MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  11 September 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002082703

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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, correction of item 15a (Member Contributed to Post Vietnam ERA Veteran's Education Assistant Program) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in order to receive education benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she started college and went to apply for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB); however, she was denied due to her contract.  She was hoping to utilize her benefits to help offset the cost of college. She contributed $1,200 and is now attempting to further her education to make her family proud.  She also states that her separation authority on her DD Form 214 is incorrect because she was informed that her narrative reason would be hardship due to her dual military status.  She was informed by the education counselor that she would receive 1 month of education benefits for each month that she was on active duty.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show she enlisted on 15 August 1996, as a TOW Dragon repairer, for a period of 4 years.

The applicant’s official military personnel file contains a copy of DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of Understanding) which shows she enlisted for the MGIB.
The applicant’s DD Form 2366 (Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (New GI Bill) Chapter 30, Title 38, US Code) shows that she was enrolled in the "New GI Bill."

The applicant was counseled on three occasions by her command for failure to provide her unit with an adequate family care plan.

On 7 December 1998, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate the applicant for involuntary separation due to parenthood under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-8.  The applicant failed to provide her unit with an adequate family care plan, which made her unavailable for deployment. 

On that same day, the applicant waived her rights and declined to consult with counsel.  Her commander recommended that she be separated prior to the expiration of her term of service.

The appropriate authority approved the request on 22 December 1998 and directed issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 

On 6 January 1999, the applicant received counseling on her Veterans' Educational Benefits.  She was informed that she was eligible for the MGIB based on involuntary separation on or after 30 November 1993.  She understood that the basic pay reduction could not be refunded, suspended, or stopped.  If she had completed less than 36 months, she would receive 1 month of benefits for each month of active duty served. 
The applicant was discharged on 6 January 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8, due to parenthood.  She had a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 22 days of creditable service. 

The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates in block 15a that she did not contribute to the Post-Vietnam ERA Veteran’s Educational Assistance Program.

On 10 June 2002, the applicant received a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  She was informed that her claim for education benefits was received and denied.  The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that she was not eligible for educational assistance under Chapter 1606 because she did not have a 6-year contract with the Selected Reserves.  Benefits would not be paid until DOD determined that she was eligible and her records were corrected.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 covers separation for convenience of the government.  Paragraph 5-8 states that soldiers will be considered for involuntary separation when parental obligations interfere with fulfillment of military responsibilities.  Specific reasons for separation because of parenthood include inability to perform prescribe duties satisfactorily, repeated absenteeism,
late for work, inability to participate in field training exercises or perform special duties as charge of quarters (CQ) and Staff Duty NCO, and nonavailability for worldwide assignment or deployment according to the needs of the Army.
The characterization of service for soldiers separated under the provision of 
this paragraph will normally be characterized as honorable, under honorable conditions or uncharacterized if in an entry level status.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship.  An 
application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

Paragraph 6-3b, provides for the separation due to hardship.  A hardship exists when, in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the soldier’s (or spouse’s) immediate family, separation from the service will
materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship.

Paragraph 6-3b(1), provides for the separation for parenthood of married service women.  An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his or her situation or immediate family’s situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

The GI Bill, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section 1411b, provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June 1985 to contribute $1,200.00 to the program during their first 12 months of service.  Participation in the program is automatic, unless the soldier voluntarily withdraws from the program at the time of processing into the Army at a reception station.  Under normal situations, the $1,200.00 contribution is nonrefundable.  The program is administered by the VA after the soldier is separated from active duty.

Under VA regulations, service members must serve at least 20 months of a service obligation of less than 3 years, or 30 months of a service obligation of 
3 years or longer to be eligible to qualify for the MGIB.  There are only four exceptions: 1) a discharge for a service-connected disability; 2) a hardship 
discharge; 3) a discharge for a pre-existing medical condition; or, 4) an involuntary separation due to reduction in force.  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, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was honorably discharged on 6 January 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8, due to parenthood and completed over 28 months of service obligation on her 4-year enlistment.

2.  The applicant is not eligible for the VA benefits under the MGIB based on the fact that she did not complete at least 30 months of her enlistment and did not meet the exception criteria. 

3.  The applicant was counseled prior to her separation on education benefits and was notified in writing by the VA that her claim for education benefits was denied.

4.  The Board notes the applicant's contention that her separation authority is incorrect on her DD Form 214 because she was informed that her narrative reason would be hardship.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support her contention.

5.  The applicant's separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, her DD Form 214 properly reflects the appropriate separation authority and narrative reason for separation.

6.  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.  

7.  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

__sk__  ___jm___  ___cp_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082703	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990116	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200. 5-8	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	1018	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.