RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02842
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her pregnancy discharge be changed to a hardship discharge so she  can
utilize her earned Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She unexpectedly became  pregnant  and  felt  attending  monthly  Unit
Training Assemblies (UTA’s) and Annual Training events would  be  very
difficult given the travel requirements  and  the  fact  she  was  not
married.  She discussed separation options with her unit personnel and
agreed that a hardship discharge would allow  her  to  keep  her  MGIB
benefits while a pregnancy discharge would not.  She was not aware she
was discharged for  pregnancy  until  she  was  turned  down  for  not
fulfilling her contract on applying for her benefits.  She has  served
her country and earned the benefits and was  only  a  year  away  from
finishing her enlistment when she separated.  She needs  the  benefits
to  enable  her  to  better  herself  through  education.   She  would
appreciate the Board making the necessary change to her discharge.

In support of her  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, and copies of her National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB)  Form  22,
Report of Separation and Record of Service,  a  separation  order,  an
honorable discharge certificate, and a DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a prior service member of the US Air  Force  (USAF)  with
two  years,  two  months  and  five  days  of  active  service  before
transferring to the Air National Guard (ANG) under  the  Palace  Chase
program.  She was a member of the Indiana Air National Guard (IN  ANG)
from 7 December 1998 through 1 October 1999  when  she  was  honorably
discharged as a senior airman (E-4)  after  serving  nine  months  and
twenty-five days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  After extensive research, DPPI states the
applicant falls under MGIB Chapter 30, Category 1, “Length  of  Active
Duty,” and  subcategory  “With  2  Years  Active  Duty.”   Under  said
category she  would  be  eligible  for  MGIB  benefits  after  serving
continuously for two years and receiving  a  hardship  discharge  from
active duty.  While she met the two-year requirement, she did not meet
the hardship discharge from active duty.  Her DD Form  214  shows  the
type  of  separation  as  a  “Release”  with  a  narrative  reason  of
Intradepartmental Transfer.  The  separation  code  MGQ  means  Palace
Chase.  Therefore she voluntarily separated from USAF and entered  the
ANG.  She was  not  discharged  from  active  duty  under  a  hardship
discharge and therefore does not meet MGIB requirements for receipt of
benefits.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She was shocked at the information (from the ANG  Advisory)  regarding
MGIB Chapter 30, Category 1.  She does  not  agree  with  the  fact  a
person released under a hardship after two years of active duty  could
qualify for benefits but a person who continues to serve in a  Reserve
component is not eligible for benefits that were paid for and  earned.
She was never aware that leaving the  Air  Force  under  Palace  Chase
would take away her MGIB benefits.  She states it does  not  make  any
sense.  She believes there is an exception to every rule and asks  the
Board to consider her  two  years  of  active  service  and  continued
Reserve service as no less valuable than someone serving two years  of
active duty and separating under hardship.   She  would  not  ask  for
access to her benefits if they were something that would  not  greatly
help her qualify of life.  Asking for her benefits is a  little  thing
in return for the time she gave her country as a dedicated  member  of
the Air Force.  She knows for a fact she would not have knowingly done
anything that would have jeopardized her access to her MGIB benefit as
they were a major factor in her decision to serve in the first  place.
She served her time to qualify for her benefits and  is  being  denied
them simply because she chose to serve part time rather  than  not  at
all which would have been  the  case  had  she  been  separated  under
hardship from active duty.  She asks  the  Board  to  please  make  an
exception in this case and allow her the use  of  her  MGIB  benefits.
Even half of a benefit, as a compromise, would be  better  than  none.
She appreciates the Board’s time in this matter and awaits  the  final
decision with anticipation.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________





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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we find no evidence to indicate that her separation from  the
Air Force was anything other than voluntary and in compliance with the
governing  AFI.   While  we  sympathize  with  her   position,   after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation  that  has  been  submitted  in
support of her appeal, we find no evidence she has  suffered  from  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, based on  the  available  evidence  of
record, we find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably  consider  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02842  in  Executive  Session  on  6  January  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov.03.



                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair