RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04255 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, character of service be corrected to reflect “honorable” versus “uncharacterized.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged because of her pregnancy that was not detected at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). The “uncharacterized” character of service on her DD Form 214 causes confusion when applying for jobs, as “uncharacterized” is not an option to choose from on application forms. In order to avoid falsifying applications by either checking “honorable” or “dishonorable,” (only choices on application forms) she needs this corrected as requested. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 Mar 97. On 4 Apr 97, during an interview with a Student Actions office member, it was determined that in Jan 97, the applicant was charged with shoplifting and jailed for one night and fined $760. On 24 Apr 97, a 59th Medical Wing physician notified the applicant’s commander that the applicant has had two or more positive pregnancy tests. On 28 Apr 97, the applicant’s commander informed her that she was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry, and if approved, her discharge would be described as an entry level separation (ELS). Her reason for this action was that in Jan 97 the applicant was charged with shoplifting, spent one night in jail, and fined $760. The applicant did not inform her recruiter of this offense that occurred while on the Delayed Enlistment Program. On 2 May 97, the applicant was furnished an ELS with service characterized as “uncharacterized,” and credited with 3 months and 27 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, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SPGS abstains from providing a recommendation. Based on their review of the applicant’s records, the discharge was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. Although the applicant did have some issues with authority during BMTS, she was not aware that she was pregnant until her 4th week of training. This condition was not conducive to military service, and she stated she understood the diagnoses and treatment plan. Subsequently, she was processed for an ELS. A complete copy of the AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting changing the applicant’s character of service from “uncharacterized” to “honorable.” It has been 17 years since the applicant was discharged from the Air Force and the applicant did not provide a valid reason why she didn't file a petition within 3 years of the alleged error or injustice. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Regarding the applicant’s contention that she was separated based on a pregnancy that was undetected at the MEPS. This is incorrect. All of the documentation in the applicant's personnel record (the notification of discharge memorandum from the commander, the applicant's signed acknowledgement, the discharge authority 's decision memorandum), clearly show that the discharge was for fraudulent entry in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section C, Paragraph 5.15. Therefore the SPD code listed on the applicant's DD Form 214 is correct as indicated. However, the narrative reason for separation is incorrect and actually should read "Fraudulent Entry" instead. This is the only error we found in the discharge processing. However, changing the narrative reason to read “fraudulent entry” will not benefit the applicant’s case or situation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting a change in the characterization of the applicant’s military service. A review of the applicant’s medical screening completed on 19 Nov 96 documented her last menstrual period (LMP) as 11 Nov 96 without any irregularities from previous cycles. Therefore, no urine or serum pregnancy testing was warranted during the enlistment medical screening of the applicant at the MEPS. Following discovery of the applicant’s positive pregnancy test during BMT, the applicant reported the LMP as 14 Feb 97; hence, the pregnancy occurred after the period of enlistment. Given the rigors of training during the initial enlistment period and other physical requirements, pregnancy with its associated duty limited restrictions and increased risk of potential harm to both mother and fetus is not conducive to military service. Although a probable error in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation has been identified by AFPC/DPSOR, correcting this error to reflect fraudulent entry, as intended by the commander, would be of greater detriment to the applicant. The applicant’s ELS with uncharacterized service characterization is in accordance with DoD and Air Force instruction when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous service. A complete copy of the AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Apr 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 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. 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 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-2014-04255 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04255 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 14. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 5 Nov 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Dec 14. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFBCMR IMA Medical Consultant, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 15.