RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01957
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
						   COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation and enlistment codes be changed to reflect a hardship due to pregnancy.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her separation and enlistment codes should reflect a hardship discharge for pregnancy.  Updating these codes entitles her to Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.  Out-processing personnel reassured her of the opportunity for reentry in the military and to attend school with the separation and enlistment codes she received.

In support of her request, applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and character reference letters.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 August 1999, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 16 August 2001, she was honorably discharged with a separation code of “KDF” which denotes “Pregnancy”.

The Air Force reviewed her records and determined her DD Form 214 reflected an incorrect reentry (RE) code of “3C”.  HQ AFPC/DPSOA corrected her RE code to reflect “3A” (First-term airman who separates before completing 36 months on current enlistment and has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level, and insufficient total active federal military service.)

She served a total of two years and six months on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states there are no separation codes for hardship due to pregnancy.  Members are either separated for pregnancy or hardship.  On 26 June 2001, she was approved for separation effective 16 August 2001, for pregnancy.  There is no evidence she was assured her separation codes would allow her to reenter the military.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  She did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  She provided no facts warranting a change to her separation code.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 September 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s separation and reentry codes.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, other than the administration correction by HQ AFPC/DPSOA, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01957 in Executive Session on 18 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

 Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 2008, w/atchs.
 Exhibit B.  Available Military Master Personnel Records.
 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 August 2008.
 Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 September 2008.

		XXXXXXXXXX
		Panel Chair