APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That, in effect, her uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her discharge characterization should be changed.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

After attaining 18 years of formal education, she enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 June 1994.

On 27 July 1994, the unit commander advised the applicant of his initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry level status (ELS) performance and conduct and of her rights, based on her repeated disobedience of orders and disrespect for orders and policies.  She indicated that she did not desire legal counsel or to make a statement in her own behalf.

On 10 August 1994, the appropriate separation authority approved her discharge and directed that the characterization of her service be uncharacterized.

On 16 August 1994, she was discharged, under the above cited regulation with her service characterized as uncharacterized.  Her Report of Separation indicates that she had 2 months and 15 days of creditable service.

On 18 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board found her discharge to be proper and equitable and denied her request for upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provided for the separation of personnel for unsatisfactory performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort or a failure to adapt to the military environment.  There provision apply only to individuals whose separation processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty.  An uncharacterized separation was appropriate. 
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.  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 was separated in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  There is no basis for upgrade of the characterization of service in the applicant’s record.

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