RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01204 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His separation (SPD) code be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His separation code states that he is pregnant; however, he is a 
male. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery scores. 

 

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 5 Jan 10. 
His commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him 
for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-
32 amd AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5.22. The specific reasons for this action were for 
failing to perform his assigned duties by not making satisfactory 
progress in the Structional Apprentice course. After a legal 
review, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient. He 
received a “JGA” SPD code that correlates to his narrative reason 
for separation of “entry-level performance and conduct.” The 
applicant received an entry-level discharge on 23 Jul 10 after 
serving 6 months and 19 days on active duty. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant contends that he was 
discharged because of pregnancy; however, he was discharged for 
failing to satisfactorily progress in his training program. In 
this case, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action 
on 30 Jun 10, which gave him 146 days of active duty service. 
Airman are given entry-level separation with an uncharacterized 
service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 
continuous service. The applicant has not provided any evidence 
of an error or injustice to warrant changing his SPD code. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by stating his SPD code of “JGA” 
represents that he was separated due to being pregnant. It is a 
clear error and should be changed. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 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 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. Furthermore, the 
applicant’s SPD code of “JGA” accurately reflects his reason for 
discharge and correlates with his narrative reason for separation 
(entry-level performance and conduct). Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01204 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Aug 11.