IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014069 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014069 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014069 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, in effect, correction of the narrative reason and the character of service of her discharge. 2. The applicant states she proudly entered the U.S. Army in February 1983. She reported to the U.S. Army Reception Center at Fort Dix, NJ, and was issued her military clothing and equipment. She began basic training and passed all of the physical requirements. a. She was then informed that she was pregnant and had to choose between going home and terminating her pregnancy (in order to remain in the Army). She could not terminate her pregnancy and elected to go home. b. After her discharge, she gave birth to a baby girl and then had a career in security. She states the decision she had to make is part of who she is today. She believes the type and character of her discharge was erroneous. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement (summarized above). 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 U.S. Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 17 December 1982 for a period of 6 years. On 22 February 1983, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. 3. Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Dix, NJ, Statement of Pregnancy, dated 28 February 1983, shows the applicant was seen in the Gynecology Clinic and an examination revealed she was pregnant with an estimated delivery date of 3 November 1983. a. Office of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), Fort Dix, NJ, memorandum, dated 28 February 1983, shows Sergeant First Class (SFC) LWB, USAREC Liaison Noncommissioned Officer (NCO), documented that the applicant was found to be pregnant on arrival at Fort Dix and presumed to have been not qualified at the time of her enlistment. She was counseled on being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 7 (Defective Enlistments and Inductions). b. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 28 February 1983, subject: Medical Examination Statement of Option, shows the applicant did not desire a medical examination. 4. On 2 March 1983, the applicant submitted a request for separation based on erroneous enlistment. It shows the results of a pregnancy test that she was administered at the U.S. Army Reception Station, Fort Dix, NJ, came back positive. She was informed of her erroneous enlistment by SFC LWB, USAREC Liaison NCO, and was also informed there were "no options available to [her] at the present time." She acknowledged she understood she would be separated from the U.S. Army as an erroneous enlistment. a. The chain of command recommended approval of the separation action. b. On 7 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 7-15j, and directed she be issued an entry level separation. 5. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged on 9 March 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 7, section III (Erroneous Enlistments, or Reenlistments, or Extensions), based on erroneous entry (pregnancy) with an uncharacterized character of service. She had completed 18 days of net active service this period. 6. A review of her military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of her discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army. a. Chapter 7 provides the authority, criteria, and procedures for the separation of Soldiers because of minority, erroneous enlistment, induction or extension of enlistment, defective enlistment agreement, and fraudulent entry. (1) Section III, paragraph 7-15, in pertinent part, shows an erroneous enlistment agreement exists when the Soldier was eligible for enlistment in the Army, but did not meet the prerequisites for qualification for enlistment. This situation exists, in the following circumstances: * it would not have occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Government or had appropriate directives been followed * it was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the member * the defect is unchanged in material respects (2) Members separated under this paragraph will be awarded an honorable character of service unless an entry level status separation is required under chapter 3, section III. b. Chapter 3 (Character of Service/Description of Separation), in pertinent part, shows in: (1) paragraph 3-7 (Types of administrative discharges/character of service), an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. This paragraph also provides that only the honorable characterization may be awarded a Soldier upon completion of his or her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty or active duty for training, or where required under specific reason for separation, unless an entry level status separation (uncharacterized) is warranted. (2) paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized separations), a separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized, if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry level status. Entry-level status terminates 180 days after the Soldier's entry on active duty. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, the narrative reason and character of her discharge should be corrected because she believes her discharge was improper and in error. 2. The applicant's administrative separation based on erroneous enlistment was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 3. The evidence of record shows that a separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized, if separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry level status (i.e., has completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty). 4. The applicant entered active duty on 22 February 1983, was discharged on 9 March 1983, and she completed 18 days of net active service during this period. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was in an entry level status and her character of service is correctly recorded as "uncharacterized" on her DD Form 214. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014069 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014069 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2