RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00686
                                     INDEX CODE: 110.00
                                     COUNSEL:  NONE
    
                    HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 be changed to reflect his legally-changed name.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His name was officially changed in his Air Force records but not on  his  DD
Form 214.

In support of his request, he submits a copy of AF  Form  281,  Notification
of Change in  Service  Member’s  Official  Records.   His  submission,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 August 2000, the applicant, who was then a Regular Air Force  officer
serving in the grade of captain, was tried by a general court-martial  and,
pursuant to his pleas, was convicted of  five  specifications  of  wrongful
possession and/or use of, with the intent  to  deceive,  various  documents
bearing his then alias name of xxxxxxxx.  The applicant  was  sentenced  to
dismissal from the Air Force, three years’ confinement, and  forfeiture  of
all pay and allowances.  So much  of  the  sentence  that  provided  for  a
dismissal, confinement  for  22  months  and  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and
allowances was approved and affirmed on 17 August 2000.  On 27 August 2003,
the Secretary of the Air Force approved and ordered  his  dismissal  to  be
executed.

On 15 September 2003, the applicant was dismissed from the Air  Force.   He
had served 14 years, 6 months and 27 days on active duty.   The  period  17
May 2000 to 22 February 2002 was time lost due to confinement.

The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  applicant’s  court-martial,
extracted from the  applicant’s  military  records,  are  contained  in  the
letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force  at  Exhibits  C
and F.

________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  AFPC/JA states the  applicant
was court-martialed in May 2000 for multiple violations of the  UCMJ  having
to do with false use of  the  name  xxxxxxx.   Specifically,  the  applicant
pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, applying  for  a  United  States
passport, which document was false in that it identified him  by  his  false
identity of xxxxxxxx.  Several of the other court-martial  charges  involved
similar allegations of his use of the name  xxxxxxxxx  in  conjunction  with
false and fraudulent behavior.  AFPC/JA states that petition for  change  of
name typically used by jurisdictions in the state of  Kansas  requires  that
the applicant not only cite the reason for the name change but must  declare
that he or she has no outstanding judgments, has never been convicted  of  a
crime and is not  involved  in  any  pending  legal  actions.   The  AFPC/JA
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he was never accused of, nor did  he  plead  guilty  to
any fraud in the acquisition or use of his adopted name.  His  argument  has
always been it was legal under civilian law.  The Air Force argued  that  he
was only accused of using it while in the military and it is  illegal  under
military law.  Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  USAF/JAA  reviewed  this  application  and
concurs  with  the  AFPC/JA  recommendation.   USAF/JAA  states   that   the
applicant’s request is to remove neither an error nor an  injustice,  rather
it is a request of convenience.  The applicant served,  was  court-martialed
and  punitively  separated  under  the  name   of   xxxxxxxxxxx.    USAF/JAA
evaluation is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the Air Force evaluations  and  reiterates  his
initial contentions.  He states he was not found  guilty  of  fraud.   Names
assumed under common law are held by the civilian courts to  be  technically
false but legal and  usable  as  one’s  true  name  if  not  assumed  for  a
fraudulent purpose.  He never intended any deceit or fraud nor has  it  been
alleged he committed fraud in the assumption and use of  his  adopted  name.
He did not plead guilty to such and his actions were  legal  under  civilian
law.  He believes he is being treated differently from married  females  who
assume who know the facts of their name change in spite of ignorance of  the
law or persons who claim to own property when they know it  is  in  truth  a
financial institution that owns it.  The Air  Force  is  now  attempting  to
change the charges against him to false and fraudulent, which  can  only  be
viewed as attempted fraud by  the  Air  Force  to  deny  him  the  right  to
accurate records.  He believes his separation document should be changed  to
reflect the name under which he was serving when discharged.

The applicant’s review is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  His  contentions  in
this regard were noted; however, in our opinion, the Air  Force  offices  of
primary responsibility have adequately addressed these contentions.  We  are
in complete agreement with their assessments and  adopt  their  findings  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden to demonstrate the existence of error or  injustice.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to  grant  relief.


________________________________________________________________

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 15 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
04-00686:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 04 w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 10 Aug 04 w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Aug 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Aug 04.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair