RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
          AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS




 IN THE MATTER OF:     DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02034
            INDEX CODE:  100.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO




 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:


 The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate
 of  Release  or  Discharge  From  Active  Duty)  be  changed   from
 “Inability to Perform  Prescribed  Duties  Due  to  Parenthood”  to
 “Hardship.”


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:


 Because her discharge papers do not state that she  was  discharged
 for hardship, she cannot receive her Montgomery GI  Bill  benefits.
 She believes that her discharge should have been categorized  as  a
 hardship because she was married when she had her child but because
 of her ex-husband’s poor choices, she could not trust him  to  care
 for her child.  She tried everything to make her commitment to  the
 Air Force work.


 Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


 _________________________________________________________________


 STATEMENT OF FACTS:


 The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
 was 28 Nov 88.


 On 4 Dec 90, the applicant was  notified  that  her  commander  was
 recommending  that  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
 parenthood.  The  reasons  for  the  commander’s  actions  were  as
 follows:


           On 3 Nov 90, her squadron section commander informed  her
 again of her obligation to  provide  and  document  dependent  care
 arrangements, this letter being written in response to  her  letter
 of 1 Nov 90 detailing her family  and  financial  difficulties  and
 stating her intent not to comply with dependent care requirements.


           On 27 Nov 90,  she  received  a  Letter  of  Admonishment
 reprimanding her for failing to provide the squadron with Dependent
 Care Certification, as was her duty to provide by 19 Nov 90.


 On 4 Dec 90, after consulting counsel, applicant waived  her  right
 to submit statements.


 On 7 Dec 90, the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  found  the
 file was legally sufficient to support discharge.  The  Acting  SJA
 concurred.


 On 21 Dec 90, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
 AFR  39-10  (Inability  to  Perform  Prescribed   Duties   Due   to
 Parenthood) in the grade of airman first class  with  an  honorable
 characterization of service.  She was credited with 2 years and  24
 days of active service.


 _________________________________________________________________


 AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and indicated that,  based  on
 the documentation in the file, the discharge  was  consistent  with
 the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
 regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
 discretion of the  discharge  authority.   The  applicant  did  not
 submit any new evidence or identify any errors or  injustices  that
 occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   She  provided  no  facts
 warranting a change in her narrative reason for separation.   DPPRS
 recommends denial of applicant’s request.


 A complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at
 Exhibit C.


 On 24 Sep 01, the applicant was notified by  the  Chief,  Education
 Services, AFPC/DPPAT, of action she may pursue that might result in
 her receiving Montgomery GI Bill benefits.  It was recommended that
 she forward an application for  benefits  with  a  comment  on  her
 application  asking  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs   (DVA)
 adjudicator to contact him and he could possibly help the  DVA  and
 the applicant by explaining the separation situation.


 A complete copy of their letter is attached at Exhibit D.


 _________________________________________________________________












 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  applicant  on
 12 Oct 01 for review and response within 30 days.  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 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.  After  a
 thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record   and   applicant’s
 submission, we are not persuaded that her DD  Form  214  should  be
 changed in the narrative reason for separation  to  read  hardship.
 The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for  applicant’s
 discharge, i.e., failure to provide Dependent  Care  Certification.
 Therefore,  in   our   opinion,   responsible   officials   applied
 appropriate standards  in  effecting  the  applicant’s  involuntary
 separation, and we did not find persuasive evidence that  pertinent
 regulations were violated at the time of her discharge or that  the
 reason for her separation was in error or unjust.  With  regard  to
 her contention that because her discharge papers do not state  that
 she was discharged for hardship, she cannot  receive  her  GI  Bill
 benefits, we remind the applicant that she was advised on 24 Sep 01
 by the Chief, Education Services, of action  she  may  pursue  that
 might result in her receiving GI Bill benefits.  However,  we  note
 that she failed to contact the DVA adjudicator  as  requested.   In
 view of the foregoing, and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
 contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to  recommend  favorable
 action on the applicant’s request.


 _________________________________________________________________


 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 6 December 2001, under the provisions  of  Air
 Force Instruction 36-2603:


                  Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member


 The following documentary evidence was considered:


      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Aug 01.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 24 Sep 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 01.








                                    JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                    Panel Chair