2.  The applicant requests that the term “unsatisfactory performance” be removed from item 28 (narrative reason for separation) of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge.

3.  She states that she served over 42 months in the Army and was honorably discharged.  She attained pay grade E-4, never had any disciplinary action taken against her and gave 100 percent to every task assigned to her.  Her only mistake was that she failed the physical fitness test.  She believes that she was a good soldier and that the term unsatisfactory performance is unfair and harsh.

4.  The applicant's military records show she enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 3 January 1991 and was honorably released from active duty on 21 July 1994 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

5.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant’s unit commander advised her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service for unsatisfactory performance.  The specific reasons for the proposed action was that on three occasions, she had failed to achieve a passing score on her semi-annual Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  The commander also recommended that rehabilitative efforts be waived and the applicant be immediately discharged with an honorable discharge.

6.  Thereafter, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt of the notification of proposed separation.

7.  The discharge authority waived the rehabilitative transfer requirement and approved the applicant’s separation.  He directed that an Honorable Discharge Certificate be issued.

8.  At the time of discharge she had completed 3 years, 6 months and 19 days of active duty, much of which was documented in her records as outstanding service.

9.  On 24 December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to change her discharge.

10.  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.

11.  The same regulation, in paragraph 5-3, provides for the separation of soldiers for the convenience of the Government under Secretarial Authority when it is determination that separation would be in the best interest of the Army.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Separation from the service for failure to achieve a passing score on the APFT may properly be the basis for describing a separation as unsatisfactory performance in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

2.  However, unsatisfactory performance in this case, although technically correct, appears to be unduly harsh in describing an otherwise outstanding soldier’s service.  Such a description not only does an injustice to the individual but fails the fair and equitable standard expected in the Army’s separation program.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by showing that the individual concerned was released from active duty under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3;

	b.  by showing the narrative reason for separation as Secretarial Authority; and

	c.  by showing the separation code as LFF.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						________________________
							CHAIRPERSON