MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 7 February 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060211

         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
Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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: In effect, that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry “Convenience of the Government.”

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that based on his current situation and counseling with his commander, that the appropriate narrative reason for separation for him was “Convenience of the Government.” In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his discharge proceedings.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted
on 23 October 1996 as a food service specialist.

On 16 August 1999, the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Department Nurse prepared a statement in regard to the applicant and his son. She states that the applicant was injured in an accident on 30 July 1999. In the accident, the applicant lost his spouse and a son. Another son, who is also named after the applicant, a 5 year-old, sustained abdominal injuries and a lumbar fracture that left him paralyzed. His son’s level of injury was at L1-2 vertebra and would require surgical stability of his lumbar spine. She requested that the applicant be considered for an extended stay or possible transfer to the area to provide support for his family during the recovery period.

On 7 February 2001, the applicant submitted a formal personnel action request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-5, due to dependency of a family member.

On 8 February 2001, an Army Chaplain prepared a statement regarding the
applicant’s request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 6, for hardship. The chaplain stated that he had counseled
the applicant pertaining to his request, strongly concurred with his decisions,
and highly recommend a hardship discharged be granted for compassionate reasons.

On 8 February 2001, the applicant prepared a statement in regard to his request for separation. He stated that the military is not the best place for him due to his paraplegic son that required constant attention. He also stated that he had
remarried and had three children. He was involved in a major accident, where his first spouse and youngest son were killed. His oldest son suffered a break in his lumbar L1-2 vertebra which left him paralyzed for the rest of his life. His
condition was severe and required constant attention. His request deserved
favorable consideration, and it would be difficult for him to keep up with the demands of the Army and at the same time provide constant care and supervision of a child with special needs. He also stated that, as a father, he
was responsible for the welfare and happiness of his son.
On 9 February 2001, the commander forwarded the applicant’s request through channels. He requested that the applicant be granted a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6. He stated in his request that the applicant’s son required special attention due to an automobile accident, was confined to a wheelchair, and required constant care and supervision. He also stated that it was in the best interest of the Army and the applicant’s family that the applicant receive a hardship discharge to care for his son.

On 20 February 2001, the applicant’s current spouse prepared a statement in regards to her husband’s request. She stated that it would be in the best interest of her family for her husband to be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6. She also stated that the applicant’s presence was required for daily therapy sessions that their son required.

The applicant’s request was processed and approved by the appropriate authority on 15 March 2001, who directed issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 7 May 2001, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3a due to hardship. He had a total of 8 years and 4 days of creditable service.

On 10 April 2001, the applicant’s commander prepared a statement, which was after the approval of his case, in regard to the applicant’s hardship discharge. He stated that the applicant requested a hardship discharge and due to his current situation, he knew it was important for him to separate the applicant from the service. In his counseling, he informed the applicant of two previous soldiers that were separated for hardship. He also stated that the applicant could have
been separated for not having a family care plan, which would have resulted in a bar to reenlistment instead of a chapter, and that the applicant needed to be discharged to care for his child. He also stated that additional documents could have been added to the applicant’s case showing that he did not have a valid
family care plan. With this information, his separation could have been changed and the applicant would have been entitled to separation pay for his 8 years of service. He further stated that he would not recommend starting another separation action because the process would take up to 3 months and that the applicant needed to be separated to care for his son.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in his narrative reason for separation on 19 November 2001. The ADRB determined that his discharged was proper and equitable and denied his request for a change in his narrative reason for separation on 25 January 2002.



Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship.
Separation under this chapter is for the “Convenience of the Government.” An
application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his/her situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary, and that discharge will improve the situation.

Paragraph 6-3a, provides for the separation for dependency. Dependency exists when death or disability of a member of a soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the soldier for principal care or support.

Paragraph 6-3b, provides for the separation due to hardship. A hardship exists when, in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family, separation from the service will
materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.

Paragraph 5-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 pertains to the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government. It states, in pertinent part, that
the separation of enlisted personnel is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and will be effected only by his authority. Except as delegated by these regulations or by special Department of the Army directives, the discharge or release of any enlisted member of the Army for the convenience of the government will be at the Secretary’s discretion and with the type of discharge as determined by him. Such authority may be given either in an individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified in such order.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program designator (SPD) “KDB”, as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Hardship” and that the authority for discharge under this SPD is “Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3a or b.”

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 evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-3a for hardship. This separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2. The Board notes that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation is correct in accordance with regulations then in effect which shows he was assigned the proper SPD code of “KDB.” Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of item
28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 to show the entry “Convenience of the Government.”

3. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that based on his current situation and counseling with his commander, that the appropriate narrative reason for separation was “Convenience of the Government.” However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contention or to show that his narrative reason for separation should be changed.

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

__fe____ ___le___ ___mp____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060211
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020207
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010507
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR2001060211
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.