MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 	

	BOARD DATE:           11 March l999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11441
                                              AR1999018756
	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cuningham		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  In effect, change the reason for her discharge to a hardship discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that at the time she was being released from active duty paperwork had been submitted for a hardship discharge.  She states that this paperwork should be in her records.  She has been denied educational benefits by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA).  

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

She had prior inactive Army Reserve (USAR) service from 1 February l984 through 13 May l988.  She was trained as a Traffic Management Specialist (military occupational specialty  (MOS) 88N).  The highest rank she attained was specialist, pay grade E-4.  

On 14 May l988, she was voluntarily transferred to the USAR Control Group AGR (Active Guard/Reserve).  On l5 May l988, she was ordered to active duty in the AGR program for an initial 3-year tour.  She was sent temporary duty (TDY) to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, from 20 May through 27 July l988 where she completed an MOS producing school.  On 14 July l988, her primary MOS was changed from MOS 88N to MOS 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist).  She then was assigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts, where she performed AGR duties as a Personnel Administration Specialist with two different USAR aviation units.  She was promoted to the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5 on 
l4 November l988.

On 16 April l990, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4l87 (Personnel Action) in which she requested an early release from the active duty in the AGR program to be effective l4 October l990.  She was scheduled to be married on l8 August l990 and would move with her husband (an active duty sergeant) to his new assignment in Germany in October l990.  

Her request was approved and on 25 July l990 orders were published by Fort Devens directing her release from active duty in the AGR program effective 
12 October l990, and she was to be transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) until the expiration of her USAR obligation on l4 May l99l.  She actually departed on an approved 60-day terminal leave on 13 August l990.  

On 13 October l990, a DD Form 2l4 was issued showing her honorable release from active duty effective that day in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, section II, as directed by the Secretary of the Army (AGR).  She was to be transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  

On 14 May l991, she was honorably discharged from the USAR at the completion of her service obligation.  
On 7 December l998, the applicant personally appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to request a change in the reason for her discharge.  The ADRB denied her request.  

Army Regulation 635-200 outlines the policy and guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides guidance for separation of a soldier for dependency or hardship.  Hardship exists when, in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the soldier’s immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.  Such requests must be accompanied by supporting documents and other evidence and affidavits which show/explain the hardship being claimed by the soldier.  

Title 38, United States Code, permits the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) to grant veteran benefits to former soldiers, in accordance with its own policies and regulations.  Normally, the solider must complete his or her service obligation and the service must be under honorable conditions.  The military departments are not authorized to establish entitlements to veteran benefits authorized for programs operated by the DVA.  

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.  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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The evidence of record and with her application fail to show that she was undergoing any hardship situation at the time of her request for discharge.  Her request for separation clearly shows that she was requesting an early release from her 3-year active service commitment with the AGR program in order to accompany her husband to an oversea assignment.  

3.  The applicant’s command complied with her request, and she was honorably released from active duty.  To allow her to change her mind at this point, due to the loss of certain veteran benefits, would not be fair to the many other soldiers who completed their contracted service obligation.

4.  Further, determination of entitlement to DVA benefits rests with that agency, not this Board.  The applicant should continue to work with the DVA to determine what options are available to her.  

5.  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

__CLA__  __VBC __  __CLG___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11441/AR1999018756	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990311	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19901013	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A12.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.	A01.13	
3.	A92.17	
4.	A94.45	
5.		
6.