RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00686
						   INDEX CODE: 110.00
    						   COUNSEL:  NONE
    
    			   HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 be changed to reflect his legally-changed name.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His name was officially changed in his Air Force records but not on his DD Form 214. 

In support of his request, he submits a copy of AF Form 281, Notification of Change in Service Member’s Official Records.  His submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 August 2000, the applicant, who was then a Regular Air Force officer serving in the grade of captain, was tried by a general court-martial and, pursuant to his pleas, was convicted of five specifications of wrongful possession and/or use of, with the intent to deceive, various documents bearing his then alias name of xxxxxxxx.  The applicant was sentenced to dismissal from the Air Force, three years’ confinement, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  So much of the sentence that provided for a dismissal, confinement for 22 months and forfeiture of all pay and allowances was approved and affirmed on 17 August 2000.  On 27 August 2003, the Secretary of the Air Force approved and ordered his dismissal to be executed.  

On 15 September 2003, the applicant was dismissed from the Air Force.  He had served 14 years, 6 months and 27 days on active duty.  The period 17 May 2000 to 22 February 2002 was time lost due to confinement.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to applicant’s court-martial, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and F.

________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  AFPC/JA states the applicant was court-martialed in May 2000 for multiple violations of the UCMJ having to do with false use of the name xxxxxxx.  Specifically, the applicant pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, applying for a United States passport, which document was false in that it identified him by his false identity of xxxxxxxx.  Several of the other court-martial charges involved similar allegations of his use of the name xxxxxxxxx in conjunction with false and fraudulent behavior.  AFPC/JA states that petition for change of name typically used by jurisdictions in the state of Kansas requires that the applicant not only cite the reason for the name change but must declare that he or she has no outstanding judgments, has never been convicted of a crime and is not involved in any pending legal actions.  The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he was never accused of, nor did he plead guilty to any fraud in the acquisition or use of his adopted name.  His argument has always been it was legal under civilian law.  The Air Force argued that he was only accused of using it while in the military and it is illegal under military law.  Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, USAF/JAA reviewed this application and concurs with the AFPC/JA recommendation.  USAF/JAA states that the applicant’s request is to remove neither an error nor an injustice, rather it is a request of convenience.  The applicant served, was court-martialed and punitively separated under the name of xxxxxxxxxxx.  USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the Air Force evaluations and reiterates his initial contentions.  He states he was not found guilty of fraud.  Names assumed under common law are held by the civilian courts to be technically false but legal and usable as one’s true name if not assumed for a fraudulent purpose.  He never intended any deceit or fraud nor has it been alleged he committed fraud in the assumption and use of his adopted name.  He did not plead guilty to such and his actions were legal under civilian law.  He believes he is being treated differently from married females who assume who know the facts of their name change in spite of ignorance of the law or persons who claim to own property when they know it is in truth a financial institution that owns it.  The Air Force is now attempting to change the charges against him to false and fraudulent, which can only be viewed as attempted fraud by the Air Force to deny him the right to accurate records.  He believes his separation document should be changed to reflect the name under which he was serving when discharged.

The applicant’s review is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  His contentions in this regard were noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed these contentions.  We are in complete agreement with their assessments and adopt their findings as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant relief.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 15 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number 04-00686:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 04 w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 10 Aug 04 w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Aug 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 04.