RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02597 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Hardship” rather than “Pregnancy.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She elected to separate based on hardship due to domestic violence and not her pregnancy. Her commander ensured her she would be discharged due to hardship and that she would retain education and veterans benefits. She met the criteria for discharge under hardship. Her situation was not temporary, the situation had worsened since she entered active duty, she tried to remedy the situation and separating rectified the situation. She needs this corrected to be eligible for a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) home loan. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 25 Jul 01, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. A medical examination document dated 19 Sep 02 confirms the applicant was on a pregnancy profile at the time of her discharge. On 1 Oct 02, she was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Pregnancy,” along with a separation code of KDF (Pregnancy or Childbirth) and reentry (RE) code of 1J (Eligible to reenist, but elects separation). She was credited with one year, two months, and six days of active service. 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 recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, requests for separation based on pregnancy must include an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, confirming the pregnancy and it must be signed by a designated profiling officer. The request requires a recommendation from the member’s immediate commander and is then forwarded to the base separations authority for a final decision. Requests for separation based on dependency or hardship must have an existing genuine dependency or undue hardship. The dependency or hardships cannot be temporary, must have arisen or have been aggravated to an excessive degree since the airman entered active duty; every reasonable effort has been made to remedy the situation; separation will eliminate or materially alleviate the condition; and there are no other available means of alleviating the situation other than separation. An unexpected change of income or family separation due to military service does not necessarily constitute an undue hardship or dependency. Furthermore, there is no narrative reason for separation or SPD code designated for "pregnancy hardship." Service members are separated for either "pregnancy/childbirth" or “hardship." Absent any further documentation to the contrary, it must be assumed the applicant’s separation was approved in accordance with policy and procedures of governing instruction. Therefore, based on the presumption of regularity, 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. The applicant provided no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of her discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 27 Oct 14 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: 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. 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-2014-02597 in Executive Session on 24 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 23 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.