ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03982

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be changed:

a.  To reflect her legally changed name.

	b.  To reflect her height as six feet and one-half inch versus six feet, two and one-half inch.

	c.  To include college credits for courses she completed while serving on active duty.

RESUME OF CASE:

According, to the applicant’s DD Form 214, she commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 31 May 1957.  On 28 July 1960, she was released from active duty, with an honorable characterization of service, and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  She was credited with 3 years, 1 month and 28 days of active service.

By, DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military or Naval Record, dated 3 December 1976, the applicant requested her name and gender be changed on the DD Form 214 to coincide with her legal name and gender change.  The applicant noted that she underwent gender reassignment surgery on 18 September 1973.  On 11 July 1974, her request to legally change her name was approved by the New York State Supreme Court.  In support of her request she provided a copy of her entered Court Order and letter from her physician.  On 9 February 1977, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request noting under the provisions of the governing regulation that name changes are not permitted on official Air Force records when the individual no longer has affiliation with the Air Force (Exhibit A).

By, DD Form 149 dated 28 November 2007, the applicant requested reconsideration to amend her DD Form 214 to coincide with her legal name and gender change.  On 15 January 2008, the Board staff reviewed the documentation provided and informed the applicant that the documentation did not meet the criteria for reconsideration and that reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the original application was submitted.  Furthermore, the reiteration of facts that have been previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case (Exhibit B). 

By applications, dated 1 August 2015, 30 September 2015 and 1 February 2016, the applicant requests reconsideration to have her name and gender on her DD Form 214 changed to coincide with her legal name and gender change.  She also requests her DD Form 214 be further amended to correct her height and include college credits she completed while on active duty.  She states her previous requests to change her name and gender were denied because policies in effect at that time prohibited it.  Her birth certificate, passport, and social security number have been amended to reflect her current name and gender.  She notes the Air Force has allowed an active duty officer who also underwent gender reassignment surgery to continue to serve and her discharge will bear her amended name and sex.  She did not apply for veterans benefits due to the embarrassment it would have caused due to the name listed on her discharge.  Today, homosexuals and transgender individuals are being allowed to enter and serve in the armed forces.  She simply wants her name and sex corrected to allow her to display her pride for serving in the armed forces.  This injustice can be easily and effectively remedied by issuing a corrected DD Form 214 listing her current legal name.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MR memorandum, Guidance to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, dated 9 March 2015, states that while the AFBCMR generally has the authority to correct an applicant’s records to reflect a legal change in the applicant’s name, it should exercise discretion in doing so.  In the past, the AFBCMR has rarely corrected a record to reflect a name change when the record in question was accurate at the time it was produced.  The Board may choose to depart from this precedent when the facts and/or equities can be distinguished from past denials and the applicant demonstrates that allowing the DD Form 214 to remain uncorrected would constitute an injustice.  Because the DD Form 214 is primarily created for the benefit of the veteran to establish entitlements to various government programs or in seeking employment with organizations that grant veteran’s preferences, a name change on the DD Form 214 may be appropriate when the veteran asserts that presenting their DD Form 214 which lists their old name effectively requires them to explain their personal history which they find needlessly intrusive and is thus an injustice.  This type of injustice may arise in situations such as when the name change is transgender related or associated with a divorce.  Therefore, correction to an applicant’s name on a DD Form 214 is only a reasonable outcome when the applicant clearly demonstrates that allowing the DD Form 214 to remain uncorrected would constitute an injustice.  This memorandum is advisory only and is not intended to predetermine outcomes or otherwise restrict the AFBCMR’s authority. 

A complete copy of the SAF/MR memorandum is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request for her name on her DD Form 214 dated 28 July 1960 to be changed, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  According to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Military Personnel Records System, records of former service members are not amended unless evidence proves the name used while serving with the Air Force was erroneously recorded.  The evidence of record reflects the applicant enlisted, served and was discharged under a male name.  They further note they are not the deciding entity for updating the DD Form 214 and her request should be forwarded to the appropriate office for final consideration. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/JA recommends granting the applicant’s request in accordance with the guidance issued to the AFBCMR by SAF/MR.

