| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member | ||
| Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the military record of H----- M------
R------- be corrected to show his true name as C------ J---- R------, and his true
Social Security Number (SSN) as 0-- 4- 4---.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his problem started when he and his brother enlisted in the Army under the buddy program. He states that he was accepted into the Army. However, his brother was rejected. His brother’s name and SSN were used as his identification instead of his own. He is unable to use his own SSN and it is affecting his family. He cannot use the GI Bill to purchase a home or to obtain Social Security benefits because his military record is in his brother’s name and SSN. The Veterans Administration will help him if he is able to secure a name and SSN change.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 2 November 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at Fort Ord, California for 4 years. He enlisted under the name H----- M------ R------- and SSN 1-- 4- 2---. While receiving his initial training at Fort Ord the record shows that the applicant reported to sick call on 12 December 1972. He claimed that he injured his back by falling off a horizontal ladder during a company party. The record also shows that the applicant was granted 19 days Christmas leave on
20 December 1972. The applicant’s leave was extended for 10 days. On
16 January 1973, he returned from leave status and on 18 January 1973, he reported to sick call and was admitted to the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 16 February 1973. On 2 March 1973, the applicant was transferred to the Medical Holding Company at Fort Ord, California.
On 5 March 1973, the applicant departed on a permanent change of station to a unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. On 10 March 1973, the applicant was assigned to the Medical Holding Company at Womack Army Community Hospital (WACH) located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
While assigned to the Medical Holding Company the applicant was processed for a physical disability under the name H----- M------ R------ and SSN 1-- 4- 2---. The applicant’s medical processing apparently related to the injury at Fort Ord. However, his medical record is unavailable.
After his arrival at Fort Bragg, an individual using the name H----- M------ R------
was processed for a physical disability. Because the individual claimed to have injured his back while in training at Fort Ord, a Line of Duty Investigation was conducted by Fort Ord. The investigating officer found no medical records substantiating an injury to H------ M------ R------ during training.
The records contain repeated references to concerns expressed by medical personnel that they were not examining the right individual. For example, a notation on an undated TDRL Summary Sheet prepared by Ms. J-----, an analyst, indicates that WACH refused to perform TDRL examinations on the applicant because they suspected that it was his brother, not the applicant, who was presented to the facility for examinations.
On 1 March 1974, having been found unfit for duty by a Physical Evaluation Board, the applicant elected to be placed in an awaiting orders status pending final orders and disposition in connection with his physical evaluation board proceeding.
On 13 May 1974, the applicant was released from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) by letter orders number D 4-497 dated
29 April 1974. He was placed on the TDRL under the same name and under the same SSN that he used at the time of his enlistment.
On 11 December 1974, the Veterans Administration Regional Office located at Winston-Salem, North Carolina, requested the United States Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, Virginia, to verify the validity of the applicant’s enlistment and TDRL status.
Disposition Form (DA Form 2496) dated 15 August 1975, from the U. S. Army Military Personnel Center to the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the applicant’s enlistment under the alias of his brother’s name and SSN was determined to be fraudulent by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On
17 September 1975, the Office of the Judge Advocate General responded by determining that the applicant’s fraudulent enlistment was not sufficient grounds to revoke the orders placing him on the TDRL.
The military record shows that the applicant was removed from the TDRL on
1 May 1979, and permanently retired under the name H------ M------ R------ and SSN 1-- 4- 2---.
On 9 September 1998, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) administratively denied the applicant’s request for a name change.
Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement of discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant requests that the Board correct the records of H------ M------
R-------, to show that his true name should be C----- J---- R------- and his true SSN should be 0-- 4- 2---. If the applicant’s assertions are accepted as true, his enlistment in the Army was accomplished by fraud. Further, there are indications that the applicant may have perpetuated other frauds. Corrective actions in this case are likely to perpetuate a fraud on the Government extending, rather than mitigating, an injustice. This Board will not grant the applicant’s requests.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO__ __RTD__ __KWL__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064061 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/25 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0100 |
| 2. | 100.0900 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016641
However, the DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he entered active duty this period on 20 August 1973, was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant contends, in effect, his request to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014252
The applicant's military records do not show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show the award of the Purple Heart. While the sincerity of the applicant's claim to entitlement to award of the Purple Heart is not in question, regrettably, absent evidence which conclusively proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action, there is insufficient basis upon which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085088C070212
The evidence of record shows that on 22 January 1975, the applicant consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the Board believes that the applicant was aware of that before...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077916C070215
Orders Number 57-6, dated 26 February 1996, authorized the applicant’s promotion to the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5), effective 1 March 1996. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was promoted to SGT/E-5 on 1 March 1996. Thus, the Board finds that it would be appropriate to correct Items 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank), 4b (Pay Grade), and 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) of the applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 5 September 1998, to show that as of the date of her REFRAD,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002147
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show his social security number (SSN) as 198-XX-XXXX and in effect, an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions. There is no evidence the SSN the applicant claims to be correct was ever recorded in his military records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014732
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 19 April 1974, the applicant requested a discharge for the good of the Service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant's military service records contain his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 11 June 1974, under other than honorable conditions, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, paragraph 10-1, for the good of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072297C070403
Although not explained in the available records, the applicant’s commander at Fort Bragg also initiated a bar to reenlistment against him on 18 September 1973. He had used drugs and had been counseled by his chain of command, yet he had failed to submit to his drug problem with “Operation Awareness”, “Mental Hygiene” and “Quarter Ward.” While the Board recognizes that he did serve two tours in Vietnam, his record of service during his second tour and his conduct after returning from...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050018064
The evidence shows that the applicant did not enlist in the Regular Army until 20 September 1989, after the beginning date shown in the award certificate. The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief shows the applicant was serving in the rank and pay grade of Specialist, E-4, as a squad leader, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on the date the Army Commendation Medal was awarded to the Soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007452C070205
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge (BCD), characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071244C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. On 11 July 1980 the applicant's duty status was changed from "present for duty" to AWOL (absent without leave). A discharge under other than honorable...