MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061176

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests that the narrative reason for her discharge “parenthood” should be corrected to add the word “hardship.”

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she applied and received a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1) for parenthood.  Therefore, she states, her certificate of release or discharge from active duty (DD Form 214) should read “hardship, parenthood.”

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show that she entered on active duty on 14 October 1992, and shortly after completing her training, she was assigned to the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii for duty as a personnel action specialist.  She served approximately 1 year in Hawaii when she applied for a hardship discharge based on parenthood.  It was approved and she was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 12 May 1994.

At the time of her discharge, her DD Form 214 was prepared to reflect that she was honorably REFRAD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1) for parenthood.  The applicant signed the DD Form 214 at the time of separation. 

Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted soldiers.  Paragraphs 6-3a and 6-3b specifically provides for the voluntary separation of soldiers “when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the soldier’s immediate family or separation from the Service will materially affect the care of support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.”  Subparagraphs 6-3b(1) and 6-3b(2) of that paragraph cite specific circumstances regarding the separation of married service women who become parents by birth, adoption or marriage and the separation of soldiers who are sole parents, and whose children under 18 years of age reside within the household.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, prescribes the specific authorities, the reasons for separation, and the separation program designators (SPD) to be used on the   DD Form 214.  If the regulatory basis for separation is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3a or 6-3b, the narrative reason for separation will be “hardship” and the SPD code will be MDB.  If the regulatory basis for separation is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1) or 6-3b(2) the narrative reason for separation will be “parenthood” and the SPD code will be MDG.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The narrative reason for separation and the SPD code on the applicant’s    DD Form 214 are correct in accordance with regulatory guidance.

2.  There is no evidence available in the record and the applicant has not provided evidence that an error or injustice has occurred.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rks ___  __rvo ___  ___eja___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061176	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/31	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.  191	110.0200/reason	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.