RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01124
		INDEX CODE 110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None
	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records reflect that she was discharged for the convenience of the government, not due to pregnancy, so she may be eligible for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 gives a narrative reason for discharge as pregnancy but her records indicate she was discharged for the convenience of the government. She is not qualified for MGIB benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from official documents supplied either by the applicant or her military records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Nov 00 for a period of four years as a medical service apprentice. 

On 14 Dec 00, the applicant signed DD Form 2366, MGIB Act of 1984, Statement of Understanding, which listed the requirements for MGIB eligibility. 

On 24 Mar 01, the applicant married an Air Force enlisted member. She was subsequently assigned to the 86th Medical Squadron at Ramstein, Germany, on a 36-month accompanied tour.

The applicant’s available military medical records report diagnoses and/or treatment for endometriosis, various neck/shoulder/knee/lumbar/pelvic pains, chlamydia, skin problems, depression and pregnancy. The medical entries do not report spousal abuse, severe mental distress, or an inability to function. 

A 3 Jun 02 physical therapy consult entry reports the applicant complained of left shoulder and neck pain for six weeks. She did not know a specific injury but that it was worse with prolonged computer work, lifting or speaking on the telephone and improved with rest. The entry noted the applicant was on a pregnancy profile. (See Exhibit F.)

On 13 Aug 02, the applicant requested a voluntary early separation from the Air Force due to pregnancy, with an effective date of 31 Oct 02. Her request was approved on 22 Aug 02. 

On 27 Aug 02, the applicant signed an out-processing letter acknowledging that she had been advised to seek counseling at the Education Office regarding the educational assistance benefits to which she was entitled due to her military service. 

On a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment for her separation, dated 3 Sep 02, the applicant indicated she was taking prenatal vitamins and Prozac for depression. The health provider noted the applicant had been taking Prozac since Sep 01, which was effective.

On 5 Sep 02, the applicant requested terminal leave beginning 11 Oct 02.

On 13 Sep 02, the applicant indicated on DD Form 2648, Pre-Separation Counseling Checklist, that she wanted counseling for education benefits under the MGIB. The form referred to two websites (www.va.gov and www.gibillexpress.com) for information on this issue.

On 11 Oct 02, she began terminal leave.

On 31 Oct 02, the applicant was honorably released from active duty for pregnancy in the grade of airman first class with 1 year, 11 months and 2 days of active service, and transferred to the inactive Air Force Reserve to serve the remainder of her service obligation. She was given a separation program designator (SPD) code of MDF and a narrative reason for separation as “Pregnancy or Childbirth.”

On 7 Feb 03, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied her claim for education benefits under the MGIB. The letter explained that to be eligible a veteran must have completed at least three years of continuous active duty service. The three-year active duty service requirement is reduced for those who: (1) completed at least two years of an initial active duty obligation of less than three years; (2) completed two years of active duty and within one year of separation, entered a reserve or guard unit under an obligation to serve at least four years in the Selected Reserve; (3) were discharged for service-connected disability, a medical condition which pre-existed service, or hardship; (4) were discharged for the convenience of the government after serving at least 20 months of an initial obligation of less than three years or after serving at least 30 months of an initial obligation of three years or longer; or (5) were involuntarily separated for the convenience of the government after 30 Sep 87 because of a qualifying reduction in force. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS advises that review of the applicant’s records and her DD Form 214 reflects her narrative reason for separation and her SPD code are correct.  A separation for the “Convenience of the Government” is a generic term used to describe a number of voluntary and involuntary separations, and these separations have their own SPD codes and narrative reasons. DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  She has provided no evidence or facts of error or injustice warranting a change in her SPD code. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT advises that the DVA may award MGIB education benefits to individuals who leave active duty prior to the original separation date. The benefit, if any, is determined by the number of months served and the separation reason. The law provides for benefits if an individual separates with less than 24 months active duty for hardship, service connected-disability, disability that existed prior to service, a physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force. DPPAT concurs with DPPRS’ recommendation to deny.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she was told her separation date had to be 31 Oct 02 because of the rule requiring pregnancy separations to be approximately 60 days before the birth. She specifically asked if this date would impact her MGIB benefits because it would be approximately 1½ months before her second anniversary date and was told it would have not impact. Additional issues that impacted her ability to perform her duties were an increasing level of depression and spousal abuse, both of which are documented in her medical records. When she requested a voluntary release, she was under severe mental and physical stress due to the abuse, the pregnancy and overwhelming fear of physical harm by her husband. Her significantly impaired mental condition affected her ability to perform her duties and make an informed decision as to which medical condition (pregnancy or mental health) was the real reason for seeking voluntary release. She did not understand her options. 

In her handwritten note on the 3 Jun 02 physical therapy consultation she provided, the applicant claims that the hospital visit was due to her husband throwing her against a wall and she was too scared to say anything because he threatened to kill her.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The application was timely filed.

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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the narrative reason for her separation should be changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force or the evidence of record. The available medical and military records do not indicate the existence of an incapacitating or unfitting medical condition or that the applicant was unable to make an informed decision, nor has she provided any substantiation for her allegations. She requested a voluntary early separation due to her pregnancy and the discharge’s narrative reason of pregnancy/childbirth appears appropriate. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 this application in Executive Session on 12 November 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01124 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jun 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 13 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jul 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair