IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 November 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110011803 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 that her DD Form 214 be corrected to show that she was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-2 due to hardship, instead of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, due to pregnancy. 2. The applicant states that she first asked to be allowed to stay in the military when she was first counseled regarding her pregnancy but then asked to be discharged because her husband was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas and she was at Fort Drum, New York at the end of her pregnancy with no family care in place. She goes on to state that she was on a long list for family housing, had no transportation of her own, was living in the barracks and had no family or friends in New York. She further states that she applied for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and was denied; however, she was told that she would have been eligible for health benefits had she been discharged for hardship. She also states that she has worked for corrections for the past 15 years and is now not able to work. She states that she has applied for disability, she has no insurance, severe arthritis, chronic depression and lots of medicines that she cannot afford. 3. The applicant provides a copy of her child’s birth certificate and a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 20 February 1991 for a period of 3 years and training as a food service specialist. She successfully completed her training and was transferred to Korea. 3. She married her husband, also a service member stationed in Korea on 8 July 1992 in Seoul, South Korea. She completed her tour in Korea and was transferred to Fort Drum, New York. 4. On 3 November 1992 the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, due to pregnancy. 5. He request for discharge was approved on 17 November 1992 and on 8 December 1992 she was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, due to pregnancy. She had served 1 year, 9 months and 19 days of active service. 6. A review of her official records failed to show any evidence that the applicant applied for a hardship discharge. 7. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 8, serves as the authority for the voluntary separation of enlisted women due to pregnancy. Enlisted members must request a discharge under this chapter in order to be separated under this chapter. A discharge under this chapter is normally an honorable discharge. 8. Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6, provides the policies and procedures for applying for a hardship discharge. It provides, in effect, that an individual may be discharged for hardship if documented evidence is presented to show that undue and genuine hardship conditions that are not of a temporary nature have arisen after the member’s entry into active military service. The service member must provide sufficient evidence to show that every reasonable effort has been made to alleviate hardship conditions and must also show that discharge is the only available means of eliminating or materially alleviating the hardship conditions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 8, due to pregnancy was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. 2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances. 3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted and found to lack merit. There is no evidence in the available records to show that she applied for a hardship discharge or that she met the criteria for such a discharge. 4. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to change a properly administered discharge that was approved at the applicant’s request. 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) AR20110011803 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110011803 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1