RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03847

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable.

His narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect Reduction in Forces.  

His name be corrected to coincide with his new legal name.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The disciplinary contents of his file do not warrant the discharge classification listed in either of the character of separation or narrative reason for separation.  In support of his name change request, he provides a copy of his certificate of adoption showing his legal name.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Apr 93, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5 - 47b for Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  The reasons for the action were as follows:

	a. On 13 Apr 93, the applicant failed to go to a mandatory appointment: Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 13 Apr 93.

	b. On 4 Feb 93, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties: LOR dated 8 Feb 93.

	c. On or about 21 Oct 92, the applicant was disrespectful towards his supervisor: LOR dated 26 Oct 92.

	d. On 5 Oct 92, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties: AF Form 174, Record of Individual Counseling, dated 6 Oct 92.

	e. On 14 Jul 92, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties: AF Form 174, dated 16 Jul 92.

	f. On 16 Jun 92, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties: AF Form 174, dated 16 Jul 92.

	g. On or about 22 May 92, the applicant displayed poor attitude when questioned about work related issues: Memo for Record, dated 22 May 92.

	h. On 21 Apr 92, the applicant violated AFR 35-10 by failing to shave before reporting for work: AF Form 174, dated 21 Apr 92.

On 22 Apr 93, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 28 Apr 93.

On 30 Apr 93, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of  Misconduct – Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline. 

On 11 Jul 07, per Cleveland County District Court, State of Oklahoma Order Changing Name, the applicant’s name was legally changed.

On 31 Oct 17, the Guidance to the Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) Name Changes memorandum, dated 09 Mar 15, and a request for post-service information was mailed to the applicant (Exhibits C and D).

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibit E, F and G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MR memorandum, Guidance to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, dated 9 Mar 15, states that while the Board 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 Board 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 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.  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 constitute an injustice when the veteran asserts that presenting a DD Form 214 that lists the old name effectively requires a needlessly intrusive explanation of personal history.  This type of injustice may arise in situations such as when the name change is transgender-related or associated with a divorce.  Therefore, correction of an applicant’s name on a DD Form 214 is a reasonable outcome only when the applicant clearly demonstrates that allowing the DD Form 214 to remain uncorrected would constitute an injustice.

A complete copy of the SAF/MR guidance is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation, corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code, and his service characterization citing that the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  No evidence of an error or injustice with the discharge processing was found.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his records to reflect his adoptive name change citing the DD Form 214 in the applicant’s record reflects the applicant’s name at time of discharge.  Review of the applicant’s official military personnel records determined that the applicant enlisted, served and was discharged using the correct legal name at that time.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DP2STM-214 recommends denying the applicant’s request to change his records to reflect his adoptive name change citing the applicant’s DD Form 214 was created upon separation on 30 Apr 93 utilizing the applicant’s record and name on file.  The name change in the adoption decree is after the separation date from the Air Force and name change was effective 07 Oct 94.  Court documentation does not address prior to that date usage of the name be corrected for new name.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 11 Jun 18 for comment (Exhibit H), and the applicant replied on 11 Jun 18.  In his response, the applicant contended that since his departure from the service, he has led a successful and productive life.  The applicant provides a Federal Bureau of Investigation report showing no prior arrest data and several character references.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  The discharge was not unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  In regards to the applicant’s legal name change, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM, AFPC/DP2SSM, and AFPC/DP2STM-214 and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-03847 in Executive Session on 19 Sep 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Aug 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, Name Change, SAF/MRBC_31 Oct 17
Exhibit D:	Letter and Clemency Bulletin, 31 Oct 17
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 08 Mar 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 17 Apr 18.
Exhibit G:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM-214, dated 18 Apr 18.
Exhibit H:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 11 Jun 18.
Exhibit I:	Applicant’s response, dated 11 Jun 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.