APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected by changing the narrative reason for separation from “Pregnancy” to “Reduction in Force” and to change her name back to her maiden name. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she was not pregnant at any time during her service. She had been sterilized in 1977. Plus, she wants her maiden name on her DD Form 214. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records show: She was born on 29 October 1955. She completed 12 years of formal education. On 29 March 1989, she entered the Delayed Entry Program and on 30 March 1989 she enlisted as Joyce Ann Summers in the Regular Army for 6 years. She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31C (Radio Communications Specialist). Evidence in the records establishes that the applicant had had a tubal ligation prior to her enlistment. On 18 May 1990, the applicant requested her name be changed to Joyce Ann Ryan, due to marriage. The request was approved. This is the name the applicant held at the time of her separation. The applicant received at least four counseling statements for infractions such as failure to go to her appointed place of duty, missing formation and disobeying an order. On 15 February 1991, the applicant completed a “Chapter Physical” examination and was found qualified for separation. On 19 February 1991, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to her appointed place of duty. Her imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty and restriction, suspended. On 5 March 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. His recommendation cited her Article 15, the fact she was counseled on several occasions for failing to go to her appointed place of duty, and her marginal performance. On 5 March 1991, the applicant acknowledged that she was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel. She waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. She acknowledged that she understood she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to her. On 14 March 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that she be given a general discharge. On 18 March 1991, separation orders had been published returning her to the United States for separation. Those orders did state in the special instructions: “Separation authority in accordance with DA MSG 090001Z Mar91 STOP LOSS-Demobilization;” however, these orders were shortly thereafter revoked. On 4 April 1991, the applicant’s request for an overseas separation (because her spouse was still assigned to Germany) was approved. On 10 April 1991, new separation orders were published authorizing her an overseas separation. No separation authority is listed; however, the second page of the orders is missing. On 10 April 1991, she was released from active duty, in pay grade E-3, erroneously under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 8 - Pregnancy, with an honorable discharge. She had completed 2 years and 11 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 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. Chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200 establishes the policy and procedures and provides the authority for the voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy. 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. The available records do not show and the applicant has not provided any convincing evidence to demonstrate she was separated as a result of a reduction in force nor that she had changed her name back to Joyce Ann Summers prior to her separation. 2. 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. 3. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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. NOTE: As the evidence of record indicates the applicant was separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge, the Army Review Boards Agency, Support Division, will be directed to review and correct her DD Form 214 and discharge certificate as appropriate. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director