RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04106

					COUNSEL:

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be corrected to reflect the correct spelling of his name.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The first name on his DD Form 214 is misspelled.  The correct spelling is on his birth certificate and social security card.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Dec 74.

On 25 Dec 78, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with four years of active service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  After review of the applicant’s official military personnel file it was determined that he enlisted, served and was discharged under the full name reflected on his DD Form 214 issued at discharge.  AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, Table A7.3, Note 5, states “Do not correct records of former members unless evidence proves the name used while serving with the Air Force was erroneously recorded.”  

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

SAF/MR memorandum, Guidance to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, dated 9 Mar 15, 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 is 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 D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  This application is not timely.  The applicant claims the date of discovery as 2 Sep 15, without a statement explaining the delay in the late submission.  By the applicant’s initials and signature on his enlistment contract, he verified that he understood that if he “made a false statement, willful misrepresentation…he was subject to discharge for fraudulent enlistment.”  On 5 Nov 74 and again on 12 Dec 74, the applicant initialed and signed that he had “carefully reviewed this form (enlistment contract) and did hereby reaffirm the facts about him stated therein.”  Further review of the applicant’s military documents revealed no evidence of the use of the applicant’s requested name in the military record or any attempts to correct the spelling during his 4 years of active service.  Per governing directives, the applicant’s consistent use and signature of the name on his current DD Form 214, prior, during and post service; they found no evidence the DD Form 214 is in error.  The DD Form 214 was prepared in accordance with governing directives and is supported by the military records.  

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the Air Force Evaluations, and requested the applicant’s request for a name change continue.  He further stated the applicant was a young man with a misunderstanding of the way to spell his name.  It was not until last summer that he recognized the correct spelling of his name, and then pursued the correction to his DD Form 214.

A complete copy of the applicant’s counsel response to the Air Force Evaluations is at Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely.  

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, to include his counsel’s response to the Air Force Evaluations; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and AFPC/DP2STM and adopt their 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 the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2015-04106 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04106 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 8 Jun 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jun 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, received 14 Jul 16  
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated, 8 Aug 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.