RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00384
            INDEX CODE: 110.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “KDF”  (Discharge  for  Pregnancy/Childbirth)  separation  program
designator (SPD) code on her DD Form 214 be changed to “MDF” (Released
for Pregnancy/Childbirth).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She wants the option of reentering military service in the future. “It
was totally unclear to [her] when this issue was being evaluated as to
[her] future alternatives which was compounded by pregnancy, emotions,
and immaturity.” She has been informed she  can’t  be  considered  for
future military service only because of her “discharged” status.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty  on  25  September  1996.   She  was
honorably discharged in the grade of airman on 15 September 1997  with
11 months and 21 days of  active  service.   Her  SPD  code  of  “KDF”
indicates she was discharged for  pregnancy.  An  SPD  code  of  “MDF”
indicates a member was released from active  duty  for  pregnancy  and
transferred to the Reserves; consequently all obligation/connection to
the military  is  not  severed  as  is  the  case  with  a  discharge.
Applicant’s type  of  separation  [discharge  vs.  release]  does  not
preclude  her  from  applying  for  reenlistment.   Her   reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of “3A” bars her from “immediate”  reenlistment;
however, it is a “waiverable” code. (There are  two  translations  for
this code: (1) A first-term airman who did not complete  at  least  36
months of the enlistment term or, (2 )A first-term, non-prior  service
female who enlisted into the Air Force and it was later discovered she
was pregnant before her enlistment. The second meaning can’t apply  in
this case since applicant was in the Air Force for nearly a year.)

There is nothing in her submission or records to indicate whether  she
requested that she be released to the Reserves.  However,  a  22  July
1997 memo signed by the applicant indicates that  she  “acknowledge[d]
that [she] had been advised to seek counseling  concerning  procedures
for, and the advantages of affiliating with the USAF Reserves  or  the
Air National Guard. [She] also  acknowledge[d]  that  [she  had]  been
advised to obtain a copy of AFB  45-20.  Information  on  Air  Reserve
Forces (ARF) Programs, and AFP 211-35, Once a Veteran.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of  the  Air  Force.   Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this  appeal  and  provides  his  rationale  for  denying  applicant’s
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the evaluation and states she was  not  briefed  on
her future alternatives, specifically in regard to the  difference  in
“Discharge” versus “Released from Active Duty.”   She  reiterates  her
contentions as to why her request should be granted.

A complete copy of applicant’s response 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that her discharge from the Air Force should be changed to a
release from active duty.  Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to warrant altering her record. We
note  applicant  acknowledged  that  she  had  been  advised  to  seek
counseling regarding  the  procedures  for,  and  the  advantages  of,
affiliating with the Air Force Reserves or the Air National Guard. The
fact that she was honorably discharged  rather  than  released  should
not, in and of itself, preclude her from future military service.  The
difficulty may arise from her RE code. However,  for  the  applicant’s
information, while the “3” series of RE  codes  indicates  “Conditions
Barring Immediate Reenlistment,” these codes, unlike the  “2”  series,
are “waiverable.” In other words, an RE code from the “3” series would
permit her to apply for enlistment  and,  should  she  have  desirable
skills and is otherwise acceptable,  a  military  Service  branch  may
elect to waive her ineligibility and  allow  her  to  enlist.  As  the
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that her SPD, or  for  that
matter her RE,  code  is  either  in  error  or  unjust,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 September 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:


                 Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member
                 Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Mar 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair