IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001605 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of the last name on her military records. 2. The applicant states she is currently divorced and wants her military records changed to show her maiden name. 3. The applicant provides: * A Court Order * Army Review Boards Agency Letter, dated 4 November 2010 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1985. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist). 3. Her official military personnel file (OMPF) contains Delta Detachment, 38th Personnel Service Battalion, Memorandum, Subject: Request for Name Change, dated 18 June 2003. The memorandum shows the applicant's request to have her last name changed to the name she now claims is incorrect was approved. 4. An Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 22 October 2004, and all other documents that were added to her OMPF after 18 June 2003 list the last name she now claims is incorrect. 5. On 31 July 2005, the applicant was honorably retired after completing 20 years, 6 months, and 28 days of creditable active service. The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time lists the same last name she now claims is incorrect. The applicant authenticated this document in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Discharged) by signing the same last name that is listed throughout her OMPF. 6. The applicant provides a court order issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Circuit Court of Newport News, dated 16 September 2010. It shows, incident to a divorce, the circuit court judge granted the applicant's request to change her last name back to her maiden name. 7. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part, it states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request to correct her records to reflect her maiden name was carefully considered. While it is understood why she would want her records changed to reflect her maiden or current legal name, the evidence of record confirms she served in and was separated in the last name that is listed on her ERB, DD Form 214, and all other documents that were filed in her OMPF subsequent to 18 June 2003, the date of her approved name change. 2. For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. Absent any evidence that the applicant has actually suffered an injustice based on the last name recorded on her military records, there appears to be no compelling reason to compromise the integrity of the Army’s records to correct her last name at this late date. 3. This Record of Proceedings along with the application and supporting documents will be filed in her OMPF in order to provide clarity and to deal with any confusion that might arise regarding the her current legal name. Filing the Board’s decisional document will also guarantee the historical accuracy of the applicant's military records regarding the last names under which she served. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ __X____ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110001605 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110001605 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1