IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 June 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003195 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his name be corrected in his military records.

2.  The applicant requests that the name in his records be changed from A---------G. V----- to M---- G. V-----.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he only used the name given him at birth to conduct classified special forces operations worldwide.  He is no longer on active duty status and his Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) pay and back payments are being withheld from him.

4.  In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a letter he addressed to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) on 4 January 2009; a copy of his certificate of naturalization, dated 24 November 1987; a copy of a memorandum provided to him by the Clerk of the District Court as part of the naturalization process; a copy of his uniformed services identification card; a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) identification card identifying him as service-connected; a copy of his California driver license; and a copy of a letter dated 29 November 2004 he addressed to the Commander, Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, requesting a change to his name and address.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 29 December 1976 for a period of 6 years.  On 8 June 1977, the applicant was discharged from the USAR and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 9 June 1977 for a period of 4 years.

3.  Section I, Item 1 (Last Name - First Name - Middle Name) of the DD Form 1966/1 (Application for Enlistment - Armed Forces of the United States) shows the name the applicant used in the enlistment process was A--------- G. V-----.  Item 4 (Citizenship) of the DD Form 1966/1 shows the applicant was not a naturalized citizen of the United States at the time of his initial enlistment.  Item 16 (Driver's License Information) of the DD Form 1966/1 shows the applicant was not licensed to drive on the date of his enlistment.

4.  Item 1 (Last Name - First Name - Middle Name) of the DD Form 4 (Enlistment or Reenlistment - Armed Forces of the United States) shows the name he used in the enlistment process to be A--------- G. V-----.

5.  The copy of the applicant's certificate of naturalization he submitted in support of his request shows he became a naturalized citizen of the United States on 24 November 1987.  The name the applicant used as part of the naturalization process is M---- G. V-----.

6.  The copy of the memorandum provided to him by the Clerk of the District Court as part the naturalization process shows the applicant's name was changed from A-------- G. V----- to the name shown in the paragraph above.

7.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant continued to reenlist and/or extend his enlistments in the Army until 31 March 2000 when he was honorably separated for the purposes of retirement.  The name he consistently used in conjunction with the reenlistment process was A--------- G. V-----.

8.  The applicant was honorably retired on 31 March 2000 by reason of sufficient service for retirement in the rank and pay grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8, after having served on active duty for 22 years, 9 months, and 22 days.  The name that was entered in Item 1 (Name (Last, First, Middle)) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows V-----, A---------
G-----.

9.  There is no evidence in the applicant's available service personnel records that shows he attempted to have his name changed after he had his name changed in conjunction with the naturalization process and while he was on active duty.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing 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.  The name to be shown on the DD Form 214 is the name the applicant used on entry in and while performing his military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the USAR and in the RA under the name A--------- G. V-----.  This is the name he used consistently throughout his active duty military service which extended for over 22 years.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant changed his name in conjunction with the process of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1987; however, there is no evidence he ever took any action to have his name changed in his military personnel records.

3.  When the applicant was separated from the Army for the purpose of retirement, the DD Form 214 which was prepared to document his honorable service showed the name under which he enlisted in the USAR and in the RA and the same name he consistently used throughout his military service:
A-------- G. V-----.

4.  The actual date the applicant's U.S. Army Retired United States Uniformed Services Identification Card was issued is not known; however, the name used on that card is the applicant's changed name:  M---- G. V-----.

5.  The evidence shows that the applicant was issued his California driver license with his changed name on 9 October 2008.  The applicant was apparently issued his VA service-connected identification card after he was retired from military service.  The VA identification card was issued to him with his changed name.

6.  There is no evidence that suggests the applicant has or would suffer any injury or injustice as a result of the Army maintaining its records with the name under which he served.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  While it is understandable the applicant desires to now record his correct name in his military records, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army’s records at this late date.  

7.  The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document along with his application and the supporting evidence he provided, which confirms his correct name, will be filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  This should serve to clarify any questions or confusion in regard to the difference in the name recorded in his military record and to satisfy his desire to have his correct name documented in his OMPF.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION








BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________X_____________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003195



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003195



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1