RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03231
INDEX CODE: 100.01
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her DD Form 214 be corrected to change her name from “Timothy Paul Thomas”
to “Tessa Pierce Thomas” to reflect her change of sex identity.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She underwent Genital Reassignment Surgery in October, 2006.
In support of her appeal, she has provided copies of a court order
reflecting the name change from the Allegan County, Michigan Judicial
Circuit Family Division, a letter from the physician who performed the
Genital Reassignment Surgery, a DD Form 214, dated 29 September 1972, RO CA-
075579 and an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the United States Air
Force, effective 7 October 1974, and an NGB Form 22 and SO ANG-A-39-MI,
which show a final separation date of 1 March 1991.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A review of the military personnel records shows that the applicant
initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 October 1968, and completed 3
years, 11 months, and 22 days of net active service before being honorably
released from active duty on 29 September 1972, and thereafter honorably
discharged on 7 October 1974. The applicant subsequently enlisted in the
Air National Guard, and completed 16 years, 8 months, and 14 days of net
service before being honorably separated in the grade of technical sergeant
(E-6) on 1 March 1991. The applicant is currently assigned to the Retired
Reserve List, and is awaiting Reserve retired pay at age 60 (DOB is 13
October 1949 – age 58).
AFI 36-2608, Table A7.3, Note 5, states “Do not correct records of former
members unless evidence proves the name used while serving with the Air
Force was erroneously recorded.”
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/JA recommends denial as the requested change is not authorized. AFI
36-2608, Table A7.3, states “Do not correct records of former members to
show name changes occurring after discharge.” According to the letter from
the physician who performed the surgery, the applicant’s surgery occurred
on 13 October 2006, more than 15 years after retirement from the Michigan
Air National Guard, and nearly 35 years after the DD Form 214 was issued.
The ARPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19
October 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, 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. 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
applicant’s Genital Reassignment Surgery was performed more than 15 years
after retirement from the Michigan Air National Guard, and nearly 35 years
after the DD Form 214 was issued, and no evidence has been presented that
the name used while serving with the Air Force was erroneously recorded.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
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-2007-03231
in Executive Session on 13 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 16 Oct 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Oct 07.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02447
The applicant’s father was notified of his eligibility to participate in the RCSBP by letter dated 4 Mar 04. The term “dependent” with respect to a member or former member of a uniform service means (D) a child who (i) has not attained the age of 21: (ii) has not attained the age of 23, is enrolled in a full-time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by the administering Secretary and is, or was at the end of the member or former member’s death, in fact dependent on...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00184
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00184 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determination that he was fit for duty be changed and he be afforded the benefits given to military members involuntarily separated through the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01330
He was promoted to the grade of E-7, with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 1 Apr 07. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied and states 1 Apr 07 is the earliest DOR for which the applicant qualifies. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01323
After the close-out of his OPR and long after he was barred from reserve status, his Top Secret with special access clearance was renewed to include four “compartments.” His former chain of command never notified the Security Forces of adverse action as required if they could substantiate his alleged abuse of authority. In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the referral OPR, rebuttal to the draft OPR, his previous OPR, a legal review by his defense counsel, an e-mail...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01507
In support of his request, the applicant provided a statement in his own behalf. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 14 Jul 52 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt). The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3-5.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03233
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03233 INDEX CODE: 135.03, 136.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His High Year Tenure (HYT) date and his effective date of retirement be changed from 1 February 2007 to 1 March 2007, so that he can be paid for duty performed through 3 February 2007. His active duty tour was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00703
They also opine that the applicant’s claim fails to address the central issue in the case; that by operation of law his fate in the Air Force Reserve was decided when he was twice non- selected for promotion, before he contacted HQ ARPC to apply for the IMA program. The applicant states that ARPC/JA’s claim that at no point between 3 Jun 03 and 5 Aug 03 did he inform them that he desired to become an IMA is incorrect. _______________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-00666A
In his rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit I, the applicant requests that if his debt is not cancelled, it be placed on hold until he has the opportunity to send his DD Form 214 in to show that he has completed two full years of active duty service. He states that HQ AFROTC denied his request for debt cancellation although he has served three years in the Army National Guard (ANG). In that regard, we agree with the determination of the Air Force office of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00179
INDEX CODE: 137.04 BC-2007-00179 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
She be retroactive promoted to the grade of 0-4 (major), which should have occurred during the Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) Reserve of the Air Force Line/Health Professionals Board, that convened at Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) on 6 - 10 March 1995. The investigation did in fact conclude and recommend in your favor.” In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ ARPC/IG Letter, Request for TIG investigation, and Investigating Officer’s Reports. While this Board agrees...