| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his military records be corrected to reflect his complete name.
APPLICANT STATES: That his current records simply reflect his name as Michael H___ because he was unable to locate his estranged mother in order to correct his birth certificate prior to enlistment. His birth certificate has been corrected to reflect his full name of Michael H___ F___.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1984 under the name Michael H___. All documents in his records reflect his name as Michael H___. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, shows that he was released from active duty on 19 September 1986 under the name of Michael H___. He served in the U. S. Army Reserve under the name Michael H___. He was discharged form the U. S. Army Reserve on 17 September 1992 under the name Michael H___.
The applicant provides his birth certificate, amended on 20 November 1992, which reflects his name as Michael H___ F___.
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 or 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. For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.
2. Although the applicant’s birth certificate was later amended to reflect his name as Michael H___ F___, he appropriately served on and was released from active duty under the name Michael H___ and served in and was discharged from the U. S. Army Reserve under the name Michael H___. While the Board understands his desire to have the records changed, it finds no basis for compromising the integrity of the Army’s records. This Board action will be filed in his military records so a record of his amended birth name will be on hand.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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
__fne___ __rwa___ __pm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067652 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020516 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010770C071029
The applicant states that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that he neither attempted to engage in sexual relations with a prostitute, nor did he violate any force protection policy by being out of uniform off Camp Butmir, nor did he compromise the safety of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission by allowing an unauthorized civilian to ride in a SFOR vehicle. Chaplain M___ went on to state that he then gave the young lady a ride to her home. The conclusions in the MP Report were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002510C070208
The contested OER was reviewed by the personnel officer on 11 March 1991 and he prepared a memorandum for the SR. Army Regulation 623-105, in pertinent part, stated that, among other mandatory reasons, an OER with a SR potential evaluation in one of the bottom three blocks in Part VIIa or any report with ratings or comments that, in the opinion of the SR, were so derogatory that the report could have an adverse impact on the rated officer's career would be referred to the rated officer for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060262C070421
The Commander’s Inquiry procedures will not be used to document differences of opinion between rating officials (or between the commander and rating officials) about an NCO’s performance and potential. Army Regulation 635-205, paragraph 4-2 states that an NCOER accepted for inclusion in an NCO’s official military personnel file (OMPF) is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials and to represent the considered opinion and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002077461C070215
The office did not have then nor did it later have any rating scheme indicating that COL B___ was the applicant's rater or that COL W___ was the applicant's senior rater. The Board notes that AR-PERSCOM denied the applicant's OER appeal in part because he did not provide original or certified copies of his published rating scheme. That the contested OER for the period 7 July 1993 - 31 January 1994, wherein COL B___ was the applicant's rater and COL W___ was the senior rater, be removed...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073900C070403
The applicant states through counsel, in effect, that the FSM did complete and forward his DD Form 1883 early in 1987 but it was lost either by the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (now the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM)) or the U. S. Postal Service. If the member was married but elected not to participate at the maximum level or elected to provide an annuity for a dependent child but not for his spouse, that member’s spouse would be notified of that election. That...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010112C070205
James R. Hastie | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Therefore, almost all Special Forces decorations and awards that were presented in Vietnam were given while conducting defensive operations, when all the American personnel were together. In the applicant’s case, not all of the unit records for Detachment A-101, 5th Special Forces Group were destroyed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058727C070421
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant was inducted into the Army on 21 October 1942 and entered active service on 4 November 1942. The applicant’s records are not available.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085882C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The evidence of record shows the applicant married Bruce H___ after she enlisted in the Army and still retained that married name when she was released from active duty on 22 October 1962.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013497C071029
The applicant requested correction of his records to show award of the Air Medal. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant’s unit was awarded any other unit award. There is no other evidence of record to show the 101st Airborne Division as a whole was awarded any other unit award.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007798C070208
The applicant’s ARNG records are not available to the Board. That would have placed the applicant 46 pounds over the maximum weight allowed at that time, which indicated a lengthy period of time over which he had a weight problem. Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) applies to all members of the Active Army, the ARNG, and the U.