Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/01/18 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The Applicant states that an uncharacterized discharge could mean anything and needs to be explained for employment. She was also told that it would be changed after 6 months but that it has not been done. She encloses her birth certificate along with her application for an upgrade to an honorable discharge. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: Not in File (NIF) Discharge Received: Date: 990501 Chapter: 4-7e AR: 135-178 Reason: Pregnancy RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 356th BPAD, Fort Meade, MD Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 23 Current ENL Date: 980425 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 07Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 07Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Baltimore, MD Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows that on 7 June 1999, Department of the Army, HQS, 99th RSC, Oakdale, PA, Orders 158-14, discharged the applicant from the U.S. Army Reserve, effective 1 May 1999, with an uncharacterized separation of service for not being able to ship for initial entry training due to being pregnant. The available documents contained in the record indicate that on 28 December 1998, she was ordered to active duty for 33 weeks of initial training. After learning of her possible pregnancy, a consultation referral form was initiated and a pregnancy test was conducted which determined that she was in fact pregnant and could not ship for initial active duty training. The applicant was discharged from the USAR effective 1 May 1999 with an uncharacterized separation of service. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel of the U.S. Army Reserve. A Soldier may be discharged for pregnancy on her request, when it has been determined that the pregnancy occurred after she was processed for enlistment and has not entered on initial active duty for training (IADT) or ever completed IET; and has not incurred an active duty obligation as a result of a federally subsidized program. Service of enlisted woman separated under the provisions of AR 135-178 for pregnancy will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions unless the soldier in an entry level status. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and determined that the applicant was discharged for not being able to ship to the training base to complete her initial active duty training (IADT) due to her pregnancy. Army Regulation 135-178 provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the soldier is in entry level status. The applicant’s separation was initiated while she was still in entry-level status and had not shipped for IADT. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process. Furthermore, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The analyst being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 October 2008 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080001229 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages