RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  00-00868
            INDEX CODE 100.01
            COUNSEL:  None


            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The military records be changed to show a name and  gender  of  “Holly
E.” and “female” rather than “Stephen R.” and “male.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Department of the Navy created  a  “Statement  of  Service”  (SOS)
reflecting the current female name and gender and periods of  enlisted
service while in the Marine Corps.  The Air Force should do  the  same
for its records.

In support, the applicant provides copies of a Feb 00 petition  for  a
legal name change, current driver’s license and social security  card,
medical statements, and the Navy’s decision to afford partial relief.

The applicant’s complete submission, including a 2 Jan 01  supplement,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves on 27 May 70, entered
active duty on 7 Jul 70, and was honorably released from  active  duty
on 6 Jul 74. The  applicant  continued  to  serve  in  the  Air  Force
Reserves from 7 Jul 74 until honorably discharged on 26 May 76.

The applicant enlisted in the US Marine Corps on  3  Nov  77  and  was
honorably discharged on 28 Nov 81.

On 12 Oct 00, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR)  denied
the applicant’s request to amend the DD Form 214 or any other parts of
the service records on the basis that the applicant’s  male  name  and
gender were correct at that time.  However, the  BCNR  did  provide  a
Statement of  Service  (SOS)  setting  forth  the  applicant’s  active
service with the Marine Corps with the current female name and gender.

According to  the  medical  statements  provided  at  Exhibit  A,  the
applicant was admitted to a gender identity/reassignment program on 18
Oct 89.

HQ AFPC/DPSRP advised  on  14  Apr  00  that  they  were  denying  the
applicant’s 29 Mar 00 request for name/gender change and  closing  the
case.  However,  based  on  the  applicant’s  2  Jan  01  letter,  the
application  was  reopened   and   forwarded   to   the   AFBCMR   for
consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Records Procedures Section, HQ  AFPC/DPSAMP,  reviewed  the
appeal and believes the Navy SOS was an unjustified  action.  The  SOS
does not mirror the name  and  gender  information  contained  in  the
personnel record  and  it  has  no  significance  when  verifying  the
military service. The applicant would have to provide any organization
attempting to verify service with  additional  information  concerning
the discrepancy between the DD Form  214  and  present  circumstances.
Further, AFI 36-2608 states that records of  former  members  are  not
corrected  to  reflect  changes  occurring   after   discharge.    The
applicant’s records correctly reflect the  legal  name/gender  at  the
time of service and discharge.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 16 Mar 01 for review and  comment.   In  compliance  with
statutory mandate, copies of sex/name change cases previously reviewed
by the AFBCMR, and which are included for this  Board’s  review,  were
forwarded to the applicant for information and comment on 23 Apr 01.

The applicant provided a rebuttal, taking exception to  the  decisions
on the prior cases.  The applicant indicates  that  former  servicemen
who have become females rely on  their  military  records  to  support
their assertions of individual  merit  when  considered  for  civilian
jobs.  Employers need not know if a female applicant was once male  as
this invites opportunities for bias against  and/or  embarrassment  to
the former  service  member;  they  need  only  know  that  the  named
individual  served  with  honor  and  will  continue  to  do  so.  The
phenomenon of gender reassignment is vaster than mere social  dynamics
would suggest.  It is not a matter for  impersonal  adherence  to  the
letter of whatever regulation applies.  Granting this application  for
amendment to the military records is not only correct but also right.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded that relief is warranted. The applicant’s DD  Form  214  and
other military records correctly reflect the name  and  gender  during
the period of service. Once a member separates from military  service,
the DD Form 214 is not altered because of a post-service name  change.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the Navy “granted the  very
same request,” the Board for Correction of Naval Records also  refused
to change the applicant’s Naval DD Form 214 and Marine Corps  military
records, opting instead to issue an SOS.   However,  the  decision  to
change both name and gender was the  applicant’s,  and  no  persuasive
evidence has been submitted demonstrating that  the  resultant  record
inconsistencies cause such harm that warrants  amending  the  existing
records.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 June 2001 and under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 00, & Letter, dated
                       2 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSAMP, dated 5 Mar 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Mar 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Apr 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Apr 01.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair