APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: He was born on 26 January 1964. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 19 May 1984, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program, in pay grade E-1, for 6 years. On 31 May 1984, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 23 (Category IV). He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 43E1P (Parachute Rigger). On 8 March 1985, while serving in pay grade E-2, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for absenting himself without proper authority from his appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction. He did not appeal. On 22 March 1985, while serving in pay grade E-2, the applicant received NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $100, 14 days extra duty, and 14 days restriction. He did not appeal. During the period 17 February 1985 through 22 March 1985, the applicant was counseled on seven occasions regarding his being absent without leave (leaving his place of duty without proper authority) on 11 February 1985, his being late for work call formation on 12 February 1995, his being absent from formation on 22 February 1985, his apathy, his being absent form formation on 27 February 1985, his personal hygiene and attitude being at a low level, his lackadaisical attitude, his failure to be present for extra training, his failure to complete the company physical training run on 11 March 1985, his being absent from formations on 11 and 12 March 1985, his missing manifest call for airborne operation on 21 March 1985, and his deplorable behavior. On 1 April 1985, the applicant’s commander advised him that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged under paragraphs 13-2a, 3, and 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance, and of his rights. Subsequently, after being advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance, the applicant acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a GD under honorable conditions was issued to him, and that he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board. He indicated that he would be submitting a statement in his own behalf; however, he did not submit a statement. On 2 April 1985, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. He was given a physical profile of 111111. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 April 1985, indicated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings; that the applicant was mentally responsible; and that the applicant met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. On 3 April 1985, the applicant’s commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance. He indicated that a rehabilitative transfer would be inappropriate because the applicant was resisting rehabilitative attempts and rehabilitation would not be in the best interest of the Army as it would not produce a quality soldier that was needed in today’s Army. Also, he indicated that the applicant’s duty performance was poor. On 10 April 1985, the battalion commander approved the applicant’s discharge, with a GD certificate. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 18 April 1985, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, with a GD under honorable conditions. He had completed 10 months and 18 days active military service. On 15 July 1996, the ADRB advised the applicant that, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, it had determined that he was properly and equitably discharged. 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, and 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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he did not submit any statements. 3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service. 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