RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04363 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation code, narrative reason for discharge, and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2” be changed to allow her full entitlement to military benefits. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly forced out of the military, depriving her of her benefits. She and her fiancé both joined the Air Force simultaneously because the recruiter told them they had to be single to enter. They completed basic training and technical school and were planning their wedding prior to his deployment when she discovered she was pregnant. The Air Force gave her a choice of having an abortion or getting out of the military, so she got out. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 14 Mar 69 and served on active duty until she was honorably discharged on 4 Jun 69, issued an RE code of “2,” and credited with 2 months and 21 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s separation code or narrative reason for discharge. The applicant’s separation for pregnancy was appropriate and in accordance with AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Pregnancy), dated 22 Aug 66, which directed enlisted women to be discharged from the service with the least practicable delay after a medical determination of pregnancy. On 15 May 69, the applicant received a positive pregnancy test from the base hospital. The discharge authority approved the applicant’s request to be separated effective 4 Jun 69. The applicant is not entitled to the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits she seeks due to her limited time on active duty. Her discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in place at the time of her discharge. The applicant provided no evidence warranting a change in her separation code or narrative reason for separation. 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 injustice regarding her RE code. The applicant was discharged with an honorable character of service after serving 2 months and 21 days. Her RE code was updated to “2-Ineligible” per AFM 39-9D, dated 28 Mar 68, the appropriate reenlistment guidance from that time frame for separation for pregnancy. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Mar 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04363 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 18 Jan 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Feb 13, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 13.