IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 7 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014308


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) for the period ending 2 July 1990, to change her separation code from "MDF" to "CIWD" (Condition Interfered with Duties).

2.  The applicant states the [unspecified] entry should read "CIWD," since her condition interfered with her duties.  She did not have a legal guardian to take care of her child, so this was a decision she had to make.  When she was released from her permanent party duties, she was told she would still be eligible for military benefits.  She received an honorable discharge [sic] due to pregnancy and this condition interfered with her ability to perform her duties.  However, this is not reflected on her DD Form 214.  She applied for benefits and was informed by personnel at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the different types of discharges should have been explained to her. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States)
* Orders 130-005, issued by the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), Buffalo, New York on 12 July 1989
* Orders 017-105, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New Jersey on 17 January 1990
* DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 13 February 1990
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 15 May 1990
* Pregnancy Counseling Checklist, dated 18 May 1990
* DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 23 May 1990
* her request for separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 8, dated 21 June 1990, with 1st and 2nd endorsements
* Orders 179-271, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Logistics Center and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia on 28 Jun 1990
* DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I) 
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
* 2 copies of her DD Form 214, for the period ending 2 July 1990
* Orders M-12-162647A01, issued by the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, Missouri on 2 February 1991
* Orders D-07-752822, issued by ARPERCEN on 15 July 1997
* a letter from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, Missouri, dated 15 July 2014
* 5 pages of a printed email conversation that occurred between                23 February 2014 and 29 July 2014

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 12 July 1989, completed her initial entry training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  The highest rank/grade she attained during her period of active military service was private (PV2)/E-2.

3.  She was assigned to the 267th Quartermaster Company, Fort Lee, Virginia effective 12 February 1990.

4.  Her immediate commander counseled her on 18 May 1990, regarding her options for continued service after she became pregnant.  Her commander gave her 7 days to decide whether to remain on active duty or elect separation.   
5.  She acknowledged and affirmed this counseling, and on 23 May 1990, she elected to be separated from active duty; however, she stated her desire to remain on active duty until at least 25 June 1990. 

6.  She formally requested separation in accordance with Army Regulation     635-200, chapter 8 (Separation of Enlisted Women – Pregnancy) on 21 June 1990.  Her commander recommended approval of her request.

7.  In her separation request, she did not indicate that either her pregnancy or the birth of her child might interfere with her ability to perform her military duties.  Nor did she indicate she lacked a support network needed to establish a viable family care plan.  In fact, her available record contains no indication she ever addressed these concerns with her chain of command.

8.  The separation authority directed her separation from active duty and transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) since she was still statutorily obligated.  He further directed that her service be characterized as honorable and that she be issued separation program designator (SPD) code "MDF" (Pregnancy).

9.  She was honorably released from active duty on 2 July 1990.  Her DD Form 214 confirms she was relieved from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, by reason of pregnancy.  Item 26 (Separation Code) contains the entry "MDF."  
 
10.  She was honorably discharged from the USAR on 15 July 1997.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 8, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and procedures, and provided the authority for the voluntary separation of enlisted women due to pregnancy.  It establishes that upon a positive determination of pregnancy, an enlisted female Soldier may elect to remain on active duty or request separation.

	a.  Paragraph 8-5 (Responsibility of the Unit Commander) provided that the unit commander would direct an enlisted woman who believed she was pregnant, or whose physical condition indicated that she might be pregnant, to report for diagnosis by a physician at the servicing Armed Forces medical treatment facility. 
When service medical authorities determined that an enlisted woman was pregnant, she would be counseled and assisted as required by section II.

	b.  Paragraph 8-9 (General) provided that if an enlisted female Soldier was pregnant, she would be counseled by her unit commander using the Pregnancy Counseling Checklist.  The unit commander would explain that the purpose of the counseling was to provide information concerning options, entitlements, and responsibilities, and that she may upon request, be separated from active military service or elect to remain on active duty. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  

13.  The DD Form 214 is a synopsis of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  It is important that information entered on the form be complete and accurate.  

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPDs to be used for these stated reasons.  It provides that SPD code "MDF" is appropriate for discharges and releases from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, in cases involving pregnancy.  This regulation does not list "CIWD" as an authorized SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 "CIWD" was carefully considered.

2.  She contends her condition interfered with her duties and she did not have a legal guardian to take care of her child, so she had to elect separation from active duty.  However, these issues were not brought forth as her rationale for requesting separation at the time she requested it.  Furthermore, her record contains no indication she ever addressed these concerns with her chain of command.

3.  After becoming pregnant, the applicant was counseled and given the option to remain on active duty or request separation.  The evidence shows she opted to be separated, and she was properly released from active duty in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any procedural violation of her rights.  

4.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence that shows the separation code used in her case was in error or unjust.  According to Army Regulation 635-5-1, the separation code "MDF" is appropriate for discharges and releases from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, in cases involving pregnancy. The separation code used in her case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  The separation code "CIWD" is not an authorized separation code.  

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 the aforementioned requirement.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20100016239



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014308



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1