RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02088 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Pregnancy or Childbirth” to “Palace Chase”. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 is inaccurate as she was separated under the Palace Chase program and not Pregnancy or Childbirth. The inaccurate narrative reason has affected her opportunities for federal employment and use of her Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Her DD Form 214 should reflect she was transferred from active duty to the Reserve. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, she commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 11 Dec 92. On 3 May 95, she was honorably released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation of “Pregnancy or Childbirth,” with its corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code of MDF and transferred to the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and was credited with 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of active service. On 15 May 02, the applicant was released from her assignment and honorably discharged from the USAFR. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums 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. The applicant has not submitted a timely application. It has been 20 years since she has separated from the Air Force. Based on the documentation on file in the master of personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. There is no evidence found of an error or injustice occurring in the discharge processing. Separations requested under the Palace Chase Program fall under, AFI 36-3205, Palace Chase and Palace Front, with submission of an AF Form 1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment. There is no evidence of an AF Form 1288 in the applicant’s master personnel record. A further review of the applicant’s record shows she applied for separation under the pregnancy/child birth provision and not under Palace Chase. Therefore the narrative reason and corresponding SPD code are correct as indicated on her DD Form 214. Applicant’s who request separation for pregnancy must submit an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, confirming the pregnancy, signed by a designating profiling officer. The request is sent to the immediate commander for recommendation and is then forwarded for a final decision by the base separations authority. If the request is approved, a separation date is established and discharge processing begins. DPSOR believes the applicant chose this option due to the expedient nature of pregnancy separations. The applicant believes since she was released to the United States Air Force Reserves (USAFR) upon separating from active duty that means she separated under Palace Chase. This is incorrect. Under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, if a person requesting separation for pregnancy/childbirth has an unfulfilled Military Service Obligation (MSO), can be released for transfer to the USAFR to complete this unfulfilled MSO if qualified. This is what happened in the case at hand. The applicant still had a MSO and was released to the USAFR to fulfill the remaining obligation of her enlistment contract. Completing the remaining MSO by transferring to the USAFR does not classify the separation as Palace Chase. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. There is no evidence that the applicant’s SPD code had an effect on her MGIB benefits. Updating the applicant’s SPD code from MDF to MGQ will have no effect on her MGIB benefit. Each separation code falls under the same MGIB Loss Code (Convenience of the Government, Other) and the MGIB benefit will remain the same. MGIB benefits are based on months of active service (if served 30 months of three or more year commitment, or 20 months of less than three year commitment, or else no benefit). The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 11 Dec 92. Her separation date is 3 May 95. The applicant is credited with 2 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active service. She is not eligible for MGIB benefits based on total time served. However, she is entitled to Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve educational benefits. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Sep 15, 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that she is the victim of an error or injustice. We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application. Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application. Accordingly, we find the application untimely. 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-2015-02088 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02088 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 Jun 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, APFC/DPSIT, dated 22 Jul 15 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 15. 4