APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, the applicant requests that her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.    

APPLICANT STATES:  That when she was discharged she was told that she could still use the benefits of the GI bill to go to school.  She states that she did not have enough evidence to be discharged for dependency or hardship.

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

The applicant entered the Army on 21 March 1989, completed training and was assigned to a cavalry squadron at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

On 25 September 1990 she was counseled on her job performance, the counselor stating that she need to pay attention to detail and have a sense of urgency about her work.  He counseled her on her tardiness, family problems, job knowledge, and her working relationships.

The applicant was counseled on 28 September 1990 on her overall job performance, the counselor stating that her performance did not warrant a promotion.

The applicant was counseled on 17 June 1991 for failure to pay a just debt, and on 16 July 1991 for writing bad checks.

She was counseled on 17 June 1991 for her involvement in a verbal and physical confrontation with a civilian.  She was counseled on 21 June for not being at her place of duty, and on 28 June for disobeying a lawful order.  She was counseled on 1 July for missing physical training.

The applicant was counseled on 11 July for her repeated absences from duty and her repeated problems due to lack of child care.  She was counseled on 16 July for her unsatisfactory duty performance.

A 22 June 1991 report of mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, and met the standards for retention in the Army.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

A 15 July 1991 memorandum prepared by an NCO indicates that the applicant was arrested and taken to a county jail in Louisville, Kentucky for assault with a deadly weapon; that she was arraigned on 2 July, and appeared in court on 3 July, and given a court date of 12 July.  The applicant appeared in court on 8 July for a theft charge.  The NCO stated that the applicant had no child care plan for her two children; that she had multiple problems that interfered with her duty performance.  Furthermore, there were two complaints concerning the substandard appearance of her government quarters.

A memorandum from a chaplain indicates that the applicant was a sole parent and unable to obtain care for one of her children.

A 24 July 1991 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

On 30 July 1991 the applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.  That official stated that she had received performance counseling on 25 and 28 September 1990; since then, she had received a letter of indebtedness, written two bad checks, and been charged by civilian authorities for assault and wanton endangerment.  He went on to say that she had been counseled numerous times for failure to go to her place of duty, for not satisfactorily maintaining her government quarters, and for not informing her supervisors of appointments.  The applicant had also received counseling for failing to provide adequate child care for her children.

The applicant was informed of her rights, to include consulting with counsel and submitting written statements in her behalf.  She was informed to execute the election of her rights within 7 duty days from the date of the initiation of separation action.  On 30 July 1991 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, and stated that she understood that she could be discharged with a general discharge.  She stated that she understood her rights to counsel and her rights in waiving any of the options listed in the initiation of the separation action.

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be separated and that she receive a general discharge.  That official stated that the applicant had been notified of the proposed separation action on 30 July 1991, but as of 9 August had not returned her election of her rights.

On 3 September 1991 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that she receive a general discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 
27 September 1991.  She had 2 years, 6 months, and 7 days of service.

The Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, has denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her 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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and submit a statement in her own behalf; however, she failed to execute her election of rights.

2.  The character of the applicant’s discharge, as evidenced by her numerous counseling statements reflecting her unsatisfactory performance of duty, is commensurate with her overall record of service.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her 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