RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03814 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from “Pregnancy” to “Hardship.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The officer who authorized her discharge stated it would be characterized as a “Hardship.” 2. She was in a foreign country and pregnant with twins. 3. She was not allowed to reside on-base after she delivered, so she was discharged for “Hardship.” 4. Her narrative reason for separation prohibits her from receiving medical benefits. The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Dec 85, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force. She was credited with six months and 12 days of total active service. On 25 Jun 86, the applicant applied for separation under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Pregnancy) to be effective 8 Jul 86. The USAF Hospital commander (USAF/CC) reviewed the request and recommended the 48th Combat Support Group, Director of Personnel (48CSG/DP) approve the request. On 1 Jul 86, the 48CSG/DP approved the applicant’s request for separation to be effective 8 Jul 86. On 7 Jul 86, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as honorable and narrative reason for separation as “Pregnancy” in the grade of airman first class. She served 6 months and 12 days of total active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that on 25 Jun 86, the applicant applied for a separation date of 7 Jul 86 due to her pregnancy and the discharge authority approved her request. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant has not provided any facts warranting a change to her separation code or narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Nov 12, review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. In view of the above and 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 Docket Number BC- 2012-03814 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 12. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 26 Nov 12.