Search Decisions

Decision Text

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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her last name is now Taylor due to her divorce in 2006. 

 

The evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, reflects she served on active duty from 
25 Nov 81 through 31 Dec 02. On 1 Jan 03, she retired and was 
credited with 21 years, 1 month, and 6 days of active service. 
The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects her last name as Seed. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIR reviewed this application and recommends denial. The 
divorce decree the applicant provided does not meet the legal 
requirements to be used as a source document. The documentation 
required to change or correct a name are a birth, baptismal, 
marriage, or naturalization certificate, civil court order, or 
other legal documents. The documentation must be the original or 
a certified copy. On 15 Mar 11, the Records Procedure Branch 
requested the applicant provide either the original or a 
certified copy of her divorce decree in order to complete the 
requested change. The applicant did not respond. 

 


The complete AFPC/DPSIR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
20 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After careful 
consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence 
of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to 
warrant corrective action. Although the office of primary 
responsibility states the surname can be changed if the required 
documentation is provided - this only applies to service members 
who are currently serving on active duty. Name changes on prior 
service personnel are allowed if the data in question was 
recorded in error by the Air Force at the time of enlistment or 
during the enlistment. The applicant’s last name was correctly 
recorded at the time of her discharge and she has not submitted 
evidence to the contrary. Absent persuasive evidence she was 
denied rights to which she was entitled, appropriate regulations 
were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we 
find no basis to disturb the existing record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00558 in Executive Session on 18 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIR, dated 9 May 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01301

    Original file (BC-2011-01301.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    X In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and her 2009 and 2010 Form 1099R, Tax Statements. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03403

    Original file (BC 2014 03403.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03403 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her name be changed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from Jane Frances Probst to Bella Jane Marsilio. Air Force Instruction 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, Table A7.3, Note 5 states “Do not correct records of former members unless evidence proves the name used...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03800

    Original file (BC-2010-03800.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03800 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her surname on her retirement check reflect rather than . _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00375

    Original file (BC-2006-00375.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members...

  • 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00737

    Original file (BC-2011-00737.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to the divorce decree, her former spouse was to maintain SBP coverage for her as the former spouse beneficiary. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Legal Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends that she had no idea that she was required to provide a written valid former...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04680

    Original file (BC-2010-04680.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her divorce decree lists her as the SBP beneficiary to receive the former member’s SBP benefits. While we do not take issue with the applicant’s assertion that her divorce decree ordered her former husband to continue coverage for her under SBP, he failed to convert the coverage to former spouse coverage within one year of their divorce as required by law. Since the applicant has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances existed that would override the failure of she and her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04581

    Original file (BC 2013 04581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents is the governing directive for the DD Form 214 and it directs the name on the DD Form 214 be recorded as listed on the military member’s DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document-Armed Forces of the United States. In instances where a name change is effective after the publication of a DD Form 214, the applicants provide those agencies providing the benefit/entitlement or service their DD Form 214 as prepared and show legal documentation to explain the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01105

    Original file (BC-2012-01105.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. DPSIAR states there is no evidence of Air Force error and absent evidence of a competing spouse it would be appropriate to enforce the parties’ court-ordered agreement to continue SBP coverage in the applicant’s behalf. Although the Air Force office of primary responsibility recommends approval, in the absence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01785

    Original file (BC 2011 01785.txt) 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...