The name used on the applicant’s DD Form 214 correctly reflects her name at the time of her discharge – it is not erroneous.  According to the plain language of AFI 36-2608, a name change such as that requested by the applicant would not be permitted.  The applicant states that having a DD Form 214 with her former name essentially reveals her transgender status, exposing her to a social stigma and discrimination, thus imposing an injustice.  She has provided adequate proof that her name was legally changed and the requested correction is limited to the DD Form 214 – “a document primarily created for the benefit of the veteran to establish entitlement to various government programs or in seeking employment with organizations that grant a veterans' preference.”  The relief requested is relatively limited and is tailored to spare the applicant the need to explain her personal history to whomever she presents the DD Form 214.  In our view, the applicant has presented information similar to that described in the 9 March 2015, SAF/MRB memorandum.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She is confused and disturbed by the refusal to change her name and sex on her DD Form 214.  Since the Navy and Army allow for such changes, then why is an honorably discharged Air Force veteran not offered the same consideration?  She has had to deny her military service due to the devastating results that would follow since her DD Form 214 does not reflect her current name and sex.  She is the widow of an Army combat veteran and will be buried alongside him, but her headstone will reflect her married name with no reference to her military service.  She can’t even take advantage of the many private and public perks afforded to honorably discharged veterans because to apply for those benefits would require her to expose herself to embarrassing questions that she hoped she left behind many decades ago.

She is further confused as to why she is being referred to as a transgender when that social construct never was applied to her when diagnosed as a transsexual with intersex indicators.  She finds the term repulsive and does not accept it because it does not apply to her now or in the past.

She wonders why on correspondence she has received from this office she is still being addressed by her former male name.  She would like to be addressed by her legal name awarded by the court.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicant’s request for her DD Form 214 to be corrected to reflect a name different than that reflected on her current DD Form 214, reflect her height as six feet and one-half inch and include college credits for courses she completed while serving on active duty, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  

According to the governing directives for the DD Form 214, the DD Form 214 will provide an accurate and complete summation of active military personnel service.  At the time of discharge, the applicant’s name was accurately recorded.  Furthermore, the governing directives do not provide authority to change the contents of the DD Form 214 that have an effective date after the close out date of the document and did not occur during the period of recorded military service.  The effective date of the name change is after the effective date of the period of service recorded on the DD Form 214.  The contested height on the DD Form 214 is recorded as indicated by the applicant.  The data is administrative and does not impact benefits or entitlements.  The applicant did not provide disputing evidence to the contrary to support her request.  Nor, has she provided evidence to support the claim of missing education on her DD Form 214 or that it was completed during the period the DD Form 214 was published.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By rebuttal, she is requesting her DD Form 214 be amended to coincide with all her other legal documents (social security, birth certificate, licenses, etc.).  As it stands now her DD Form 214 forces her to deny she served three years of honorable service.

The request to change her height and add missing education credits is not an issue at this point.  She went on to further her education and those missing credits would be of no value and her height has diminished due to age and spinal surgery.  

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit M.

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 an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request that her DD Form 214 be amended to correct her height and include college courses she completed while on active duty.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the AFPC/DPSOR opinion and recommendation and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting this portion of the requested relief.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we find sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s name on her DD Form 214.  Although the applicant’s DD Form 214 was technically correct at the time it was issued, it is our opinion that should the applicant be required to present her DD Form 214 with her former name to external audiences; the applicant’s circumstances would require her to disclose personal history that is needlessly intrusive.  Therefore we believe allowing the applicant’s DD Form 214 to remain uncorrected would constitute an injustice.  Further, we find the applicant’s certified court order and other forms of government and state issued IDs, which reflect her name change sufficient proof that her name was legally changed.  Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.  

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her 28 July 1960, separation be declared void and a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be issued to reflect the applicant's current legal name in Block 1. 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03982 in Executive Session on 25 October 2016, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03982 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  Memorandum, AFBCMR dated 9 Feb 77, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jan 08, w/atchs
	Exhibit C.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit D.  DD Forms 149, dated 1 Aug 15, 30 Sep 15 and 
			  1 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MR, dated 9 Mar 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 16.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 20 Apr 16.
	Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Jun 16
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 17 Jun 16.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit K.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Aug 16.
	Exhibit L.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 16.
	Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Dec 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.