RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03310 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “MDF” and narrative reason for separation of “Pregnancy or childbirth” be amended to reflect “Hardship.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her records are in error because she requested to separate under hardship for her unexpected pregnancy which led her to become a single parent at the age of 18. She had no one in the area to help her as her entire family resided in Europe. She did not have the necessary means to raise a child on her own. There were also several incidents that compromised her safety and the safety of her unborn child which ultimately led her to request separation. She provides a copy of a police report filed in 2003 at Lackland AFB, TX. She was unaware of this mistake until she learned she did not qualify for many Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits, to include home loan, school benefits and medical care. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 July 2002, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was honorably released from active duty on 20 April 2004 with a SPD code of “MDF” and a narrative reason for separation of “Pregnancy or childbirth.” She was credited with one year, nine months and 12 days of active duty service. The applicant indicated on her AF Form 31, Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation, dated 5 December 2003, the reason for her early separation request as “Pregnancy or Childbirth.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial. The applicant has not submitted a timely petition. It has been 11 years since her discharge. Furthermore, 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 instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR-SEP found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The record shows the applicant submitted an AF Form 31 on 5 December 2003. Her commander concurred with the separation request and the base separations authority approved the separation in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman. As a result, the applicant was discharged on 20 April 2004 with an honorable service characterization. Therefore, the SPD, narrative reason for separation and character of service are consistent with the procedural guidelines in the regulation for pregnancy or childbirth. Applicants who request separation for pregnancy under this authority are only required to submit an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, confirming the pregnancy that must be signed by a designating profiling officer. The request is sent to the applicant’s immediate commander for recommendation and is then forwarded to the base separations authority for final decision. If approved, a separation date is established and the discharge processing for the applicant can begin. It is clear from the record that the applicant chose this option due to the expedient nature of pregnancy separations. Applicants submitting dependency or hardship separation requests must submit a thorough explanation as to the circumstances causing the hardship along with extensive supporting documentation. Per AFI 36-3208, the basis for discharge may exist when the dependency or hardship is not temporary, conditions have risen or have been aggravated to an excessive degree since the airman entered active duty, the airman has made every reasonable effort to remedy the situation, separation will eliminate or materially alleviate the conditions and there are no means of alleviation readily available other than separation. Undue hardship or dependency does not necessarily exist because of altered present or expected income or the family is separated or must suffer the inconvenience usually incident to military service. In most cases, Red Cross verification will also be necessary to accompany the application or the base separation authority may ask the Red Cross to obtain additional verification of documentation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP 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 19 February 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 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. 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-2015-03310 in Executive Session on 3 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 July 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 21 December 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 February 2016