RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01674
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation and Separation Program  Designator
(SPD) code be changed from “Pregnancy” to “Medically Disqualified  not
for Cause.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was medically disqualified from her career field on  13  May  2002
and shortly thereafter she discovered she was pregnant.  She  notified
the separation’s office of her situation and her intent  to  separate.
She was told that her reenlistment bonus would not be recouped due  to
the fact that she was no longer technically qualified  in  her  career
field due to illness and that she should pursue a pregnancy  discharge
instead of a medical discharge.  She followed  the  advice  given  and
separated on 1 September  2002,  with  an  AFSC  of  9A300  (medically
disqualified not  for  cause).   Subsequent  to  her  separation,  she
received notification that her reenlistment bonus was  being  recouped
based upon her pregnancy separation code.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
a statement from the NCOIC of relocations, copies of her waiver status
report, her request for  early  separation  and  additional  documents
associated with the issues cited in her contentions.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 3 September 1997 for a period of four years.  On  3 November  2000,
she reenlisted for a period of six  years  and  accepted  a  Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).  The applicant was progressively promoted to
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date  of
rank of 1 March 2002.  During her enlistment, she  served  as  an  Air
Traffic Controller, with the Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC)  of
1C151.

On  30  May  2002,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for   Early
Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation,  AF  Form
31, due to her pregnancy, with a separation date of 1 September  2002.
Her commander recommended approval  due  to  the  applicant’s  pending
medical disqualification.  The applicant’s request was approved by the
separation authority.

The applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208 (Pregnancy), with an SPD code of KDF, on 1 September  2002.   She
had completed a total of 4 years,  11  months  and  29  days  and  was
serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.
 She received an RE Code of  1J,  which  defined  means  "Eligible  to
reenlist, but elects separation."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  states  that  voluntary   separations,
including voluntary pregnancy separations, are subject  to  recoupment
of the unearned portions of reenlistment bonuses.  On 14  March  2002,
the applicant presented to  her  flight  surgeon  with  complaints  of
depressed mood.  She was subsequently diagnosed with “minor depressive
disorder” and was  prescribed  with  antidepressant  and  assigned  to
duties not involving controlling.  On 27 June 2002, the applicant  was
disqualified from air  traffic  controller  duty.   The  BCMR  Medical
Consultant indicates that depressive disorders are  disqualifying  for
Air Traffic Controller duty  but  not  necessarily  continued  general
military service.   In  the  applicant’s  case,  her  mild  depressive
condition was not unfitting or  disqualifying  for  continued  general
military service and did not  require  evaluation  in  the  Air  Force
Disability Evaluation System.  Since the applicant’s condition  showed
an excellent response to treatment and she was a  superior  performer,
she was a prime candidate for cross training and retention  on  active
duty.  The applicant indicated that she did not  want  to  cross-train
into another career field and desired to separate instead.  Since  the
applicant initiated voluntary  separation  under  the  provisions  for
pregnancy, there was no action on  assigning  her  to  another  career
field for cross training.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is
at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied.  DPPRSP  believes
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant  was  briefed
by the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) about cross training;  however,
she elected a pregnancy separation with the misunderstanding that  her
reenlistment money would not be recouped.   DPPRSP  concurs  with  the
BCMR Medical Consultant, in that the  applicant  would  have  probably
been cross-trained and retained on active duty.  Since she elected  to
separate, there was  no  option  to  offer  cross  training.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code of “1J” is correct.  No evidence was  presented  to  support
changing the RE code.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that the recoupment of a  Selective  Reenlistment
Bonus (SRB) is based on the Separation Program Designator (SPD)  code.
No evidence was provided to show  this  to  be  determined  a  medical
disqualification discharge.  Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRSP’s  recommendation
of denial to change the SPD code, the SRB  recoupment  remains  valid.
The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant  on  6
February 2004 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  applicant’s
submission and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that relief is
warranted.  Prior to the applicant’s pregnancy, she was having medical
problems and was ultimately medically  disqualified  from  her  career
field.  In support of the  applicant’s  appeal,  the  local  Chief  of
Relocations and Employments provided a  statement  substantiating  the
applicant’s assertion of miscounseling.   Additionally,  AFI  36-2606,
paragraph 2.17.2, stipulates “SRB termination and  recoupment  is  not
appropriate when an airman is not technically  qualified  in  the  SRB
skill because of injury, illness,  or  other  impairment  that  didn’t
result from misconduct.”  It is our opinion that,  had  the  applicant
not relied on  erroneous  information,  she  would  have  applied  for
separation in accordance with the cited Air Force  instruction,  which
precludes recoupment action.  We, therefore, believe any doubt  should
be resolved in  favor  of  the  applicant  and  that  the  applicant’s
unearned portion  of  her  SRB  not  be  recouped.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that her  narrative  reason
for separation, issued in conjunction with her Honorable Discharge  on
1 September 2002, was “Conditions Not  a  Disability,”  that  she  was
issued a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of  “GFV”  and  that
the unearned portion of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) not  be
recouped.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 March 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
              Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01674.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 21 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Nov 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Nov 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-01674




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that her narrative
reason for separation, issued in conjunction with her Honorable
Discharge on 1 September 2002, was “Conditions Not a Disability,“ that
she was issued a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “GFV” and
that the unearned portion of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
not be recouped.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency