APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, to change the Separation Authority and the Narrative Reason For Separation on his Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form 214). APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there is nothing in his record which indicate that his duty performance was unsatisfactory. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 3 July 1971. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 16 August 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 16J10 (Defense Acquisition Radar Operator). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4. On 12 August 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to repair. His imposed punishment was 7 days days extra duty. Between August 1991 and May 1992, the applicant was counseled on seventeen different occasions for failure to repair, for disobeying a lawful order and for failure to pay debts. On 15 May 1992, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to repair and for disobeying a lawful order. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $225 pay (suspended for 6 months), and 14 days extra duty. On 4 June 1992, a mental and physical evaluation found the applicant mentally and physically fit for separation. On 11 June 1992, 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. He was advised of his rights. On 17 June 1992, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so. On 18 June 1992, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an HD. On 13 July 1992, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance with a HD. He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 13 days of creditable active service. He was authorized the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon. 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. 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. 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 separation authority and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 3. In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, the separation authority and the narrative reasons for separation, are properly entered on his DD Form 214. 4. Therefore, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests. 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