IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       1 OCTOBER 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004784 


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, reconsideration of her request to correct her military records and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 27 March 1993, to reflect her current name and gender.  

2.  The applicant also requests, in effect, correction to Item 12b (Separation Date This Period) of her DD Form 214, dated 27 March 1993.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Department of Air Forces reissues corrected DD Forms 214 with appropriate name and gender for those who have found themselves in similar circumstances as she.  The overt use of both present and previous names on an official document brings to bear unnecessary bias, prejudice, and judgments from those reviewing or verifying the documentation.  She is aware that she made individual choices in regard to her present choice and understands the Army must maintain the integrity of a military record.  She respectfully requests resolution of this matter in a way that would allow her to honor her history and allow her to move forward in the lifestyle she has begrudgingly come to accept.  While on active duty she served without consideration of self.  Now retired, she asks to claim her past with dignity and not have the official records documenting her service to be the source of embarrassment or harassment in the present or future.  

4.  The applicant also states, in effect, that the evidence she is submitting will establish her final separation date from active duty was 10 March 2000 and not 27 March 1993.  She concluded an active duty tour in 1998 and her final 
separation date is consistent with her retirement on 10 March 2000.  Additionally, the evidence will support the existence of periods of active duty that, whether by commander reorganization, computer, or human error, were not reflected in her official military records.  In effect, the new evidence will verify she was authorized a release from active duty (REFRAD) review on three periods of extended active duty subsequent to 1993 and three tours in Somalia occurred after the 1993 separation date.

5.  In support of her request, the applicant provides a self-authored letter, dated 16 March 2009; copies of her 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 active duty orders; her 1993 DD Form 214; her 1993 through 1999 officer evaluation reports; her 2000 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) separation orders; her Chronological Statement of Retirement Points; and her DA Form 1569-E (Transcript of Military Record).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20040004367 on 14 April 2005 and AR20070016208 on 20 March 2008.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) as a male and will be referred to by this gender through the remainder of the Consideration of Evidence.

3.  The applicant's military records show he was enlisted in the RA on 23 May 1967 and he reenlisted for 4 years on 23 January 1968.  He was honorably discharged on 19 December 1968 for the purpose of accepting a commission in the USAR.  He was appointed in the USAR as a second lieutenant on 20 December 1968 and he was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 30 June 1988.
4.  The applicant was ordered to active duty for Operation Restore Hope and entered active service on 28 December 1992.  He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 27 March 1993 by reason of completion of period ordered to active duty.  He was subsequently transferred to the USAR Control Group (IMA) [Individual Mobilization Augmentee].  Item 12b of his DD Form 214 shows that he was separated from active duty on 27 March 1993.  

5.  The applicant was promoted to colonel in the USAR on 19 August 1994.  

6.  The applicant was ordered to active duty again in 1995 for the purpose of U.S. Central Command Operational Readiness; annual trainings in 1996 and 1997; and TCA Support Operations Support Staff Planning Conferences in 1996, 1997, 

and 1999.  Each period of active duty was less than 90 days in duration.  He was not issued DD Forms 214 for these periods.

7.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR in the rank of colonel for maximum years of service on 9 March 2000 and transferred to the Retired Reserve.

8.  The applicant's previous 2007 ABCMR proceedings show he legally changed his first and middle name and gender in April and June 2002, respectively.

9.  On 14 April 2005, the Board recommended partial relief of the applicant's request for correction of military records to reflect a different name and gender  by issuing a DA Form 1569-E with the requested new name and gender.  On    21 November 2005, a DA Form 1569-E was issued to reflect the requested name and gender changes.

10.  On 20 March 2008, the Board denied the applicant's reconsideration request for correction of military records to reflect a different name and gender.  The Board concluded it did not have the ability to change the applicant's record in order to resolve the difficulties now faced as a result of how the DA Form 1569-E was viewed in the civilian sector.  The Board also concluded that there were no provisions for correcting or issuing a new DD Form 214 based on events and changes that occurred subsequent to the period covered by the separation document in question.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, governed the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 would be prepared for all personnel at the time of retirement, discharge, or REFRAD.  The dates the Soldier entered on and separated from active duty for the period covered by the DD Form 214 would be entered in Items 12a and 12b.  A DD Form 214 would also be prepared for all personnel of the USAR and the Army National Guard released after completion of 90 days or more of active duty for training or full-time training duty.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant appropriately served in and was discharged under the name and gender provided upon enlistment in the RA, appointment in the USAR, REFRAD in 1993, and USAR discharge in 2000.  Change of name and gender was effected subsequent to these periods of service.  Therefore, the applicant's military records and separation documents are correct as currently constituted and, as a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
2.  This Board recognized that the applicant could incur difficulties associated with official documents showing different genders and different names and as a result reissued a DA Form 1569-E in the applicant's current name and gender in 2005.  This document is intended solely for the purpose of identifying the applicant to agencies who will not accept her DD Form 214.  Therefore, the overall merits of the case, including the latest arguments, are insufficient as a basis for a reversal of the Board's previous decision pertaining to correcting the applicant's military records and 1993 DD Form 214 to reflect her current name and gender.  

3.  The evidence in this case also shows the applicant is not entitled to correction to Item 12b of her 1993 DD Form 214.  

4.  The evidence shows the applicant, while serving as a member of the USAR, was ordered to and entered active service on 28 December 1992.  She was REFRAD on 27 March 1993, at the completion of that period of service and issued a DD Form 214 showing she was separated on that date in Item 12b.

5.  The applicant contends that her 1993 DD Form 214 should show she was REFRAD on 9 March 2000.  However, the applicant was properly issued orders separating her from the USAR on 9 March 2000.  She was not on active duty for any period of service that qualified for the issuance of a subsequent DD Form 214 after 27 March 1993.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none, which would indicate that her 1993 DD Form 214 is in error or unjust.  Therefore, she is not entitled to a correction of her DD Form 214 to show she was released from active duty on any other date.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040004367, dated 14 April 2005, and AR20070016208, dated 20 March 2008, or as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned pertaining to Item 12b of the 1993 DD Form 214.



      _________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)                                         AR20090004784



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004784



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1