MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           25 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001055122

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her discharge be voided and that she be reinstated to active duty with entitlement to all back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was unjustly discharged from the Army and should be reinstated to active duty because the evidence of record contains errors and constitutes an injustice to her.  She also states that her discharge was not conducted in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1332.14.

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

She initially served in the Air Force Reserve as an air passenger specialist from July 1976 to July 1979.

On 29 October 1986, she enlisted for a period of 2 years and training as a medical specialist.  She completed her training and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas.  While at Fort Bliss she extended her enlistment for a period of 38 months in order to accept enrollment into the Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Program as a Practical Nurse.  She was enrolled and began training in the Bear Program at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in January 1989.

On 5 October 1989, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against her for failure to go to her place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.  The applicant again failed to go to her place of duty and the suspended portion of her punishment was vacated on 11 October 1989.

On 3 November 1989 the applicant’s commander notified her that she was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s failure and unwillingness to develop sufficiently to participate in further training or become a satisfactory soldier, her failure to respond to numerous counseling sessions, her failure to conform to military standards, and her disciplinary record.

After consulting with counsel the applicant requested to appear before an administrative separation board and to be represented by counsel.

On 14 May 1990, she appeared before an administrative separation board in which testimony was given by the course director, her academic counselor, two instructors and the applicant.  After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence of record, the board determined (after a 1-hour recess) that the applicant had failed to successfully complete phase II of the 91C course, that she displayed an inability to practically apply skills, an unwillingness to accept authority, that she was not dependable or willing to be accountable for her actions, and that she lacked integrity.  The board recommended that she be separated from the service for unsatisfactory performance and that she be issued an honorable discharge.

The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 4 June 1990.

Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 6 July 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  She had served 3 years, 8 months and 8 days of active service during her current enlistment.

She applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 19 January 1995 requesting that the narrative reason and authority for her discharge be changed to a more favorable reason.  The ADRB determined that her discharge and the reasons therefore were correct and voted unanimously to deny her request. 

She applied to this Board on 6 June 2000 requesting that the Board change her discharge to reflect a more favorable narrative reason and authority for discharge.  She cited essentially the same reasons as she cited to the ADRB.  The Board determined that she had been properly discharged and denied her request on 15 February 2001.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Although an honorable or general discharge may be issued, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, last reissued on 21 December 1993, updates policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted members of the Military Services.  Army Regulation      635-200 is essentially this directive put into Army Regulation format and terms.

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence of record or the evidence submitted by the applicant with her application.  

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  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

___kan__  __reb ___  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055122	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/07/06	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	572/UNSAT PERF	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  572	144.4900/A49.00 UNSAT PERF	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.