RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04053

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation and her separation code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation is incorrect.

The applicant states that had the Air Force sought a  second  opinion,  they
would have discovered that she was not  pregnant  and  only  had  a  medical
problem.  As such, she should not have been separated.

In support of the appeal, the applicant  submits  an  attending  physician’s
statement, dated 8 May 1970.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 December  1968  for  a
period of four years.  She  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
airman first class.

On 2 February 1970, she requested to be  discharged  immediately  under  the
provisions of AFM 39-10 and provided a Certificate  of  Pregnancy,  prepared
by the wing dispensary, that stated she had been examined and  found  to  be
pregnant, with an estimated date of confinement of 10 September 1970.

She underwent a separation physical  on  4  February  1970,  and  was  found
qualified for separation.  A Report  of  Medical  Examination,  prepared  on
that date, indicates intrauterine pregnancy - eight weeks gestation.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and on 11 February 1970,  she
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-10  (Convenience  of
the Government) and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of  2.   She
completed 1 year and 2 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR  Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  application  be  denied  and
states, in part, that the action and disposition in  this  case  are  proper
and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force   directives   that
implement the law.  While  on  active  duty,  she  was  diagnosed  as  being
pregnant and three days later, requested to be  discharged.   Her  diagnosis
of pregnancy at eight weeks gestation was noted on her  separation  physical
and no unfitting medical conditions were  noted  that  would  have  required
evaluation in the disability  system.   She  submits  a  copy  of  a  health
insurance claim, dated 8 May 1970, that lists her diagnoses as  Tubo-ovarian
abscesses bilateral, extensive pelvic endometriosis,  requiring  surgery  on
28 March 1970 to remove the right ovary and tube, lyses  of  adhesions,  and
removal of a cyst from the  left  ovary,  and  an  incidental  appendectomy.
However,  there  is  no  medical  documentation  provided  that   explicitly
documents that she was not pregnant prior to that surgery.  At the  time  of
her discharge, Air Force policy was to discharge women who  became  pregnant
“with the  least  practicable  delay  after  a  determination  that  she  is
pregnant.”  There was  a  provision  for  retention  on  active  duty  until
delivery if it was “in the best interest of the Air Force.”   However,  upon
becoming a parent of a minor child, discharge was immediate.   She  did  not
request a waiver for retention in the Air Force and requested  an  immediate
discharge.  In 1970, there was the  possibility  that  her  urine  pregnancy
test was falsely positive and she was in fact not  pregnant.   In  addition,
she had a history of irregular menses  and  had  previously  been  on  birth
control.  At the time of her  surgery,  she  was  apparently  not  pregnant;
however, that does not prove  she  was  not  pregnant  two  months  earlier.
Furthermore,  the  conditions  diagnosed  at  surgery  are  cause  for  both
infertility and miscarriage.

The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  at
the time.  In addition, the discharge  was  within  the  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.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on  11  April  2003  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  In this respect, we note that  three  days  after  being
diagnosed as being  pregnant  the  applicant  requested  to  be  immediately
discharged.  Her separation physical noted her  diagnosis  of  pregnancy  at
eight weeks gestation and no unfitting medical conditions  that  would  have
required evaluation in the disability system.  We  also  note  that  at  the
time of her discharge, Air Force policy was to discharge  women  who  became
pregnant “with the least practicable delay after a  determination  that  she
is pregnant.”  In the applicant’s case, once this  determination  was  made,
she immediately requested to be discharged, her request  was  approved,  and
she was discharged within 12 days.  The applicant contends that had the  Air
Force sought a second opinion, they would have discovered that she  was  not
pregnant and would not have separated her on 11 February 1970.   In  support
of this contention, she submits a health insurance claim, dated  8 May  1970
listing her diagnoses as Tubo-ovarian abscesses bilateral, extensive  pelvic
endometriosis, requiring surgery on 28 March 1970 to remove the right  ovary
and tube, lyses of adhesions, and removal of a cyst  from  the  left  ovary,
and an incidental appendectomy.  However, this evidence  does  not  persuade
us that she was not pregnant prior to her surgery.   Therefore,  the  action
and disposition in this case  appear  to  have  been  proper  and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force  directives  that  implement  the  law.
Hence, 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 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  Docket  Number  BC-2002-04053
in Executive Session on 5 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair