BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130016014 


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 correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her overseas service in Kuwait.  She also requests that the characterization of her service be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she deployed to Kuwait in 2003.  Her DD Form 214 does not reflect this deployment.  She needs this correction to assist with her application for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.  She contends that her commander gave her an honorable characterization of service.  However, her DD Form 214 shows general, under honorable conditions and she wants it corrected so she can receive education benefits from the VA.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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 9 April 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her initial training as a food service specialist.

3.  Records at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) show that the applicant received hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, and combat zone tax exclusion from 11 April through 30 June 2003 (2 months and 20 days) for service in Kuwait.

4.  On 22 October 2004, the applicant was discharged.  However, her discharge packet is missing from her military records.  Her DD Form 214 shows:

	a.  she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, due to pregnancy;

	b.  her service was characterized as under honorable conditions, general;

	c.  she completed 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of creditable active duty service;

	d.  her foreign service is blank; and

	e.  her remarks block does not contain the dates of her deployment.

5.  On or about 23 August 2006, the applicant requested an upgrade of her discharge.  She based her request on needing to receive VA education benefits.  The only supporting document she provided was her DD Form 214.  She offered no explanation or argument concerning the characterization of service.  The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered her case on 11 January 2008.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request based on the following findings and comments:

	a.  The specific facts and circumstances leading to her discharge were not contained in the available records.

	b.  The legal basis for her separation was Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8 which provided for the voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy.

	c.  There were no apparent mitigating factors that would warrant the upgrade of her characterization.
	d.  The DD Form 214 showed a separation code of KDF for pregnancy, and lacking evidence to the contrary, the ADRB presumed Government regularity in the processing of her discharge.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides detailed instructions for completing separation documents, including the DD Form 214.  It provides that Item 18 (Remarks) will contain the following entry for Regular Army Soldiers: "SERVICE IN (NAME OF COUNTRY DEPLOYED) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD - YYYYMMDD)."

7.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), paragraph 2-9 requires that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations):

	a.  Chapter 8 of this regulation establishes policy and procedures and provides authority for voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy.  This chapter applies to all Active Army enlisted women.

	b.  Service will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions per chapter 3, section II.

	c.  Prior to characterization as under honorable conditions, the Soldier will be advised of the specific factors in the service record that warrant such a characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show her overseas service in Kuwait and that the characterization of her service should be upgraded to honorable.

2.  DFAS records show that the applicant received hostile fire and imminent danger pay from 11 April through 30 June 2003 (2 months and 20 days) for service in Kuwait.  Therefore, her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show this deployment.

3.  In view of the above, the applicant's DD Form 214 should be corrected:

	a.  to show her foreign service as 2 months and 20 days; and

	b.  to add the remark: "SERVICE IN KUWAIT: 20030411 - 20030630."

4.  The available records do not contain any evidence showing why the commander elected to give her an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence or convincing argument to support her contention that her discharge was in error or unjust.

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

6.  The applicant's desire to obtain VA educational benefits is not a valid justification to upgrade her discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X_____  ____X____  __X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  showing she completed 2 months and 20 days of foreign service; and

	b.  adding the remark: "SERVICE IN KUWAIT: 20030411 -200306030."



2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the applicant's characterization of service to honorable.




      _______ _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)                                         AR20130016014





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130016014



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1