RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04053

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation and her separation code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation is incorrect.

The applicant states that had the Air Force sought a second opinion, they would have discovered that she was not pregnant and only had a medical problem.  As such, she should not have been separated.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits an attending physician’s statement, dated 8 May 1970.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 December 1968 for a period of four years.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 2 February 1970, she requested to be discharged immediately under the provisions of AFM 39-10 and provided a Certificate of Pregnancy, prepared by the wing dispensary, that stated she had been examined and found to be pregnant, with an estimated date of confinement of 10 September 1970.

She underwent a separation physical on 4 February 1970, and was found qualified for separation.  A Report of Medical Examination, prepared on that date, indicates intrauterine pregnancy - eight weeks gestation.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and on 11 February 1970, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-10 (Convenience of the Government) and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2.  She completed 1 year and 2 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  While on active duty, she was diagnosed as being pregnant and three days later, requested to be discharged.  Her diagnosis of pregnancy at eight weeks gestation was noted on her separation physical and no unfitting medical conditions were noted that would have required evaluation in the disability system.  She submits a copy of a health insurance claim, dated 8 May 1970, that lists her diagnoses as Tubo-ovarian abscesses bilateral, extensive pelvic endometriosis, requiring surgery on 28 March 1970 to remove the right ovary and tube, lyses of adhesions, and removal of a cyst from the left ovary, and an incidental appendectomy.  However, there is no medical documentation provided that explicitly documents that she was not pregnant prior to that surgery.  At the time of her discharge, Air Force policy was to discharge women who became pregnant “with the least practicable delay after a determination that she is pregnant.”  There was a provision for retention on active duty until delivery if it was “in the best interest of the Air Force.”  However, upon becoming a parent of a minor child, discharge was immediate.  She did not request a waiver for retention in the Air Force and requested an immediate discharge.  In 1970, there was the possibility that her urine pregnancy test was falsely positive and she was in fact not pregnant.  In addition, she had a history of irregular menses and had previously been on birth control.  At the time of her surgery, she was apparently not pregnant; however, that does not prove she was not pregnant two months earlier.  Furthermore, the conditions diagnosed at surgery are cause for both infertility and miscarriage.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at the time.  In addition, the discharge was within the 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.  

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 April 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  In this respect, we note that three days after being diagnosed as being pregnant the applicant requested to be immediately discharged.  Her separation physical noted her diagnosis of pregnancy at eight weeks gestation and no unfitting medical conditions that would have required evaluation in the disability system.  We also note that at the time of her discharge, Air Force policy was to discharge women who became pregnant “with the least practicable delay after a determination that she is pregnant.”  In the applicant’s case, once this determination was made, she immediately requested to be discharged, her request was approved, and she was discharged within 12 days.  The applicant contends that had the Air Force sought a second opinion, they would have discovered that she was not pregnant and would not have separated her on 11 February 1970.  In support of this contention, she submits a health insurance claim, dated 8 May 1970 listing her diagnoses as Tubo-ovarian abscesses bilateral, extensive pelvic endometriosis, requiring surgery on 28 March 1970 to remove the right ovary and tube, lyses of adhesions, and removal of a cyst from the left ovary, and an incidental appendectomy.  However, this evidence does not persuade us that she was not pregnant prior to her surgery.  Therefore, the action and disposition in this case appear to have been proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number BC-2002-04053 in Executive Session on 5 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.