Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00375
Original file (BC-2006-00375.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00375
            INDEX CODE:  112.07
            COUNSEL:

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect her name change and a new DD  Form
214 be issued.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was legally divorced and changed her name on 20 September 2004.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy  of  a  Final
Decree of Divorce.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 December 1979 for
a period of four years and was retired in the grade of master sergeant
on 1 August 2002.  She served 22 years, 7 months and 2 days  of  total
active service.

She was divorced from her husband on 20 September 2004 and  the  judge
ordered that her name be changed to____________________.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSO recommends denial.   DPSO  states  the  divorce  decree  the
applicant provided is not an original or certified copy; therefore, it
does not meet the legal requirements to be used as a source  document.


Air Force Instructions 36-2608,  military  Personnel  Records  System,
Table A7.2, Rule 2, states the documentation  required  to  change  or
correct a name as a result of divorce is  the  original  or  certified
copy of the divorce decree.  A letter was sent to the applicant on  15
March 2006, requesting the required document.  As of 10 May 2006,  the
applicant has failed to provide the necessary documents.

The DPSO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
19 May 06, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or  injustice.   The  applicant  was  asked  to
furnish the original or  certified  copy  of  her  divorce  decree  to
support her claim, but did not respond to the request.  Since she  has
failed to provide the required documentation  requested  in  order  to
meet the legal requirements, to be used as a source  document,  it  is
our opinion that no basis exists to grant the relief  sought  in  this
application.  Accordingly, the applicant's request  is  not  favorably
considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00375 in Executive Session on 27 June 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 06 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.       Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSO, dated 16 May 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 06.





      CHARLES E. BENNETT
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00343

    Original file (BC-2006-00343.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a letter dated 15 March 2006, the applicant was instructed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPSO) to provide either the original or a certified copy of her license and certificate of marriage so that they might update her records (Exhibit E). DPSO notes a letter was sent to the applicant requesting the required document and as of 9 May 2006, the applicant has not provided the necessary documentation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01476

    Original file (BC-2006-01476.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006- 01476 in Executive Session on 20 September...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01122

    Original file (BC-2006-01122.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopts the OPR’s rationale as the basis for its conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01701

    Original file (BC-2006-01701.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01701 INDEX NUMBER: 137.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be entitled to receive the proceeds of the Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) policy she paid premiums for. In support of her appeal, applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00558

    Original file (BC-2011-00558.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00558 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be amended to reflect her last name as Taylor versus Seed. The divorce decree the applicant provided does not meet the legal requirements to be used as a source document. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01048

    Original file (BC-2007-01048.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She changed her last name in December 2006 to her married name and would now like her military records changed to reflect her married name. A letter was sent to the applicant on 16 Apr 07 requesting that she provide either the original or a certified copy of the marriage certificate. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00023

    Original file (BC-2004-00023.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DPSFCM evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We note that the Air Force office of primary responsibility for SBP coverage recommends providing relief for that part of the applicant’s request concerning SBP coverage, while the Air Force office of primary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00868

    Original file (BC-2006-00868.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the applicant provides the necessary documents, it would be appropriate to correct the member’s record to reflect on 29 Mar 94 (or date verified by final decree), he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on the previous reduced level of retired pay, naming the applicant as the eligible beneficiary. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPRT evaluation, with attachment, is provided at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00907

    Original file (BC-2006-00907.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00907 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). He now desires to be awarded the AFCM for his service in Vietnam. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00868-2

    Original file (BC-2006-00868-2.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    There is no evidence the veteran remarried and SBP premiums continued to be deducted from his retired pay until his death on 3 Dec 05. In their advisory (Exhibit B), HQ AFPC/DPPRT indicated the applicant’s submission was incomplete but if she provided the necessary documents, it would be appropriate to correct the veteran’s record to reflect he elected to change SBP spouse coverage to former spouse coverage based on the previous reduced level of retired pay, naming the applicant as...