RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 July 2006
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050015988
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.
| |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | |Director |
| |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Robert J. Osborn | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. John M. Moeller | |Member |
| |Ms. Naomi Henderson | |Member |
The Board considered the following evidence:
Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that her record be corrected to show
that, upon her 8 April 2003 release from active duty (REFRAD) for
Pregnancy, she was transferred to a Troop Program Unit (TPU) in the United
States Army Reserve (USAR) vice to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) as is
currently indicated on her separation document (DD Form 214).
2. The applicant states, in effect, she was denied the option of remaining
in her TPU during her pregnancy, and was unaware that she had this option.
She claims she was in the IRR for the duration of her pregnancy, less than
1 year, and upon completion of maternity leave, she rejoined another unit
in her area.
3. The applicant provides her DD Form 214 and a Pregnancy Counseling
Memorandum in support of her application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the USAR for training
in MOS 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist) and assignment to a TPU (361st
Engineer Company) in Fargo, North Dakota.
2. On 10 February 2003, she was ordered to active duty in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
3. In March 2003, while serving on active duty, the applicant was
counseled regarding her options, entitlements, and responsibilities as a
pregnant Soldier in the military. She was also given the option to remain
on active duty, or to be separated by reason of pregnancy under the
provisions of chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200, and she elected to be
separated.
4. On 8 April 2003, the applicant was REFRAD under the provisions of
chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pregnancy or childbirth.
The
DD Form 214 she was issued upon her REFRAD confirms that she was
transferred to the IRR. It also shows that at the time, she had completed
1 month and 29 days of active duty during period covered by the DD Form
214.
5. On 25 March 2004, the applicant was transferred from the IRR to a TPU
(439th Engineer Battalion), Bismarck, North Dakota, where she is currently
serving.
6. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Administrative Separations) sets
policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of Army enlisted
personnel. Chapter 8 establishes policy and procedures and provides
authority for voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy,
and it applies to all Active Army enlisted women and Army National Guard
and USAR enlisted women ordered to active duty. The regulation requires
the member to be counseled regarding her option to either remain on active
duty, or be separated for pregnancy.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant voluntarily elected
separation rather than retention on active duty after being properly
counseled regarding her options, entitlements, and responsibilities as a
pregnant Soldier by her unit commander. Her separation processing was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, and she was
transferred to the IRR. All requirements of law and regulation were met,
and her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. The evidence of record gives no indication that the applicant desired
to return to a TPU at the time of her separation, or that she pursued this
option through normal USAR personnel channels subsequent to her REFRAD.
The first indication that the applicant desired to return to a TPU was when
she voluntarily transferred from the IRR to a TPU in March 2004. As a
result, there is insufficient evidence of any error or injustice related to
her separation processing for pregnancy.
3. 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___RJO _ __JMM __ __NH __ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.
_____Robert J. Osborn ___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050015988 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |2006/07/13 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |HD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |2003/04/08 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |AR 635-200 C8 |
|DISCHARGE REASON |Pregnancy |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Chun |
|ISSUES 1. 189 |110.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009950
The applicant requests change of her reentry eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Service) from a 3 to a 1. She voluntarily requested separation from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 8, for pregnancy. Army regulations state that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006912
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record is void of any indication that the medical conditions the applicant was being treated for while serving on active duty rendered her unfit for further service, or supported her separation processing through medical channels. To the contrary, all medical examinations completed while she was on active duty and subsequently while she was serving in the USAR all show she was fully medically qualified for service/retention.
ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002066871
Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION SECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: GERARD W. SCHWARTZ Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: EARNEST C. SMITH, JR. Lieutenant...
ARMY | DRB | CY1996 | 199600408.rtf
Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data NONE Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The authority and reason for discharge were stipulated in the separation documentation and acknowledged by the applicant. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. JOSEPH A. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014308
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 2 July 1990, to change her separation code from "MDF" to "CIWD" (Condition Interfered with Duties). It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The applicant's request for correction of her DD Form 214, for the period ending 2 July 1990, to change her separation code from "MDF" to...
ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000041042
On 9 February 1987, the applicant returned her completed pregnancy counseling checklist and elected separation by reason of pregnancy under the provisions of Chapter 8, AR 635-200. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable voted not to change it.3. AR Number: 2000041042 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217 Date of Review: 000814 A0113 Character of Service: HD A0100 Date of Discharge: 870404 Authority: AR 635-200 C8 Reason: A2200 Results of Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004068
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 August 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004068 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's request for separation based on pregnancy was not initiated until 17 October 2007, 5 full weeks after her son's birth. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. showing on her DD Form 214 her narrative reason for her separation as dependency; b. showing the authority for her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019960
The applicant requests change of her reentry (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Service) from a "3" to a "1." She voluntarily requested separation from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 8, for pregnancy. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and are required to process requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001417
The applicant requests that the reentry eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from a 3 to a 1. b. a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 April 2012, wherein she requested voluntary separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 8, for pregnancy. d. Army Regulation 635-200 further states that prior to discharge or release from active duty individuals...
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003095023
On 12 July 1996, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, AR 635-200, by reason of pregnancy with a characterization of service of honorable. Type requested: ( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.