RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03671

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and Special Order Number AC-011384, be amended to reflect rather than .

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is applying for Federal employment and would like his military records to reflect his current name.  The name difference may cause him to be ineligible for employment.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 May 1992.

On 31 May 2012, the applicant was released from active duty and retired on 1 June 2012.  He was credited with 20 years and 2 days of active service and 5 years, 11 months, and 17 days of foreign service.

On 20 April 2016, the applicant was forwarded a copy of the SAF/MR memorandum, dated 9 March 2015, that was provided in order to comply with 10 U.S.C. §1556.  Specifically, the memorandum notes that the DD Form 214 is 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.  However, any such name change should be limited only to the DD Form 214; any change to an applicant’s other records to reflect a post-service name change should rarely be recommended, and only in the most unusual cases.  The AFBCMR should require proof that the applicant’s name was legally changed.  A signed and authenticated court order should be required.  Further, the correction should be to the DD Form 214 and for the limited purposes of mitigating an injustice caused by use of the DD Form 214.  A copy of this was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits D through F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-Transitions recommends denial indicating although the applicant provided legal proof of the name change, they non-concur with the argument to correct the DD Form 214 and retirement orders, since the name change occurred after the applicant’s retirement effective date.  Per AFI 36-3203, paragraph 2.14:  Rescinding and Amending Orders.  A retirement order, if regular and valid, is final on the effective date of retirement.  It may only be revoked, rescinded, or amended if there is fraud, manifest error, mathematical error, mistake of law, or substantial new evidence that renders the order invalid.  The appropriate headquarters may amend or rescind retirement orders in rare situations when a member is unable to complete retirement processing before the effective retirement date due to circumstances such as medical hold, civil confinement, late departure from overseas or when member is subject to the prohibiting conditions in Table 2.1 or restrictions in Table 2.2.

The applicant requested retirement on 7 June 2011, with an effective date of retirement of 1 June 2012.  On 21 June 2011, the applicant’s retirement request was approved, generating retirement orders with the last name that is reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Upon review of this request, DP2STM-Transition confirmed that, as of the retirement effective date of 1 June 2012, the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflected the applicant’s last name as the last name that is on his DD Form 214.

Retirement documents, such as the retirement order and DD Form 214, are historical representations of events that occurred at a specific period of time and as not typically altered when an event, such as a name change, occurred after the retirement effective date.  A retirement order is final on the effective date of retirement.  It may only be revoked, rescinded, or amended if there is fraud, manifest error, mathematical error, mistake of law, or substantial new evidence that renders the order invalid.

In the applicant’s request for relief, he included a court order, dated 15 October 2013, which approved the name change, well after the retirement effective date.  A name change occurring after the retirement effective date does not warrant an amendment to the retirement order.  If the change had occurred prior to the retirement effective date, amendment of the order would be appropriate.

Additionally, they contacted, via telephone, the staffing team at the Air Force Personnel Center, which follows the hiring practices of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  The representative indicated that when an individual applies for employment and has had a name change since discharge or retirement, the individual may simply include the applicable document that supports the change, such as a court order, along with the retirement/discharge documents, to confirm his or her military service.  Further, the staffing agency uses the applicant’s Social Security Number as a primary reference for confirming an applicant’s identity.  As such, there would be no impact on the applicant’s eligibility to compete for federal employment.

No fraud, manifest error, mathematical error, mistake of law, or other error occurred prior to retirement that renders the applicant’s order invalid.  Since the difference between the retirement documents and the employment application can be easily explained to the hiring agency through submission of the court order authorizing the action, there is no impact on the applicant’s ability to compete for federal employment.  It is not appropriate to alter documents, i.e., rewrite history, when no error occurred.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-Transition evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating AFI 36-3202 is the governing directive for the DD Form 214 and it directs the name on a DD Form 214 be recorded as listed on the military member’s Enlistment/Reenlistment Document-Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 4), dated 13 March 2007.  A review of the applicant’s reenlistment documents reflects the same name on his DD Form 214 and remained that until the DD Form 214 was published on 31 May 2012.  The effective date of the name change was 15 October 2013; after the applicant separated from service.  For instances where a name change is effective after the publication of a DD Form 214, applicants show those agencies providing the benefit/entitlement or service, the DD Form 214 as prepared, and any/all legal documentation to explain such a change (e.g., amended birth certificate, an AF Form 281 (as provided to the applicant by AFPC/DP2SSM, marriage/divorce decrees, court documents, etc.)).  The situation is not unique and it’s a common misperception that the DD Form 214 must be corrected each time a name is changed.  The applicant did not provide evidence of an injustice.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating the name used on the applicant’s DD Form 214 correctly reflects his name at the time of his 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 has submitted no evidence and offered no argument that the appearance of his former name on his DD Form 214 constitutes an injustice.  His name change is not clearly related to a transgender status or divorce; it is not readily comparable to the circumstances described in the 9 March 2015, SAF/MRB memorandum.

He has provided adequate proof that his name was legally changed.  We note that the requested correction is limited to the DD 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 the name discrepancy to whomever he presents the DD Form 214.  The injustice, however, is not articulated or obvious.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 August 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  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 OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to change his name, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2015-03671 in Executive Session on 11 October 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03671 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 August 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 April 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-Trasnsition,
  dated 3 June 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 12 July 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 29 July 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 August 2016.

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.