RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01124
            INDEX CODE 110.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records reflect that she was discharged for the convenience of the
government,  not  due  to  pregnancy,  so  she  may  be  eligible  for
educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her DD Form 214 gives a narrative reason for  discharge  as  pregnancy
but her records indicate she was discharged for the convenience of the
government. She is not qualified for MGIB benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  following  information  was  extracted  from  official  documents
supplied either by the applicant or her military records.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29  Nov  00  for  a
period of four years as a medical service apprentice.

On 14 Dec 00, the applicant signed DD Form 2366,  MGIB  Act  of  1984,
Statement of Understanding, which listed  the  requirements  for  MGIB
eligibility.

On 24 Mar 01, the applicant married an Air Force enlisted member.  She
was subsequently assigned to the 86th Medical  Squadron  at  Ramstein,
Germany, on a 36-month accompanied tour.

The applicant’s available military medical  records  report  diagnoses
and/or       treatment        for        endometriosis,        various
neck/shoulder/knee/lumbar/pelvic  pains,  chlamydia,  skin   problems,
depression and pregnancy. The medical entries do  not  report  spousal
abuse, severe mental distress, or an inability to function.

A 3 Jun 02  physical  therapy  consult  entry  reports  the  applicant
complained of left shoulder and neck pain for six weeks. She  did  not
know a specific injury but that it was worse with  prolonged  computer
work, lifting or speaking on the telephone and improved with rest. The
entry noted the applicant was on a pregnancy profile. (See Exhibit F.)

On 13 Aug 02, the applicant requested  a  voluntary  early  separation
from the Air Force due to pregnancy, with an effective date of 31  Oct
02. Her request was approved on 22 Aug 02.

On  27  Aug  02,  the  applicant  signed  an   out-processing   letter
acknowledging that she had been advised  to  seek  counseling  at  the
Education Office regarding  the  educational  assistance  benefits  to
which she was entitled due to her military service.

On a DD Form 2697, Report of Medical Assessment  for  her  separation,
dated 3 Sep 02,  the  applicant  indicated  she  was  taking  prenatal
vitamins and Prozac for depression.  The  health  provider  noted  the
applicant had been taking Prozac since Sep 01, which was effective.

On 5 Sep 02, the applicant requested terminal leave  beginning  11 Oct
02.

On 13 Sep 02, the applicant indicated on DD Form 2648,  Pre-Separation
Counseling  Checklist,  that  she  wanted  counseling  for   education
benefits under the MGIB. The form referred to two websites (www.va.gov
and www.gibillexpress.com) for information on this issue.

On 11 Oct 02, she began terminal leave.

On 31 Oct 02, the applicant was honorably released  from  active  duty
for pregnancy in the grade of airman  first  class  with  1  year,  11
months and 2 days of active service, and transferred to  the  inactive
Air Force Reserve to serve the remainder of  her  service  obligation.
She was given a separation program designator (SPD) code of MDF and  a
narrative reason for separation as “Pregnancy or Childbirth.”

On 7 Feb 03, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) denied her claim
for education benefits under the MGIB. The letter explained that to be
eligible a veteran  must  have  completed  at  least  three  years  of
continuous active duty service. The  three-year  active  duty  service
requirement is reduced for those who: (1) completed at least two years
of an initial active duty obligation of less  than  three  years;  (2)
completed two years of active duty and within one year of  separation,
entered a reserve or guard unit under an obligation to serve at  least
four years in the Selected Reserve; (3) were discharged  for  service-
connected disability, a medical condition which  pre-existed  service,
or hardship; (4) were discharged for the convenience of the government
after serving at least 20 months of an initial obligation of less than
three years or  after  serving  at  least  30  months  of  an  initial
obligation of  three  years  or  longer;  or  (5)  were  involuntarily
separated for the convenience  of  the  government  after  30  Sep  87
because of a qualifying reduction in force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS advises that review of the applicant’s records  and  her
DD Form 214 reflects her narrative reason for separation and  her  SPD
code  are  correct.   A  separation  for  the  “Convenience   of   the
Government” is a generic term used to describe a number  of  voluntary
and involuntary separations, and these separations have their own  SPD
codes  and  narrative  reasons.  DPPRS  believes  the  discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  She has provided no evidence or facts of  error
or  injustice  warranting  a  change  in  her  SPD  code.  Denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT advises that the DVA may award MGIB  education  benefits
to individuals who leave active duty prior to the original  separation
date. The benefit, if any, is  determined  by  the  number  of  months
served and the separation reason. The law provides for benefits if  an
individual  separates  with  less  than  24  months  active  duty  for
hardship, service connected-disability, disability that existed  prior
to service, a physical or mental condition that interferes with  duty,
or reduction in force. DPPAT concurs  with  DPPRS’  recommendation  to
deny.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states she was told her separation date had to be 31 Oct
02  because  of  the  rule  requiring  pregnancy  separations  to   be
approximately 60 days before the birth. She specifically asked if this
date would impact her MGIB benefits because it would be  approximately
1½ months before her second anniversary date and  was  told  it  would
have not impact.  Additional  issues  that  impacted  her  ability  to
perform her duties were an increasing level of depression and  spousal
abuse, both of which are documented in her medical records.  When  she
requested a  voluntary  release,  she  was  under  severe  mental  and
physical stress due to the abuse, the pregnancy and overwhelming  fear
of physical harm by her husband.  Her  significantly  impaired  mental
condition affected her ability to  perform  her  duties  and  make  an
informed decision as to which medical condition (pregnancy  or  mental
health) was the real reason for seeking voluntary release. She did not
understand her options.

In her handwritten note on the 3 Jun 02 physical therapy  consultation
she provided, the applicant claims that the hospital visit was due  to
her husband throwing her against a wall and she was too scared to  say
anything because he threatened to kill her.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  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 timely filed.

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  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the narrative  reason  for  her  separation  should  be
changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,  we  do
not find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force or the evidence of record. The available  medical  and  military
records  do  not  indicate  the  existence  of  an  incapacitating  or
unfitting medical condition or that the applicant was unable  to  make
an informed decision, nor has she provided any substantiation for  her
allegations. She requested a voluntary early  separation  due  to  her
pregnancy and the discharge’s narrative reason of pregnancy/childbirth
appears appropriate. We therefore agree with  the  recommendations  of
the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 November 2003 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01124 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Jun 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 13 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair