RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00360 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her records be corrected to void her 30 August 1974 separation 
for pregnancy and restore three years, one month, and nine days 
of military service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was forced out of the military due to pregnancy and has never 
recovered financially from this injustice as it has harmed her 
retirement-wise and earning power-wise. Subsequent to her 
discharge, she gave birth in November 1974. In 1976, the United 
States District Court of Appeals ruled that it was 
unconstitutional for the military to discharge women for being 
pregnant. However, she was in Spain at the time and was unaware 
of the ruling. She attempted to reenter the military in 2001, 
but was told she was too old. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of her DD 
Forms 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer 
or Discharge, and, Report of Separation from Active Duty; a 1976 
Federal Court case that ruled the United States Marine Corps 
policy of involuntary discharging members for pregnancy was 
unconstitutional; and a Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) claim 
for compensation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served on active duty from 9 October 1970 to 30 August 1974. She 
was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a 
date of rank of 1 August 1972 and served as a Weather Observer. 

 

According to the evidence of record, on 5 June 1974, the 
applicant submitted a request for discharge effective 30 August 
1974, under the provisions of Air Force Manuel (AFM) 39-10, 


paragraphs 3-13a, for the reason of pregnancy. On 1 July 1974, 
the discharge authority approved her request as in the best 
interest of the Air Force and her family. 

 

A Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 18 December 1992, 
indicates the applicant was diagnosed with Narcissistic 
Personality Features and Occupational Problems. 

 

On 30 August 1974, the applicant was honorably discharged in the 
grade of sergeant. She served 3 years, 10 months, and 22 days on 
active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

BCMR LEGAL ADVISOR EVALUATION: 

 

The BCMR Legal Advisor recommends denial. The BCMR Legal Advisor 
indicates that AFM 39-10, Change 2, dated 28 June 1974 clearly 
states that normal retention of members who became pregnant was 
not in the best interest of the member or the Air Force. It 
further provided the member would be discharged unless she 
requested and was given a waiver. It appears that in 1977, a 
policy change to AFM 39-10, allowed only member-initiated 
voluntary separations for pregnancy. 

 

The Federal Court opinion, provided by the applicant, indicates 
that prior to her discharge, Federal Courts had mixed rulings on 
Air Force and Navy pregnancy discharge policies. Additionally, 
the Marine Corps policy, invalidated in 1976 as discussed in the 
case, seems distinguishable from the Air Force policy in place 
since, as the court noted, the Marine Corps had a blanket policy 
to separate based on what the court found to be outdated notions 
of pregnancy and readiness, whereas the Air Force policy employed 
a rebuttable presumption about the difficulties of fulfilling 
service and family responsibilities. Looking at the issue a 
generation or more later, it is tempting to predict the Air Force 
would have fared no better if litigation had continued, but the 
applicant had not provided a clear Federal ruling invalidating 
the 1974 Air Force policy prior to the discharge in question. 
Even if the Air Force policy had been invalidated after her 
discharge, the Air Force promulgated its policies in good faith 
and the policy would probably not have been invalidated 
retroactively. 

 

In this case, the applicant did not request a waiver and did not 
discuss why she did not. She argues that she should be given 
credit for an enlistment that she did not serve because it was 
terminated under a policy that may have been unconstitutional 
based on a court ruling on a different policy two years later. 
The fact the applicant did not request a waiver, waited so long 
to redress the issue, and the fact the discharge was conducted in 


accordance with presumptively valid policies, would certainly 
indicate she at least agreed to separate. 

 

A complete copy of the BCMR Legal Advisor’s evaluation, with 
attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

She was set-up. She was told that she had to sign the paperwork 
requesting a voluntary discharge as the regulations did not 
permit her to stay past her seventh month of pregnancy. She was 
not given legal counsel or any time to consider if other options 
existed. The Air Force took away her career and caused her undue 
hardship. She was unaware someone could take the Air Force to 
court. Nor did she know of anyone that tried to do so. She just 
did what she was told to do. She was blind-sided and she was 
wronged. Maybe the Air Force didn’t have anything in writing 
about pregnant servicewomen like the Marine Corps did, but the 
Air Force’s actions and treatment toward pregnant women were 
damaging. 

 

A copy of the applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 BCMR Legal Advisor and adopt his rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or 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 that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 


that 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-2011-00360 in Executive Session on 29 September 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00360 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 17 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Ltr, BCMR Legal Advisor, dtd 28 Mar 11, w/atch. 

Exhibit D. Ltr, AFBCMR, dtd 31 Mar 11. 

Exhibit E. Ltr, Applicant, not dated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair