RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02289 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “KDF” (Pregnancy or childbirth) and Reentry (RE) code of “4H” (Serving a suspended sentence for an Article 15) be changed so she can reenlist in the Reserve. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She is being unfairly prevented from reenlisting. While stationed at Camp Bucca, Iraq in 2008 she received an Article 15 for having a member of the opposite sex in her living quarters. That man has now been her husband for six years. Both she and her husband received Article 15s. She paid her penalty for violating General Order 1B, but was never told this action would prevent her from reenlisting. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 Mar 07. On 19 Aug 08, her deployed commander notified her he was considering punishing her through non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) because on diverse occasions between on or about 6 Jul 08 and on or about 28 Jul 08 she failed to obey a lawful general order by allowing a person of the opposite gender to visit her sleeping quarters. The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived her right to a court-martial, accepted NJP, and chose not to submit a presentation on her own behalf. On 26 Aug 08, the applicant’s commander determined she committed the alleged offense and punished her with NJP. For her offense she was reduced in grade to Airman, and forfeited $400.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended through 25 Feb 09. On 8 Dec 08, the applicant requested a voluntary separation date of 2 Feb 09 due to being pregnant. On 2 Feb 09, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 1 years, 10 months, and 6 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning her SPD code. The applicant refers to the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action as if the SPD code is tied to the punishment, but it is not. The records show the applicant submitted a voluntary separation application for a separation of 2 Feb 09 based on pregnancy. The applicant’s commander concurred with the applicant’s request to separate, and the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request. Therefore, the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, are consistent with the procedural guidelines in the regulation for pregnancy. Recommend denial of her request to change her SPD code. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning her RE code. The applicant received an Article 15 (NJP) on 26 Aug 08, and was given an RE code of “4H—Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCJM),” based on the fact that she was serving a suspended punishment which did not expire until 15 Feb 09. The applicant contend she completed her punishment; however, she separated on 2 Feb 09 so she clearly did not complete her suspended punishment. Recommend denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 1.  After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 2.  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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02289 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Jun 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Jul 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.