APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT STATES: That he did not deserve a general discharge. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant enlisted in the Army for five years on 9 July 1991, completed training and in November 1991 was assigned to an engineer unit at Fort Lewis, Washington. The applicant was counseled on six occasions from November 1993 to February 1994 for failing physical fitness tests, for his poor appearance, and on one occasion, for missing a formation. In one counseling session, the counselor noted that the applicant had a poor attitude and gave up easily, and that the applicant was not trying to pass the physical training test. On 19 January 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he (his commanding officer) was taking administrative action to reduce the applicant to pay grade E-3 for inefficiency. In his memorandum concerning this action, that official indicated that the applicant had approached him (his commanding officer) on 17 November 1993, on the day of his physical training test, stated he was having marital problems and wanted to know if he could be barred from reenlisting so that he (the applicant) could request discharge. He told the applicant he could not do this but offered to assist him by referring him to the chaplain for counseling. Thereafter, the applicant failed miserably on this and his next physical training test. He was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 20 January 1994. On 24 January 1994 the applicant was barred from reenlisting. A 8 March 1994 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health. On 28 April 1994 the applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the basis of the contemplated action, its effect, and the rights available to him. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive. He declined to make a statement in his own behalf. The applicant’s commanding officer then recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be separated for unsatisfactory performance, citing his overall decline in military appearance and bearing, his failure to respond to counseling, and his failure of two consecutive Army physical fitness tests. On 2 May 1994 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be transferred to the Army Reserve and receive a characterization of service as general. The applicant was released from active duty on 10 May 1994. He had 2 years, 10 months, and 2 days of service. The Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, has denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory performance. That chapter states, in part, that commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance, when it is clearly established that in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier, or the ability of the soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. The service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record. 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. 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. The applicant served less than three years on a five year enlistment contract. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request. 3. 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. 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