APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  She makes no statement.

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

She was born on 5 November 1951.  She completed 16 years of formal education.  She enlisted, in pay grade E-3, in the Regular Army on 30 May 1975 for 3 years for the options of assignment to Fort Lewis, WA and for training as a cook.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training, was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Cook) and was assigned to Fort Lewis.

On 12 December 1975, the applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in any board proceedings.

On 15 December 1975, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, expeditious discharge.  The commander cited her repeatedly and tearfully telling him that she made a mistake in joining the military service.  She repeatedly stated that she did not wish to perform her duties as a cook.  Attempts to retrain her failed because of her lack of cooperation.  Her behavior demonstrated evidence of social maladjustment and lack of cooperation with her peers and superiors.  Her performance was clearly substandard and not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

On 16 December 1975, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 18 December 1975, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action and voluntarily consented to the discharge.

On 19 December 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed she be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 23 December 1975, she was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions,” (a general discharge) in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  She had completed              6 months and 24 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.  The pertinent paragraph in Chapter 5 provides that members who have completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged.  It provides for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.  No member will be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consents to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicted upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade and general aptitude.   A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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.

2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

3.  The type of discharge given was appropriate considering the applicant’s overall military record with due consideration given her age, grade and general aptitude.

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

                        	Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director