MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 June 2002       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064596

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 item 26 (Separation Code) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show Separation Program Designator (SPD) code “LDG” or “JDG” instead of “MDG.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That when she separated on 27 April 1994 she was counseled that SPD code “MDG” was for a hardship separation.  She contends that SPD code “MDG” was changed on 1 October 1993 to reflect a Convenience of the Government separation.  She also contends that she was not made aware of the change and that she would have requested separation under Public Law 101-510 with SPD code “LDG” or “JDG.”

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

On 9 March 1994, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1), for parenthood of a married service woman.

On 27 April 1994, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-3b(1), for parenthood.

Item 26 (Separation Code) on her DD Form 214 shows “MDG”.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states the reason for discharge based on separation code “MDG” is “Parenthood” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1) or (2).  This separation code is used for a voluntary release from active duty or transfer.   

Army Regulation 635-5-1 states the reason for discharge based on separation code “LDG” is “Parenthood” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-8.  This separation code is used for an involuntary release from active duty or transfer.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JDG” is “Parenthood” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-8.  This separation code is used for an involuntary discharge. 

Chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200 governs separation because of dependency or hardship.  Paragraph 6-3b(1) provides that a married service woman may apply for separation under hardship when she becomes a parent by birth, adoption, or marriage (stepparent) and whose child (or children) under 
18 years of age reside within the household.  The regulation requires that the woman must submit evidence that the roles of parent and soldier are incompatible and that she cannot fulfill her military obligation without neglecting the child or children.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

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.  Evidence of record shows the applicant voluntarily requested a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1), by reason of parenthood.  

2.  The applicant’s contention that separation code  “MDG” was changed on 
1 October 1993 to reflect a Convenience of the Government separation, is not supported by the evidence of record.  

3.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states that when a soldier voluntarily requests release from active duty or transfer the reason for discharge based on separation code “MDG” is “Parenthood” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(1) or (2).     

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s request that her separation code be changed to “LDG”  However, the governing regulation states that separation code “LDG” is used for an involuntary release from active duty or transfer and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8.  This separation code does not apply in the applicant’s case.   
  
5.  The Board also notes the applicant’s request that her separation code be changed to “JDG”  However, the governing regulation states that separation code “JDG” is used for an involuntary discharge and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8.  This separation code does not apply in the applicant’s case.   

6.  The applicant’s separation code shows “MDG” and the reason for discharge based on separation code “MDG” is parenthood, not for the Convenience of the Government.  Therefore, item 26 (Separation Code) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted.

7.  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 this requirement.

8.  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

FNE____  RWA____  HBO_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064596	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020611	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.