IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005490 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reissuance of a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) showing:

* she held the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4
* no entry in item 9c (Authority and Reason)

2.  She states the entry in item 9c of her DD Form 214 should be removed because it did not appear on her original DD Form 214.  She states her pregnancy was "classified" and there was no indication of it on her discharge.  The alteration to the original document she signed was not legal and she asks that her DD Form 214 be reissued.  She states she was an SP4/E-4 when she was discharged from the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 1977.

3.  She further states she was transferred out of active duty into the Army National Guard to continue her service while she was pregnant and her discharge date was later that what is shown on her DD Form 214.

4.  She provides copy 2 of her DD Form 214 for the period ending 10 April 1975 and a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 25 August 1975

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  On 29 June 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Women's Army Corps (WAC) for a period of 3 years and training in operating room procedures (basic).  Her record shows she was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (medical corpsman) on or about 8 November 1974.

3.  Special Orders Number 97, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and 7th Infantry Division, Fort Ord, CA, shows she was to be honorably discharged on 10 April 1975 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), section III, chapter 8.  The orders show she held the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2 at the time.

4.  The applicant's record contains a "Statement of Acceptance – Normal ETS (expiration of term of service) for Reserve Component Assignment," dated
10 April 1975, that shows she voluntarily accepted assignment to the
143rd Evacuation Hospital, California ARNG (CAARNG), Santa Monica, CA, and she agreed to report to the unit within 15 days of her release from active duty on
10 April 1975.  This document shows she held the rank/grade of PV2/E-2.

5.  Her record is void of documentation that shows she was promoted to SP4/E-4 at any time during her active duty service.

6.  Her record includes copy 2 of her DD Form 214.  It shows she was honorably discharged on 10 April 1975.  The form also shows in:

* item 6a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – "PV2"
* item 6b (Pay Grade) – "E2"
* item 9c – the handwritten entry "SEC III CHAP 8 AR 635-200 SPD KDF" (Section III, chapter 8, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) Separation Program Designator (SPD) KDF)
* item 10 (Reenlistment Code) – the handwritten entry "RE-2" (covered with a strip of paper with dashes (-----) through the entry)
* item 12 (Command to which Transferred) – "2802 Airport 143rd Evacuation Hospital, Santa Monica CA  90405"
* item 29 (Signature of Person Being Separated) – the applicant's signature

7.  A strip of paper was taped over the entry in item 9c with dashes through the information in that item.  The strip of paper has been partially removed.

8.  Her record includes a photocopy of copy 1 of her DD Form 214.  Item 9c and item 10 contain dashes on this copy.  Item 12 of copy 1 shows the entry "NA," indicating "not applicable."  A comparison of copy 1 and copy 2 shows all other entries are the same; however, there are differences in spacing of entries throughout the form and differences in the placement of the signatures on the form.  

9.  Her record is void of documentation pertaining to her ARNG service.

10.  Her record contains a Standard Form (SF) 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 31 January 1979, that shows she requested copies of documents from her record kept at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).  In response to this request, she was furnished a copy of a
DD Form 215 that was issued on 25 August 1975 and a "deleted" copy of her
DD Form 214.

11.  Her record contains a copy of the letter she sent to NPRC, dated
22 February 1996.  In response to her second request, NPRC sent her an "undeleted" copy of her DD Form 214 and informed her that the document may include the authority for separation, reason for separation, reenlistment eligibility code, and separation code.  NPRC informed her that if she required a copy without the above information, she could request a deleted copy.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 8 of the version in effect at the time provided that an enlisted woman who was pregnant could request discharge.  The regulation did not prohibit entry of the authority for this type of discharge on the DD Form 214.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes the standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.

	a.  The version in effect at the time stated to enter the statutory and/or regulatory authority for separation plus the SPD in item 9c and the proper reenlistment code in item 10.

	b.  The regulation states copy 1 is presented to the Soldier on his or her transition date and copy 2 is filed in the Soldier's record.

	c.  Paragraph 2-7 provides instructions for reissuance of the DD Form 214.  It states once a DD Form 214 has been issued, do not reissue except for the following reasons:

		(1)  When directed by proper appellate authority, Executive Order, or by the Secretary of the Army.

		(2)  When it is determined that the original DD Form 214 cannot be properly corrected by issuance of a DD Form 215 or if the correction would require issuance of more than two DD Forms 215.

		(3)  When two DD Forms 215 have been issued and an additional correction is required.

	d.  Paragraph 2-8 provides instructions for responding to requests for copies of the DD Form 214.  It states if the DD Form 214 was issued before 1 October 1979, provide the Soldier with one copy containing all completed information and one copy with the following items deleted:

* specific authority and narrative reason for separation
* SPD number/code
* reenlistment eligibility code

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It states that the SPD code KDF is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pregnancy.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that an RE-2 code will be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of KDF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for reissuance of a DD Form 214 showing she held the rank/grade of SP4/E-4 and showing no entry in item 9c.

2.  The DD Form 214 reflects the conditions that exist when a Soldier is released from active duty or discharged.  Her record shows she held the rank/grade of PV2/E-2 when she was discharged from the WAC, which is properly shown on her DD Form 214.  There is no basis for correcting this document to reflect a rank/grade she states she attained during her ARNG service.

3.  There is no evidence supporting her assertion that information was improperly added to her DD Form 214 after she signed it.  While a comparison of copy 1 and copy 2 indicates it is possible that two versions of her DD Form 214 were prepared, both copies are essentially the same, with the exception that the authority and reason for separation, and reenlistment code were deleted from copy 1.

4.  The regulation governing preparation of DD Form 214 required entry of the authority and reason for separation and reenlistment code, and that information was entered on copy 2, which is filed in her record.

5.  Notwithstanding the differences in the copies of her DD Form 214, in the absence of evidence showing her DD Form 214 contain errors, there is no basis for directing reissuance of the form.

6.  Regarding the separation date shown on her DD Form 214, she was honorably released discharged from active duty on 10 April 1975.  Her available record does not contain any documentation pertaining to her ARNG service.  However, such service would have been recorded on a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), not the DD Form 214 she was issued upon her discharge.  Therefore, there is no basis for correcting her DD Form 214 to show a later separation date than that currently shown.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  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.



      ____________X___________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005490



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005490



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1