Yes he did. It was on the form he filled out requesting verification. Under :
338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
Thus there is no discretion on the part of Onaka and the DOH to ignore any part of the request. Thus the only reason why Onaka could not verify the date is that he could not legally do so. To assume that Onaka overlooked a part of the request would nullify its validity - the entire purpose of the verification process - as well as to suggest a degree on professional incompetence on the part of Onaka and the DOH.
He also requested of them to verify that the posted longform was a "true and accurate representation of the original record in the DOH files" That is a request that happens all the time. It requires a yes or no answer. They refused to answer it. Instead they answer with "Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files" The only legal reason for not verifying it is a true and accurate representation is that it is not. This is where Hawaii is being misleading.
I don't doubt that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that he attached with his request matches the original record in their files. What they are doing in that case is looking at all of the fields that are filled in on the online BC and comparing them to their files. I don't doubt that they match. However, there is one field in the online BC that is blank, and thus would not be checked against their records. That is field 23 "Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration" If that field is filled out in their records but is empty on the online version, that is a reason why they could no verify it as a true and accurate representation. The reason why that field is important is because it would show if the BC was filed as a result of a family member swearing to the occurrence of the birth. If that is the case, to me it is only prima facie evidence, and the supporting documentation has to be examined.
Bennett could have simply asked Dr. Onaka again to verify the birth date. There is no reason you can’t get another Letter of Verification.
Interview with Dr. Chiyome Fukino: http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk