RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04094 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation “Pregnancy or Childbirth” be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not discharged because she was pregnant, but because she had a major illness that complicated her child’s life and did not allow her to perform her duties. She applied under the Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) Force Shaping Program to change her date of separation (DOS) from 3 Aug 05 to 1 Apr 05. She separated on 7 Jan 05 due to an illness. She cannot locate any records pertaining to her reason for separation, but she does have medical records that refer to an illness during that time period. She filed a military compensation claim for diabetes. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an AF IMT 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation, and Personal Data – Separation Approval Sheet. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty from 4 Aug 99 to 7 Jan 05. On 14 Jun 04, the applicant applied for separation under the Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program. On 9 Jul 04, AFPC/DPPRSS approved the applicant’s request for a date of separation of 1 April 05. The FY04 Force Shaping Program was announced by the HQ USAF/DP 032039Z Feb 04 message and was developed to assist the Air Force in meeting end strength requirements and to properly shape the force. Per MPFM 04-35, the Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program allowed officers and enlisted personnel to either retire or separate prior to completing specified ADSC’s or service commitments inclusive of normal date of separation/expiration of term of service (DOS/ETS). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibits C & E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS provided two advisories and recommends denial. On 29 Apr 11, DPSOS states the applicant requested a date eligible to return from overseas (DEROS) curtailment of one month from 1 May 05 to 1 Apr 05. On 23 Nov 04, the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), was updated by the applicant’s unit that the applicant would be separating due to pregnancy. The applicant stated she could not locate any of the separation documents at the time of her separation. Since the applicant mentioned having complication with childbirth her commander was authorized to approve a separation for pregnancy or childbirth. DPSOS states there was insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding her discharge. Absent the documentation, there is a presumption of regularity that the applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. On 20 Oct 11, in a corrected advisory, DPSOS further clarified their evaluation and stated since the applicant was not able to complete her service obligation due to childbirth, she was approved for a pregnancy or childbirth discharge. Although the applicant states she was pregnant and had a major illness that complicated her child’s life, she was unable to perform her duties. On 23 Nov 04, the applicant’s unit approved a pregnancy discharge, on the same date her separation for the LADSC waiver program was cancelled. The applicant was assigned the correct separation program designator (SPD) code of “KDF” at the time of separation. The complete DPSOS evaluations are at Exhibit C and E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 May 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D). On 24 Oct 11, a copy of a supplemental Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 15 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit F). _________________________________________________________________ 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. In this respect, the applicant contends she was discharged due to a major illness that complicated her unborn child’s life and did not allow her to perform her duties. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded the requested relief is warranted. It appears the applicant’s narrative reason for separation (pregnancy or childbirth) accurately reflects the circumstances surrounding her discharge. As noted by the Separations Branch, the applicant applied for separation under the Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program and requested a separation date of 1 Apr 05. On 23 Nov 04, the applicant’s separation for LADSC wavier program was cancelled and MILPDS was updated that the applicant would be separating due to pregnancy. The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to support her claim that her narrative reason for separation should be changed to a medical discharge. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 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. As such, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-04094 in Executive Session on 1 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Apr 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 11. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 20 Oct 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 Oct 11.