| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | |
| Mr. Arthur a. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her records be corrected to show that she received a hardship discharge.
She states that she wants to change the reason for her separation from convenience of the Army to hardship so that she can be entitled to the benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). She stated that she paid into the MGIB for 12 months. She asked to remain in the Army provided she could be transferred to another unit. She was in a mortuary affairs company and not performing duties in her field. She was going crazy in that company. She is trying to apply for college. She honestly believes it was a hardship because of the [type of] company.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 18 January 1994. She was trained as an administrative specialist and in May 1994 was assigned as an administrative specialist to a memorial affairs unit in Frankfurt, Germany.
On 24 October 1994 the applicant requested that she be discharged because of pregnancy. She indicated in her request that she had been counseled and that there was no coercion on the part of the counselor influencing her decision.
The separation authority approved a recommendation that she be separated for pregnancy and directed that she be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to complete her military service obligation. She was released from active duty on 7 December 1994 at Fort Dix, New Jersey, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, because of pregnancy. The character of her service was honorable.
Prior to her release from active duty, she enlisted in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard for 5 years, 10 months, and 17 days. She was assigned to the 128th Chemical Company in Philadelphia.
On 5 November 1995 the applicant was reduced to Private E-2 for inefficiency.
On 15 May 1996 the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army because of erroneous enlistment. Her character of service was “Uncharacterized.”
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 8 establishes policy and procedures, and provides authority for voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy. That chapter allows for counseling and assistance by the unit commander, and states in pertinent part that the soldier may request separation and may request a specific separation date. When pregnancy is the only medical condition upon which separation is based, separation will be accomplished without a medical or physical evaluation board.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that she suffered a hardship because of her assignment. There is also no evidence that she was mal-assigned or mal-utilized. Her release from active duty was a result of her own request, and the characterization of her service was honorable. Consequently, there is no evidence to show that her separation was in error or unjust and as such there is no basis to correct her record to show that she received a hardship discharge.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 7 December 1994, the date of her release from active duty. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 7 December 1997.
The application is dated 15 April 2002 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant’s entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it
had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant’s failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO__ __MKP __ __AAO __ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072652 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021001 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01045-02
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an 1. enlisted member of the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that the reason for her discharge from the Navy be changed to hardship so that she will be eligible to receive Montgomery G.I. discharge, it appears that had she been properly advised and remained on active duty until the birth of her child, on 5 June 1994, she would be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00398-02
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record From: To : Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show that she was separated by reason of hardship vice pregnancy or childbirth. e. The Board is aware that Petitioner is not eligible for the MGIB because she did not complete 30 months of active duty, and there is no provision in the law...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077537C070215
The applicant’s DD Form 214 also verifies that she was separated under the provisions of chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pregnancy. On 14 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request that the reason for her discharge be changed to hardship after concluding that the discharge was proper and equitable. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00235
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00235 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code be changed from MDF Pregnancy or Childbirth to hardship. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends correction of the applicants separation code. Therefore, we recommend that the records be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076049C070215
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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065462C070402
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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry "Hardship" instead of "Pregnancy," and that she receive her education benefits. On 13 January 1992, the applicant submitted a formal personnel...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130011372
Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted personnel. The SPD code MDF is the correct code for Soldiers voluntarily separating under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, by reason of pregnancy or childbirth and SPD code MDB is the correct code for Soldier's voluntarily separating under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, by reason of hardship. The evidence of record shows the applicant became pregnant and underwent pregnancy counseling as required by the applicable regulation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008005
The applicant states: * her reason for separation is incorrect * her DD Form 214 shows the separation authority as chapter 8 and the narrative reason as pregnancy * it was a hardship discharge * she had an emergency delivery of her son on 7 October 1995 * her son died on 23 October 1995 after disconnecting life support * she could not return to active duty and was discharged for hardship * she was not pregnant on 15 December 1995 * she realizes it has been 19 years, but this is the first...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710551
On 12 November 1981, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 8, pregnancy. Chapter 8 of that regulation states, in pertinent part, that an enlisted woman who is medically diagnosed as being pregnant may, after her unit commander has counseled her concerning her options, entitlements and responsibilities, request separation under this paragraph. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710551C070209
She initially entered the Delayed Entry Program on 20 June 1980, enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 July 1980, and was honorably discharged on 25 July 1980 under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program, pregnant prior to entry on active duty. On 12 November 1981, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 8, pregnancy. DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 2...