RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04106

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge type be changed to “release” rather than 
“discharge.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was unjust because she was never counseled on the 
difference between being discharged rather than being released 
from active duty.

She believes by being discharged she has lost benefits that she 
would have been entitled to had she been released from active duty 
and transferred to the Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR).  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Jan 11, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

According to the applicant’s Voluntary Separation Application, 
dated 24 Apr 14, she requested discharge due to pregnancy.  

On 31 Jul 14, the applicant was honorably discharged with a reason 
for separation of pregnancy or childbirth.  She was credited with 
3 years, 6 months, and 27 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  DPSOR notes that based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Therefore, the type 
of separation, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, 
the narrative reason for separation, and the character of 
service are correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214.

The applicant submitted a Personnel Processing Application (PPA) 
to request separation from the Air Force for pregnancy.  The 
applicant's date of separation for pregnancy was approved in 
accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
Chapter 3, Para 3.17.  Both the applicant's commander and the 
discharge authority approved the applicant's request for 
separation to be effective 31 Jul 14 and directed the applicant 
receive an honorable discharge service characterization.

AFI 36-3208, table 1.4, note 3, states “a woman who has a Military 
Service Obligation (MSO) and otherwise qualified for transfer to 
the USAFR will be discharged if the reason for the separation is 
pregnancy and she requests discharge.”  The applicant did have an 
MSO that she would have had to fulfill at the time of separation, 
however, on the applicant's PPA, she marked “request discharge” in 
the box under the heading Separation for Pregnancy or Childbirth.  
In accordance with the instruction, based on her request, she was 
no longer obligated to fulfill the MSO and was granted discharge.  
A discharge relieved the applicant of any remaining obligated 
service.

Had the applicant requested a “Release” from active duty, she 
would have been required to fulfill the remaining MSO by serving 
in the IRR.  As a member of the IRR, she would have been eligible 
to receive a military ID card which would have allowed her Base 
Exchange (BX), Commissary, and Morale, Welfare, Recreation (MWR) 
privileges for the remaining period of her MSO. There are no 
medical benefits or Transition Assistance Management Program 
(TAMP) benefits associated with this type of discharge.

The complete 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 6 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its 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 requested relief.

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 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-2014-04106 in Executive Session on 2 Jul 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Dec 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 15.