RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-01300
            INDEX CODE 110.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her 1989 discharge be changed from “Inability
to perform prescribed duties due to parenthood” to “Hardship.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her daughter was born on 19 Dec 88. Because both she and  her  husband
were active duty members, they had to provide a “Dependent Care Form.”
They were unable to name a caretaker for her  daughter  in  case  they
were deployed. As a result, one of them had to be discharged.  She did
not want to be discharged but had no choice. Having no one to care for
a newborn is a definite hardship for  two  active  duty  parents.  She
recently discovered while seeking a Veterans Affairs  (VA)  home  loan
that her DD Form 214 required a narrative reason of “Hardship.”

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


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period  of  four
years on 26 Aug 87. She was assigned to the 842nd  Strategic  Hospital
at Grand Forks AFB, ND, as a medical material specialist.

On 19 Dec 88, the applicant, who was married to  an  enlisted  member,
gave birth to a daughter.

A 25 Jan 89 Record of Individual Counseling  (RIC)  to  the  applicant
noted that, since both the applicant and her spouse were  active  duty
members, she was required by AFR 35-59  (Dependent  Care)  to  provide
care for her child in case she was deployed. As she had thus  far  not
provided the unit with an AF Form 357 detailing the  arrangements  for
her dependent’s care, she was ineligible  for  worldwide  availability
and was in violation of AFR 35-59.  She was directed to complete an AF
Form 357 no later than 15 Feb 89 or she would be  subject  to  further
action.

On 25 Jan 89, the applicant responded that she was unable  to  provide
proper care for her dependent and would not be able to do  so  in  the
future.  She requested discharge.

The applicant’s Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing  25 Aug  88,
24  Nov  88,  and  23  Feb  89,  noted  her  concentration  and   work
effectiveness varied from mediocre  to  improved  to  acceptable.  The
evaluators attributed this primarily  to  her  pregnancy  and  related
concerns. On the last APR, the indorser  indicated  he  supported  the
applicant’s desire to separate.

On 24 Feb 89, the commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to
recommend an honorable discharge due to her inability  to  obtain  the
necessary care for her dependent as  required  by  regulation  and  as
evidenced by the 25 Jan 89 RIC. The applicant  consulted  counsel  and
waived her right to submit statements.

On 24 Feb 89, the commander subsequently recommended the applicant for
an honorable discharge,  noting  some  derogatory  data  such  as  her
receiving three letters of counseling (LOCs), an Article 15, placement
on the control roster, and an unfavorable information file (UIF).  The
commander stated he insured that all rehabilitative efforts  had  been
exhausted and he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R).


Legal review  on  8  Mar  89  noted  the  evidence  substantiated  the
applicant’s parenthood interfered with military service and  discharge
was warranted.  An honorable discharge without  P&R  was  recommended.
The  discharge  authority  concurred  and  directed  the   applicant’s
honorable separation.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 10 Mar 89 in  the  grade  of
airman first class for inability to perform prescribed duties  due  to
parenthood. The DD Form 214 erroneously reported she had  2  years,  6
months and 15 days of active service; however, this was  corrected  on
27 Aug 90 to accurately reflect 1 year, 6 months and 15 days of active
service.

Eligibility for VA loans requires a military member  who  enlisted  in
the applicant’s timeframe to have 2 years  of  active  service,  among
other requirements such as good credit, or 181 days  of  service  with
separation  as  the  result  of  hardship,  reduction-in-force  (RIF),
medical disability or convenience of the government.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was  within  the
discretion of the discharge  authority,  and  was  not  shown  by  the
applicant to be erroneous or unjust. Denial is therefore recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 28 May 04 for review and comment within 30 days.   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  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded her reason for discharge should be  changed  to  “hardship.”
The applicant was ineligible for worldwide  availability  because  she
could not comply with the  dependent  care  arrangements  required  by
regulation. She chose to have  a  child,  and  while  pregnancy  often
requires  inconvenient  adjustments,  it  is  not  a  “hardship.”  The
applicant was separated because both she and her husband  were  active
duty military and could not identify a caretaker for  their  dependent
child, not because this was a “hardship,” a medical disability, a RIF,
or convenient  for  the  government.  The  applicant  was  treated  no
differently and given the same narrative reason for discharge as other
active duty members who cannot obtain the necessary care for dependent
children  required  by  regulation.  The  narrative  reason  for   her
discharge is correct and she has not established  otherwise.  Further,
eligibility for VA loans is not only determined by a military member’s
narrative  reason  for  discharge  but  also   by   satisfying   other
requirements.  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 not sustained 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 14 July 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01300 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 May 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.





                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair