RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02034
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed from “Inability to Perform Prescribed Duties Due to Parenthood” to “Hardship.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because her discharge papers do not state that she was discharged for hardship, she cannot receive her Montgomery GI Bill benefits.  She believes that her discharge should have been categorized as a hardship because she was married when she had her child but because of her ex-husband’s poor choices, she could not trust him to care for her child.  She tried everything to make her commitment to the Air Force work.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was 28 Nov 88.

On 4 Dec 90, the applicant was notified that her commander was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for parenthood.  The reasons for the commander’s actions were as follows:

		On 3 Nov 90, her squadron section commander informed her again of her obligation to provide and document dependent care arrangements, this letter being written in response to her letter of 1 Nov 90 detailing her family and financial difficulties and stating her intent not to comply with dependent care requirements.

		On 27 Nov 90, she received a Letter of Admonishment reprimanding her for failing to provide the squadron with Dependent Care Certification, as was her duty to provide by 19 Nov 90.

On 4 Dec 90, after consulting counsel, applicant waived her right to submit statements.

On 7 Dec 90, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the file was legally sufficient to support discharge.  The Acting SJA concurred.

On 21 Dec 90, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39‑10 (Inability to Perform Prescribed Duties Due to Parenthood) in the grade of airman first class with an honorable characterization of service.  She was credited with 2 years and 24 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and indicated that, based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  She provided no facts warranting a change in her narrative reason for separation.  DPPRS recommends denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

On 24 Sep 01, the applicant was notified by the Chief, Education Services, AFPC/DPPAT, of action she may pursue that might result in her receiving Montgomery GI Bill benefits.  It was recommended that she forward an application for benefits with a comment on her application asking the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) adjudicator to contact him and he could possibly help the DVA and the applicant by explaining the separation situation.

A complete copy of their letter is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 12 Oct 01 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her DD Form 214 should be changed in the narrative reason for separation to read hardship.  The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for applicant’s discharge, i.e., failure to provide Dependent Care Certification.  Therefore, in our opinion, responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the applicant’s involuntary separation, and we did not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated at the time of her discharge or that the reason for her separation was in error or unjust.  With regard to her contention that because her discharge papers do not state that she was discharged for hardship, she cannot receive her GI Bill benefits, we remind the applicant that she was advised on 24 Sep 01 by the Chief, Education Services, of action she may pursue that might result in her receiving GI Bill benefits.  However, we note that she failed to contact the DVA adjudicator as requested.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 December 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Aug 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 24 Sep 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 01.