MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002077537

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, that the reason for her discharge be changed to hardship.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she would like the reason for her discharge changed from pregnancy to hardship because she was not properly counseled on the impact her discharge would have on her benefits.  She claims that during 
pre-deployment processing, it was discovered that she was pregnant.  The father of the child was also a soldier, who is now her husband.  At the time, the father requested to get orders to Fort Bliss, Texas, instead of Fort Hood, Texas, where he was scheduled to go.  He was informed it was too late and his orders could not be changed.  Because of her military occupational specialty (MOS), she could not go to Fort Hood with the father of the child.  She was given the option to develop a family care plan, signing custodial rights of her unborn child over to a civilian relative, or to take a pregnancy discharge under the provisions of 
chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200, which would allow her to receive an honorable discharge and to receive her education benefits.  

The applicant states that she is now working for the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Department of Juvenile Justice.  In order to advance in her current field, in May, she decided to use her education benefits. However, she was notified in a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), that she was ineligible for education benefits because she had insufficient time in service.  She was further informed that had she received a hardship discharge, she would have been eligible for benefits.  However, a pregnancy discharge was considered elective and therefore, the DVA was under the impression that she willingly gave up her rights to benefits.

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

On 15 April 1997, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  A Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Act of 1984 Form (DD Form 2366) that the applicant completed during her enlistment processing is on file in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The applicant signed this document, thereby confirming she understood the provisions of the program outlined therein.  Included in this explanation of eligibility was a statement that specified that a member on a 
36 month obligation must complete 36 months of active duty service before gaining entitlement to the monthly benefits.  

The applicant’s separation packet containing the specifics on her separation counseling and processing is not on file in the OMPF.  However, there is a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) on file that was authenticated by the applicant with her signature.  This document confirms that the applicant was honorably separated on 24 March 1999, after completing a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 10 days of active military service.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 also verifies that she was separated under the provisions of chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pregnancy.  The applicant signed this document in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated), thereby verifying the information contained therein.

On 14 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request that the reason for her discharge be changed to hardship after concluding that the discharge was proper and equitable.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 8 establishes the policy and procedures, and provides authority for the voluntary separation of enlisted women because of pregnancy.  Unit commanders are required to counsel enlisted women who are pregnant using the counseling checklist provided in the regulation.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that she was not properly counseled on the impact her pregnancy discharge would have on her education benefits, and was not aware that she would be ineligible to receive MGIB benefits if she elected to be discharged for pregnancy.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  A DD Form 2366 on file, dated 26 March 1997, confirms that during her enlistment processing, the applicant was advised that she would have to complete 36 months of active duty service in order to qualify to receive MGIB benefits.  The applicant signed this form indicating that she understood the information contained therein.  Thus, the Board concludes that the applicant was or should have been aware that she would forfeit her entitlement to MGIB benefits if she voluntarily elected to be discharged for pregnancy.  

3.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to her discharge processing.  However, the Board notes that the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant with her signature.  This document identifies the characterization and reason for her discharge and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.  

4.  In addition, lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

5.  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

6.  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__  ___MHM___  __JTM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077537	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/03/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C8 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Pregnancy 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.