RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03392
		INDEX CODE:  110,00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code and narrative reason for her discharge be changed to hardship.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the circumstances of her case, she should have been discharged under a hardship reason, not pregnancy or childbirth.  She was granted permission to separate not because she was pregnant, but because her family and she were experiencing a hardship due to her unborn daughter’s physical abnormalities, her potential problems/needs at birth, and the impossibility of a joint spouse assignment for her husband and her.  He was in North Carolina and she was in Maryland.  While her separation request was being reviewed, a stop loss was in effect, which meant no one was able to separate under any circumstance, especially not pregnancy.  Therefore, her case was special.  She was experiencing a hardship.  She would not have needed letters to support her case had she been able to separate under just pregnancy.  Even though she requested a separation under pregnancy/childbirth reasons, she did so because she wasn’t well informed and, at the time, she was not in the state of mind to look into the matter.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a letter submitted with separation package, a letter from the commander of the Naval Medical Center, highly recommending an immediate separation, a letter from the command chaplain at the Marine Corps Air Station XXXXXX, recommending applicant be expeditiously discharged, and two copies of her DD Form 214.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 April 2000.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class on 26 February 2001.

On 13 November 2001, the Commander of the National Naval Medical Center highly recommended an immediate separation under AFI 36-3208, Section B, paragraph 3.17 for the applicant.  On 14 November 2001, the applicant submitted a letter requesting immediate separation for pregnancy.  On 16 November 2001, the applicant’s husband’s (a Lance Corporal in the Marines, assigned to Marine Corps Air Station XXXXX, XXXXX, NC) Command Chaplain strongly recommended that applicant be expeditiously discharged.

On 6 December 2001, the applicant’s Stop Loss Waiver request was approved and she was released from Stop Loss.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the Air Force on 31 December 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge.  She served one year, eight months and five days of active duty.  A reenlistment eligibility (RE) of 3C (first term airman not yet considered under the selective reenlistment program (SRP) was assigned.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 December 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that she has been the victim of an injustice.  Her contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 29 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 24 Nov 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 03.