IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       23 JULY 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003653 


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 that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to reflect his first name as "Robin" instead of "Robert."

2.  The applicant states that his first name on his DD Form 214 should be changed to "Robin" because that it what is reflected on his birth certificate.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a Certificate of Birth from the City of New York showing that an individual with the first name of "Robin" was born on 24 September 1955.

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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in Brooklyn, New York on
29 April 1975 for a period of 3 years, assignment to the 82d Airborne Division, and training as an ammunition storage and operations specialist.  At the time of his enlistment he indicated that he was born in New York on 24 September 1955 and his first name was "Robert."  He signed all of his enlistment documents in the first name of "Robert" and was fingerprinted under that name.  He also indicated that he had no aliases.

3.  He completed his basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and his advanced individual training at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama before being transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia on 3 December 1975 to undergo parachute training.

4.  On 6 January 1976, he was permanently disqualified from airborne training as a self-imposed withdrawal due to lack of motivation and not being adaptable to airborne training.  He was transferred to Germany on 6 February 1976.

5.  On 26 April 1976, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that despite numerous (12) counseling sessions by the chain of command, the applicant continued to display misconduct actions or attitudes which conflicted with Army Standards, and nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) had been imposed against him on four occasions.

6.  The applicant acknowledged the notification of proposed discharge and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He also declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 11 May 1976 under the first name of "Robert."  He had served 1 year and 13 days of total active service.

8.  A review of the applicant's official records shows that all of the documents signed by the applicant were in the first name of "Robert" and his records contain documents signed by him as late as 1980 which indicate that his first name was "Robert."



9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) serves as the authority for preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared to reflect information as it exists on the date of separation.  Changes that occur subsequent to the issuance of the DD Form 214 that were not in effect prior to the date of separation will not be entered on the DD Form 214 and changes of that nature are not authorized to be made to the DD Form 214. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his first name shown on his DD Form 214 dated 11 May 1976 should be changed from "Robert" to "Robin" in order to reflect his legal name.  However, contrary to the applicant's contention, the fact that the name shown in his military records is different than his current name does not constitute an error.

2.  It is understandable that the applicant desires to have the name recorded in his military records changed to his current legal name.  However, there is no evidence of record or independent evidence that suggests the name recorded in his military records exhibits a material error or injustice.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was enlisted, served, and was honorably released from active duty under the first name of "Robert" and he has failed to provide any explanation as to why he enlisted under a name other than his legal name.  Accordingly, his assertion that his name is something other than what he served under is not a sufficiently mitigating factor that warrants granting the applicant's requested relief.

4.  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.  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 current 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.  

5.  The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document along with his application and the supporting evidence he provided, which confirms his current 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 records and to satisfy his desire to have his current name documented in his OMPF. 
6.  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.  Accordingly, there is no basis to grant the applicant's requested relief.

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.



      _________XXX______________
               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)                                         AR20090003653



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003653



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1