlisted in the Army on 1 November 1988, with 2 months and 18 days of prior active service. On 14 November she was assigned to a support unit in Germany. On 19 April 1989 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for disrespect and for disobeying lawful orders. On 27 April 1990 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for absenting herself from her place of duty. On 14 June 1990 the applicant was barred from reenlisting. On 10 July 1990 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing and using two ration cards. On 25 July 1990 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory duty performance. That official stated that the applicant had received nonjudicial punishment on three occasions, and had been counseled on numerous occasions for matters such as having alcoholic beverages in her wall locker, for being late for formation, and for not maintaining her living area up to standards. The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that she was aware of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, and the rights available to her. She stated that she understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that she might receive. On 6 August 1990 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that she receive a general discharge. The applicant was discharged on 13 September 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance. She had 1 year, 9 months, and 13 days of service during her latest period of service. On 13 January 1993, in an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge. On 25 March 1994 the applicant and her counsel appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board and appealed its decision. Her appeal was denied. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory performance. That chapter states, in part, that commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance, when it is clearly established that in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier, or the ability of the soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. The service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights. The character of her discharge is commensurate with her overall record. 2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request. 3. 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. 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