Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03613
Original file (BC 2014 03613.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03613

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation “Pregnancy” be changed to 
reflect “Hardship Related to Pregnancy.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she became pregnant she spoke with her first sergeant who 
approved and stated that if she remained on active duty it would 
create a hardship because she and her husband worked the same 
duty shift.  She tried to change her shift; however, was unable 
to do so.  She further states that her narrative reason for 
separation is affecting her benefits from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.  She was informed that the narrative reason 
must be listed as a hardship.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 July 
2001.

On 1 February 2003, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 14 days 
of active service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  

DPSOR finds there is limited documentation contained within the 
applicant’s military record to confirm the circumstances and 
facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  Absent the 
complete documentation, there is a presumption of regularity in 
which the applicant’s date of separation for pregnancy was 
approved in accordance with AFI 36-3208, chapter 3, paragraph 
3.17, based on a request from the applicant.  Based on the 
presumption of regularity, the discharge authority approved the 
applicant’s request for separation to be effective 1 February 
2003.  Therefore, the separation program designator (SPD) code, 
narrative reason for separation, and character of service appear 
to be consistent with the procedural guidelines in the 
regulation for pregnancy or childbirth.

The applicant has not submitted a timely application.  It has 
been approximately 11 years since the applicant separated from 
the Air Force and the applicant did not address the aspects of 
her separation within 3 years of discharge.  Furthermore, based 
on the presumption of regularity, the discharge to include the 
SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of 
service was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant 
provided no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing 
of her discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 November 2014 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office.


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.  Due to the 
limited records available and based upon the presumption of 
regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, we must 
assume that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation was 
proper and in compliance with appropriate directives.  We find 
no evidence of error or injustice in the available records and 
without evidence to support the applicant’s appeal we find no 
basis upon which to favorably consider this application.  
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis 
exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request.




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-03613 in Executive Session on 30 April 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 August 2014, w/atch.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 November 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 November 2014.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02597

    Original file (BC 2014 02597.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02597 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Hardship” rather than “Pregnancy.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She elected to separate based on hardship due to domestic violence and not her pregnancy. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02437

    Original file (BC 2014 02437.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02437 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to “Pregnancy Hardship” or “Hardship.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she was discharged she was told her discharge was for pregnancy/hardship, but her DD Form 214 only states “pregnancy.” The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00690

    Original file (BC 2014 00690.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00690 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect “Hardship” as the narrative reason for separation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01120

    Original file (BC-2013-01120.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested to separate for “Pregnancy” and has provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in establishing the narrative reason of her separation as “Pregnancy.” Based on the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s separation for “Pregnancy” was consistent with the substantive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01120

    Original file (BC 2013 01120.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested to separate for “Pregnancy” and has provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in establishing the narrative reason of her separation as “Pregnancy.” Based on the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s separation for “Pregnancy” was consistent with the substantive...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02287

    Original file (BC 2014 02287.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The records show the applicant submitted a voluntary separation application for a separation of 2 Feb 09 based on pregnancy. The applicant contend she completed her punishment; however, she separated on 2 Feb 09 so she clearly did not complete her suspended punishment. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05837

    Original file (BC 2012 05837.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05837

    Original file (BC 2012 05837.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01382

    Original file (BC 2014 01382.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her date of separation (DOS) for discharge be changed to 3 Jun 86. Her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Expiration Term of Service.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was pregnant at the time of her discharge, but did not request an early discharge for pregnancy. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider her untimely application because she was receiving Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits and care up until 10 Aug 12, when she was rated ineligible for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02702

    Original file (BC 2014 02702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s record documents her commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge for “Entry Level Performance or Conduct” - failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program (not for pregnancy, as the applicant contends) on 17 Aug 90 and that the applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification by placing her signature on the memorandum which is also dated 17 Aug 90. Additionally, there is documentation in the record to show that the base separations...