RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02158
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason and reenlistment code be changed so she may  enlist  in
the Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since her discharge, she has remarried and no longer  is  a  single  parent.
She will be able to adhere to the care  provisions  for  her  dependents  if
called upon to serve on active duty.

In support of her request, she submits  copies  of  her  Airman  Performance
Reports, a copy of her marriage license and a  copy  of  her  DD  Form  214.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
20 September 1985.  She was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4) effective 18 February 1985, and was  subsequently  appointed  a
noncommissioned officer (NCO) (sergeant (E-4)).   Her  NCO  appointment  was
vacated on 26 February 1987  based  on  her  failure  on  two  occasions  to
complete her Dependent Care Certification.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s APR ratings for  the  last  six
(6) reporting periods.

      Period Ending          Overall Evaluation

      17 Jan 83              9
       2 Nov 83              9
       2 Nov 84              9
       7 May 85              9
       7 May 86              9
      11 Mar 87              9

On 24 March 1987, applicant  was  notified  of  her  commander’s  intent  to
discharge her in accordance with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-9b, for  failing  to
meet her military obligations because of Parenthood.   She  was  advised  of
her rights and after consulting counsel, she waived her rights to  submit  a
written statement.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the  staff
judge advocate found it legally  sufficient  and  recommended  that  she  be
discharged from the Air Force with  an  honorable  discharge.   On  31 March
1987, the discharge authority  directed  that  she  be  discharged  with  an
honorable discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   Accordingly,
applicant was discharged on 9 April 1987 by reason of “Inability to  Perform
Prescribed Duties Due to Parenthood” with a  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)
code of “2C.”  She had served 5 years, 2 months and 22 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPRS   states   the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge  regulation.   Even  though  now  the  applicant  has  made
arrangements for dependent care, at the time  of  separation  she  did  not;
therefore, her record was correct at  the  time  of  discharge.   The  DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE  states  that  RE  code  2C,  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service” is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and  states  that  during  her  enlistment  she  was  an
outstanding airman and believes her excellent record and  her  knowledge  of
aircraft’s would be a great asset to the Air Force Reserve.

Her submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  It appears that under  the  given
circumstances,  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards   in
effecting her discharge and after a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record we find  no  impropriety.   The  reason  discharge  proceedings  were
initiated  against  the  applicant  is  well  documented  in   her   record.
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due  to  her  failure
to  meet  military  obligations  by  not  completing  her   dependent   care
certification.  In this regard, we are constrained  to  note  that  her  NCO
status  was  vacated  due  to  her  not  completing   her   dependent   care
certification, as instructed, on two occasions, thus  not  meeting  military
obligations.  We considered her overall quality of service and  the  events,
which precipitated her discharge, and her assertion that she is now able  to
meet  the  dependency  requirement  for  service.   However,  based  on  the
available evidence of record and in the absence of evidence to  the  showing
the record is in error, we do not  find  any  of  the  above  considerations
provide an adequate basis to change an RE code which was proper and  correct
at the time it was assigned.  Accordingly, the applicant’s  request  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the 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 5 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 August 2001.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 September 2001.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 September 2001.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 October 2001.



                                  BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                  Panel Chair