Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03839
Original file (BC-2005-03839.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03839
      INDEX CODE:  110.00; 110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  10 APRIL 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  from   “pregnancy   or
childbirth” to “hardship.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did an injustice to herself by declaring she got  out  of  the  military
only on the  basis  of  being  pregnant.   She  would  like  to  revise  her
discharge reason to hardship.  It was  a  hardship  for  both  she  and  her
husband to be on active duty working shifts at  a  24-hour  operation.   She
submitted no supporting documentation.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 October 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 20 in the grade of airman basic for a  period  of  four  years.   She
completed basic military training and  technical  training  school  and  was
assigned duties as a command post journeyman.  According to  her  separation
document,  she  was  discharged  on  31  October  2003  for  “pregnancy   or
childbirth.”

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS  states  the  applicant’s  voluntary
request for separation is not on  file  in  the  master  personnel  records;
however,  based  on  available  documentation,  it  appears  the   applicant
voluntarily submitted an application for separation under the provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 for pregnancy or childbirth.  DPPRS affirms the  separation  was
consistent with the procedural requirements of the discharge regulation  and
within the discretion of the  separation  authority.   DPPRS  concludes  the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
occurred  in  the  separation  processing  and  the  narrative  reason   for
separation is correct and no corrective active action is required.

DPPRS’ evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to  the  applicant  on  23
December 2005 for review and comment (Exhibit D).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  find  no   impropriety   in   the
characterization of the applicant's discharge.  Available  records  indicate
her request for separation  for  pregnancy  or  childbirth  was  voluntarily
submitted, and it appears that  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation.   Therefore,  we  do   not   find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that  she
was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.
  Thus,  we  conclude  that  the  discharge  proceedings  were  proper,  the
narrative  reason  for  separation  issued  was  in  accordance   with   the
appropriate  directives,  and  characterization   of   the   discharge   was
appropriate to the existing  circumstances.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s
request is denied.

________________________________________________________________

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  AFBMCR  BC-2005-03839  in
Executive Session on 10 May 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  HQ AFPC/DPPRS Letter, dated 21 Dec 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.




                                   MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00078

    Original file (BC-2006-00078.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00078 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 JUL 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Item 15a, “Member contributed to Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00209

    Original file (BC-2006-00209.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPRS affirms based on the documentation in the master personnel records, the separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the discretion of the separation authority.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03216

    Original file (BC-2004-03216.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts that, based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. As the applicant presents no facts warranting a change to her SPD code, denial is recommended. On 3 Feb 03, she requested discharge from active duty due to pregnancy and separated on 1 May 03...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02958

    Original file (BC-2005-02958.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02958 INDEX CODE: 128.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 28 JANUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be relieved from her Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) debt. On 21 January 2005, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve PALACE FRONT program for one year. DPPRS concludes the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01150

    Original file (BC-2006-01150.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01150 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03839

    Original file (BC-2004-03839.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 May 2004, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) performed a fitness determination only, concluding the applicant was unfit for continued military duty due to asthma. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The DPPD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01124

    Original file (BC-2003-01124.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). (See Exhibit F.) On 13 Aug 02, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00055

    Original file (BC-2006-00055.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00055 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Jul 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to a code that does not require repayment of the unearned portion of her Selective Reenlistment Bonus...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194

    Original file (BC-2005-02194.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04094

    Original file (BC-2010-04094.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04094 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation “Pregnancy or Childbirth” be changed to a medical discharge. On 20 Oct 11, in a corrected advisory, DPSOS further clarified their evaluation and stated since the applicant was not able to complete her service...