MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           19 November 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070910

	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	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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:  That she be given the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

APPLICANT STATES:  She was discharged 23 days prior to the 30 day rule.  Her DD Form 214 shows that she only has 2 years, 5 months and 7 days active service.

In support of her request she submits documents showing that she contributed $1,200.00 towards the MGIB on 9 April 2001, and she was denied MGIB benefits on 10 September 2001 because she had not served 30 months of her enlistment.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the USAR with no prior service on 24 May 1996.

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 1998 as a private first class, was promoted to specialist, and was honorably released from active duty on 7 September 2000, at her own request, due to pregnancy.  She had served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days of her enlistment.

Army Regulation 635-200, Enlisted Personnel, paragraph 8-9, states that enlisted women who become pregnant must be counseled and given the option to remain on active duty or to separate from active duty.  If separation is requested, a specific separation date may be requested by the pregnant soldier.

The GI Bill, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411(b), provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985, to be automatically enrolled into the GI Bill and to contribute $1,200.00 during their first 12 months service, which is nonrefundable.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to receive up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months.  The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  DVA regulations specify that if a soldier is separated prior to the normal expiration of his or her term of service, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the government.  Also, he or she must have served in excess of 20 months for an enlistment of less than 3 years, and in excess of 30 months for an enlistment of 3 years or more.  In all cases, the soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable.

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

1.  While not contained in the applicant’s records, she was required to be counseled and given the option to remain on active duty or be released from active duty.  She obviously chose to be separated, and either chose the date she was separated or didn’t indicate she had a preference in her date of separation (as soon as possible).

2.  Therefore, the Army gave the applicant the choices available to a pregnant soldier by regulation, and honored her election.  There is no error or injustice in that scenario.

3.  While it is regrettable that the applicant was separated prior to serving sufficient time to qualify for the MGIB, that is now an issue between her and the DVA, the Department which has responsibility for administering the MGIB to veterans.

4.  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

___jns___  ____mhm  ____svw_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070910	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002070910	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.