BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003333 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____x___ ___x_____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003333 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. BOARD DATE: 17 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160003333 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: The applicant defers his request, statement, and submission of evidence to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests correction of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), for the period ending 2 February 1977, to show his actual legal name and social security number (SSN). 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant was honorably discharged over 15 years ago and no other administrative avenues were available to correct this injustice. He served honorably in the U.S. Army but cannot receive much needed assistance from veteran benefits programs due to the incorrect SSN and spelling of his name on his DD Form 214. It is unjust and inequitable for the applicant to continue to be denied recognition for his service to his country due to these errors. b. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army at the young age of 17. He served as a medic and was discharged under honorable conditions. The name on his application and contract for enlistment, service records, and DD Form 214 is "J _ r _ _ D. J _ _ _ _ n". The name given to him and listed on his birth certificate is "J _w _ _ _ J. J _ _ _ _n". The SSN on his application and contract for enlistment, service records, and DD Form 214 is "2XX-XX-XXXX". The SSN issued to him and listed on his social security card is "3XX-XX-XXXX". He is currently homeless and not able to take advantage of veteran's benefits programs due to the discrepancies between his service records and actual forms of identification. He is not afforded the privilege of the recognition as a veteran due to the incorrect information on his DD Form 214. c. Issue: Whether it is in the interest of justice to correct the applicant's DD Form 214 to reflect his actual legal name and SSN. (1) There is no evidence that the applicant's personal information was ever properly verified. In "today's Army" recruiters are required to personally inspect and verify an applicant's birth certificate and social security card when beginning an enlistment application. The Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) guidance counselors are also required to personally inspect and verify an applicant's birth certificate and social security card. There is no evidence in the applicant's application for enlistment that his recruiter inspected and verified his actual legal name and SSN with his birth certificate and social security card. There is also no evidence in his enlistment agreement that his guidance counselor inspected and verified his actual legal name and SSN using his birth certificate or social security card either. Many of the policies in use today in the Army are implemented after incidents occur, thus shedding light on the need for such policies. The requirement to visually inspect and verify every applicant's birth certificate and social security card is one such policy that was most likely implemented as a result of recruiters failing to do so in the past and resulting in issues such as this. It is an injustice to continue to prevent the applicant from his due recognition as a veteran due to the failure of his recruiter and guidance counselor to verify his correct name and SSN. (2) The applicant was a teenager who went by a nickname and did not know his SSN when he enlisted in the Army. He was only 17 years old when he enlisted in the Army and did not have his SSN memorized. He was like most high school students who also do not know their SSN. It is not unreasonable for a 17 year old to not know or not have their SSN memorized. Also, like many young people, he used a nickname instead of his birth name for most of his life. Mr. Johnson went by "J _r _ _" instead of "J _w _ _" while growing up. He does not know why "D _ _ _" was listed as his middle name, and he even remembers trying to get that corrected while enlisting. He requests that the Board correct this error and injustice so that he can be recognized for his service to his country. It is unfair that he continues to be denied veteran's benefits simply because at the young age of 17, he went by a nickname and did not know his SSN. (3) It is in the interest of justice that the Board waive the three-year statute of limitations and correct the applicant's DD Form 214 to reflect his actual legal name and SSN. The reasons stated above would explain why his name and SSN are incorrect in his service records but none of those reasons would warrant this Board to not grant his request to correct his DD Form 214. It has been unfair and inequitable for him to be denied access to veteran's benefits programs simply because of incorrect information in his service records. The applicant's DD Form 214 should be corrected so that he may be able to receive housing assistance and other veteran's benefits entitled to him based on his honorable service in the United States Army. 3. Counsel provides the applicant's: * DD Form 4 (Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 13 May 1976 * DD Form 1966 (Application for Enlistment – Armed Forces of the United States), dated 13 May 1976 * DD Form 369 (Police Record Check), dated 17 May 1976 * DD Form 1584 (National Agency Check Request), dated 19 May 1976 * DA Form 428 (Application for Identification (ID) Card), dated 20 May 1976 * DA Form 2-1 Personnel Qualification Record – Part II), prepared on 20 May 1976 * Orders 21-129, issued by Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Sam Houston, TX on 31 January 1977 * DD Form 214, for the period ending 2 February 1977 * State of Florida Certification of Birth, issued on 22 April 2014 * State of Florida ID card, replaced on 20 January 2015 * social security card, issued on 20 January 2015 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 record shows he was born on 8 April 1959. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 13 May 1976, at the age of 17 years and 28 days. His DD Form 4 shows he listed the first name, middle name, and SSN he now claims are incorrect. The DD Form 4 also shows he signed the form using the first and middle names he claims are incorrect. 3. In connection with his enlistment process, he completed a DD Form 1966. Blocks 1 and 2 of this form show he listed the first name, middle name, and SSN he claims are incorrect. The DD Form 1966 also shows he signed the form using the first and middle names he claims are incorrect. 4. Based on the applicant's age at the time of enlistment, parental and/or guardian consent for enlistment was required. The DD Form 1966 shows his mother signed the form granting parental consent for enlistment. 5. Block 44 of the DD Form 1966 contains the following statement: RECRUITER: I certify that I have witnessed applicant's signature above and further certify that I have verified the data in Sections I [Personal Data], III [Verification of Personal Data], and IV [Other Background Data] of this document, and the documents listed above as prescribed by my directives. I understand my liability to trial by court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice should I effect or cause to be effected the enlistment of anyone known by me to be ineligible for enlistment. 6. The source documents utilized by MEPS personnel during the applicant's enlistment process to verify his personal information are unknown. 7. A review of the applicant's available records reveals he served under the first name, middle name, and SSN he claims are incorrect throughout his entire period of active military service. His record contains no evidence that shows he ever listed the first name, middle name, and SSN he now claims are correct. 8. The applicant was discharged on 2 February 1977. His DD Form 214 shows the first name, middle name, and SSN he claims are incorrect. 9. There is no evidence in the applicant's records indicating he attempted to correct his personal information during his enlistment process or at any time during his period of active service. 10. Counsel provided the applicant's State of Florida Certification of Birth, State of Florida ID card, and social security card, which show the first name, middle name, and SSN the applicant claims are correct. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separations Documents), in effect during the applicant's active duty service, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request for the correction of a military record. Paragraph 2-9 (Burden of Proof) states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the applicant served under the first and middle names and SSN he now claims are incorrect throughout his entire period of active duty service. He did not list the requested names and SSN at any point during his period of active service. 2. Counsel contends that there is no evidence indicating the applicant's personal information was ever properly verified by recruiting officials; however, there is also no evidence indicating that recruiting officials acted inappropriately or evidence indicating that the applicant's personal information was not obtained from documents provided by the applicant. Administrative regularity must be presumed in this case. 3. 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. In the absence of evidence showing a material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed. 4. The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document will be filed in his OMPF. This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion in regard to the difference in the names and SSN recorded in his military record and the names and SSN he claims are correct. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003333 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160003333 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2