BOARD DATE: 22 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130020248 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, in effect, correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show something other than pregnancy. 2. The applicant states she was given an honorable discharge and not a hardship or compassionate discharge. It was not explained to her that she was receiving a pregnancy discharge. She was directly ordered to ride in a High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle when she was 5 months pregnant which resulted in a miscarriage. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 25 October 1988. She was assigned to 1st Battalion, 32nd Field Artillery Regiment, Germany, on 9 November 1988. 3. Her records contain a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Board Proceedings), dated 5 June 1990, wherein it shows she was issued a temporary physical profile on that date by the 209th General Dispensary, Germany, for pregnancy with an estimated delivery date of 29 January 1991. The temporary profile expired on 16 July 1991. 4. On 8 June 1990, she was counseled by her immediate commander on information and the options available to her as a result of her pregnancy. Her commander stated she had the option to elect to remain on active duty or she could elect to be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 8, by reason of pregnancy. 5. On 8 June 1990, she requested separation from active duty by reason of pregnancy and stated she desired to remain on active duty at least until 1 July 1990. 6. On 30 July 1990, the separation authority approved her request for separation and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 7. She was honorably released from active duty on 4 September 1990 and she was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. 8. Her DD Form 214 shows the following entries in: * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8 * item 26 (Separation Code) – MDF * item 28 – pregnancy 9. The applicant subsequently enlisted in the Army National Guard. Her records contain a DD Form 93 (Record of Emergency Data), dated 5 December 1993, wherein it shows she had a child born on 29 December 1990. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 8 specified that Soldiers who became pregnant could request to be voluntarily separated before the expiration of their terms of service. 11. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214, and the corresponding narrative reason for separation. It states that SPD code MDF is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, and pregnancy is the corresponding narrative reason for separation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant voluntarily requested separation from active duty due to her pregnancy under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, after being counseled as to her options. She was released from active duty accordingly on 4 September 1990. 2. Her narrative reason for separation was assigned based on her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8. The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under that chapter is "pregnancy" which is properly reflected on her DD Form 214. 3. Other than the applicant’s statement, there is no evidence to show she was not pregnant at the time she was released from active duty. Her DD Form 93 shows she had a child born on 29 December 1990, which just about fits with her estimated delivery date. 4. Therefore, she is not entitled to the requested relief. 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) AR20130020248 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130020248 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1