| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for her discharge be changed to hardship.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that she would like the reason for her discharge changed from pregnancy to hardship because she was not properly counseled on the impact her discharge would have on her benefits. She claims that during
pre-deployment processing, it was discovered that she was pregnant. The father of the child was also a soldier, who is now her husband. At the time, the father requested to get orders to Fort Bliss, Texas, instead of Fort Hood, Texas, where he was scheduled to go. He was informed it was too late and his orders could not be changed. Because of her military occupational specialty (MOS), she could not go to Fort Hood with the father of the child. She was given the option to develop a family care plan, signing custodial rights of her unborn child over to a civilian relative, or to take a pregnancy discharge under the provisions of
chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200, which would allow her to receive an honorable discharge and to receive her education benefits.
The applicant states that she is now working for the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Department of Juvenile Justice. In order to advance in her current field, in May, she decided to use her education benefits. However, she was notified in a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), that she was ineligible for education benefits because she had insufficient time in service. She was further informed that had she received a hardship discharge, she would have been eligible for benefits. However, a pregnancy discharge was considered elective and therefore, the DVA was under the impression that she willingly gave up her rights to benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 15 April 1997, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. A Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Act of 1984 Form (DD Form 2366) that the applicant completed during her enlistment processing is on file in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The applicant signed this document, thereby confirming she understood the provisions of the program outlined therein. Included in this explanation of eligibility was a statement that specified that a member on a
36 month obligation must complete 36 months of active duty service before gaining entitlement to the monthly benefits.
The applicant’s separation packet containing the specifics on her separation counseling and processing is not on file in the OMPF. However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was authenticated by the applicant with her signature. This document confirms that the applicant was honorably separated on 24 March 1999, after completing a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 10 days of active military service.
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. The applicant signed this document in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated), thereby verifying the information contained therein.
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.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 8 establishes the policy and procedures, and provides authority for the voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy. Unit commanders are required to counsel enlisted women who are pregnant using the counseling checklist provided in the regulation.
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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that she was not properly counseled on the impact her pregnancy discharge would have on her education benefits, and was not aware that she would be ineligible to receive MGIB benefits if she elected to be discharged for pregnancy. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.
2. A DD Form 2366 on file, dated 26 March 1997, confirms that during her enlistment processing, the applicant was advised that she would have to complete 36 months of active duty service in order to qualify to receive MGIB benefits. The applicant signed this form indicating that she understood the information contained therein. Thus, the Board concludes that the applicant was or should have been aware that she would forfeit her entitlement to MGIB benefits if she voluntarily elected to be discharged for pregnancy.
3. The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to her discharge processing. However, the Board notes that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with her signature. This document identifies the characterization and reason for her discharge and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.
4. In addition, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
5. 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
6. 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
__CLA__ ___MHM___ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002077537 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/05 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1999/03/24 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C8 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Pregnancy |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2013 | 20130002941
The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for her separation from "Pregnancy Discharge - Overseas Separation" to "Hardship." The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation were not available to the Board; however, the applicant's record contains Orders 118-6, issued by the 369th Personnel Service Company, dated 8 June 1988, which show she received an approved overseas separation and an approved chapter 8 (Separation of Enlisted Women for Pregnancy)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009141
On 23 July 2008, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of paragraph 8-1 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pregnancy. The "MDF" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating (voluntary) under chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of pregnancy or childbirth and the SPD "MDB" is the correct code for Soldier's separating (voluntary) under chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of hardship. The evidence of record shows that the applicant became...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016987
On 16 May 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of pregnancy and directed her service be characterized as honorable. Her DD Form 214 confirms she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a narrative reason of separation as "pregnancy" and a separation code of "MDF." Furthermore, there is no evidence the applicant voluntarily requested separation for hardship.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03216
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts that, based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. As the applicant presents no facts warranting a change to her SPD code, denial is recommended. On 3 Feb 03, she requested discharge from active duty due to pregnancy and separated on 1 May 03...
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...
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 | 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 | CY2011 | 20110000203
The medical records that the applicant provided show that she had an abortion in early August 1970 at 3 months of gestation. Accordingly, on 9 October 1970, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8 due to pregnancy and assigned SPN 221 based on her reason and authority for discharge. The regulation in effect at the time provided for the separation of enlisted women for pregnancy who were at the time or had been pregnant during their current...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070910C070402
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...