RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00392
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 August 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be changed to reflect a different reenlistment eligibility  (RE)
code to enable her to join the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The circumstances surrounding her separation was that she  had  given  birth
to her son, her husband had departed for Korea, and  she  lost  her  in-home
day care provider all within a four-month period.   With  inadequate  backup
planning to support any special needs in their Family Child Care  Plan,  and
very little support from her work section, she separated with an  assumption
that if her circumstances changed she could return  to  the  military.   Her
narrative reason for separation was parenthood, or custody of  minor  child.
Since that time her circumstances have changed  and  improved  tremendously.
She still has the desire to serve in the Air Force either on active duty  or
in the Reserve.  Her discharge may have  been  equitable  and  in  the  best
interest of the Air Force at the time, but her RE  code  is  inequitable  in
that, it is solely based on one isolated incident  in  her  81-month  career
with the Air Force.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty;  Enlisted  Performance
Reports, and a letter of recommendation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 May 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the  age
of 24 in the grade of airman (E-2) for a period  of  four  years.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of  staff  sergeant  (E-5)  effective  1
June 2001.

On 30 December 2002, the applicant received a  Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)
for being late to work.  On 14 January 2003, the applicant received  an  LOC
for failure to obey an  order  or  regulation.   On  17  January  2003,  the
applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  disrespect  toward  a
superior commissioned officer; and, insubordination conduct toward a  senior
noncommissioned officer.  On 31 January 2003, the applicant received an  LOR
for dereliction of duty.  On 7 February 2003, the applicant received an  LOR
for dereliction of duty/failure to obey an order or regulation.

On 11 March 2003, her commander notified the applicant that  she  was  being
recommended for discharge from the Air Force  for  parenthood,  specifically
failure to meet military obligations because of  parental  responsibilities.
On 12 March 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt, waived her right to  a
hearing before an administrative discharge board, and submitted a  statement
in her own behalf requesting discharge.  On 14  March  2003,  her  commander
recommended the applicant be discharged with an  honorable  characterization
of service under the authority  of  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,  without
probation or rehabilitation.  On 19 March 2003,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate
found  the  case  legally  sufficient.   On  3  April  2003,  the  discharge
authority approved the discharge and directed the  applicant  be  discharged
with an honorable characterization of service under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-3208, chapter 7, without probation or rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged  effective  8  April  2003  with  an  honorable
characterization of  service,  a  separation  code  of  HDG  (parenthood  or
custody of minor child), and a reentry code of 2C  (involuntarily  separated
with an honorable discharge).  She served 6 years and 11  months  on  active
duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  change  her  RE
code.  DPPRS states  the  applicant’s  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing.  Additionally, she provided no facts warranting  a
change to her RE code.

A copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  change  her  RE
code.  DPPAE states there is  no  evidence  in  the  applicant’s  record  to
support that the RE code she received is incorrect or  that  it  created  an
injustice.

The DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force advisory opinion, the Board received a letter
of recommendation from an individual in the applicant’s  former  chain  of
command.

The letter of recommendation 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 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 probable error or injustice.  The  applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case  file  was
erroneous, her substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  her  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  We find the RE code which was  issued
at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately   reflects   the
circumstances of her separation and we do not find this code to be in  error
or unjust.  In view of the foregoing and absent evidence  to  the  contrary,
we conclude that no basis exists upon which to  recommend  favorable  action
on the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00392:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Feb 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair