IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE: 4 December 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007175 


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 her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show a separation code of "KDG" vice "LGH."

2.  The applicant states her separation code should be changed because she was separated for parenthood reasons.  This administrative error bars her from receiving Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214.

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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 April 1981.  She completed initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 05B (Radio Operator).  The highest rank/grade she attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3.

3.  Available records show she was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX, on 
14 January 1982.  On 12 July 1982, her commander notified her he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)).  The immediate commander cited her inability to adapt socially and emotionally, and a general lack of self-discipline.

4.  On 14 July 1982, she consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his proposed separation action.  She stated she understood that, if her service was characterized as under honorable conditions, she could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.

5.  Her discharge packet includes a self-authored statement that essentially stated she had gone through a long custody battle with her ex-husband and the court did not grant her custody.  This, along with medical issues and perceptions of being harassed by her leadership for her frequent medical appointments, negatively affected her duty performance.  Also included are 4 statements from apparent co-workers that support her contention that being separated from her daughter had a negative effect on her duty performance.

6.  On 21 July 1982, the separation authority approved the unit commander's request to separate the applicant under the provisions of EDP.  He directed the issuance of an honorable discharge, and specifically stated the separation code should be shown as "LGH."

7.  On 26 July 1982, she was released from active duty accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was given an honorable separation after completing 1 year, 3 months, and 6 days of active military service.  It also shows in item 25 (Separation Authority) "Para 5-31h (1), AR 635-200."  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) states "Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention."

8.  The record is void of any effort on her part to pursue separation under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6 (Separation Because of Dependency or Hardship).

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 contained the provisions for the EDP in paragraph 5-31.  This program was designed to eliminate Soldiers who demonstrated they were unable to meet acceptable standards before a board or other punitive action was required.  Soldiers were considered who displayed:

* a poor attitude
* lack of motivation
* lack of self-discipline
* inability to adapt socially or emotionally
* failure to demonstrate promotion potential

10.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations - Separation Program Designators) defines the separation codes used on the DD Form 214.  

	a.  The regulatory authority for "LGH" is shown as paragraph 5-31h (1), Army Regulation 635-200; and states the reason as "Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) - Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention."

	b.  The regulatory authority for "KDG" is shown as paragraph 6-10c(2), Army Regulation 635-200; and states the reason as "Parenthood of married service women/sole parents."  Paragraph 6-10c (2) is found in chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200, which covers separation due to dependency or hardship.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant contends her separation was due to parenthood, her discharge packet does not support her contention.

2.  Her discharge packet contains her self-authored statement and 4 supporting statements, wherein at least part of her performance issues are attributed to her separation from her child.  The documents prepared by her chain of command, along with statements by noncommissioned officers in her unit, clearly show the basis for initiating separation action under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 was her inability to adapt socially and emotionally, and a general lack of self-discipline.  Had parenthood been the primary reason for their action, they could have instead pursued separation under chapter 6.

3.   The separation code shown on her DD Form 214 was specifically directed by the separation authority; therefore, it was not the result of an inadvertent administrative error.  Based upon the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support the granting of the relief requested.

4.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veterans' health benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  Additionally, the granting of veteran’s health benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Therefore, any questions regarding eligibility for medical or other VA benefits should be addressed to the VA.

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)                                         AR20140007175





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007175



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1