DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-181 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxx xx xxxx 
a.k.a. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxx xx xxxx 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 

 

 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.   The  Chair  docketed  the  case  on August  8, 
2008, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff mem-
ber J. Andrews to prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

This case involves allegations of changed identity and gender.  To provide clarity 
while  maintaining  anonymity  in  the  body  of  this  decision,  the  applicant,  whose  legal 
name and Social Security Number (SSN) appear first in the caption above, will herein-
after be referred to as “Jane Roe.”  The applicant alleged that she, Jane Roe, is the same 
person as the veteran whose name and SSN appear last in the caption above.  This man, 
who will hereinafter be referred to as “John Doe,” retired from the Coast Guard Reserve 
more  than  ten  years  ago  and  is  now  entitled  to  Reserve  retirement  pay  and  benefits 
because his 60th birthday has passed.  

 
The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay John Doe’s retire-
ment pay and benefits to her, Jane Roe, using her new SSN, which is different from the 
SSN of John Doe.  She alleged that, after retiring from the Coast Guard, because of a 
threat of violence by an ex-spouse, she legally changed her original male name to another 
male name—hereinafter “Jim Roe”—and received a new SSN under the name Jim Roe.  
Then, after undergoing a sex-change procedure, she legally changed her name a second 
time, from Jim Roe to Jane Roe. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  because  she  recently  attained  age  60,  she  should  be 
receiving Reserve retirement pay and benefits from the Coast Guard.  However, she is not 
receiving them because Coast Guard records continue to reflect her original SSN and the 

name John Doe.  In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted photocopies of the 
following documents: 
 

•  A court order identifying the petitioner, John Doe, by his date and place of 
birth and parents’ names, changing his name to Jim Roe, and sealing the order 
in accordance with State law; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  A court order stating that the petitioner, Jim Roe, had previously changed his 
name  to  Jim  Roe,  further  changing  the  petitioner’s  name  to  Jane  Roe,  and 
sealing the order in accordance with State law; 

•  The United States Uniformed Services identification card of John Doe  with 

his SSN and photograph; 

•  The  United  States  Uniformed  Services  identification  card  of  Jane  Roe  with 
Jane Roe’s SSN and photograph, which depicts the same person whose photo-
graph appears on John Doe’s identification card; 

•  The Social Security card of Jane Roe with her SSN, dated July 6, 2007; 

•  A Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) identification card for Jane Roe; 

•  A State driver’s license for Jane Roe, issued on May 31, 2007, which shows 

that she is female and that her date of birth is the same as that of John Doe; 

•  DVA medical records concerning the applicant’s gender change, including a 
letter stating that Jane Roe “is a current patient in the Endocrinology clinic … 
at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center”; 

•  A DVA database print-out showing that John Doe is another name used by 

Jane Roe; 

•  A  letter  from  a  Human  Resources  Officer  of  another  federal  government 
agency stating that John Doe was personally known to him when he worked at 
and retired from that agency and that Jane Roe, who visited him on October 
31, 2008, is the same person as John Doe;  

•  Coast Guard regulations stating that to effect a name change, a member must 
submit  a  copy  of  the  court  order  authorizing  the  name  change  and  that  to 
effect a change of SSN, a member must submit a copy of a Social Security 
Card; 

•  A marriage license showing that Jane Roe recently married and is listed as the 

bride;  

•  A publication of the Social Security Administration concerning how victims 

of domestic violence may change their SSNs; and 

•  The Coast Guard’s letter notifying John Doe that he had completed 20 years 

of satisfactory service for retirement purposes. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 
 
On November 11, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided in 
a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  
 
CGPC stated that John Doe has passed his 60th birthday and is eligible to receive 
 
retired pay.  CGPC acknowledged John Doe’s name changes but stated that originals of 
the certified documents should be submitted so that the name changes may be authenti-
cated.  Once the name changes are authenticated, CGPC stated, John Doe’s official pay 
record should be corrected to reflect the name Jane Roe. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  Personnel  Services  Center  would  not  make  the  requested 
changes  administratively  absent  evidence  of  a  linkage  between  John  Doe’s  and  Jane 
Roe’s SSNs.  However, such linkage is apparently not available under the Social Secu-
rity’s rules in domestic violence cases.  Therefore, CGPC stated, in light of the DVA’s 
determination that John Doe and Jane Roe are the same person and that Jane Roe is enti-
tled to the veterans’ benefits of John Doe, the Board should find that the applicant “has 
supported a link between names and SSNs” once the name changes are authenticated. 
 
 
CGPC stated that “if the BCMR is able to verify authenticity of documents rela-
tive to the applicant’s name and SSN change, the electronic pay record of [John Doe and 
his SSN should] be changed to reflect [Jane Roe and her SSN].  The Coast Guard should 
pay  any accrued and future retirement payments to the applicant under the new name/ 
SSN.  Additionally, if the applicant provides documentation relating to the change in gen-
der, the applicant’s gender should be changed from male to female in electronic records.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 10, 2008, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  
The applicant stated that she was not initially concerned about the gender shown in the 
Coast Guard’s database because one’s gender is not noted on an Armed Forces identifi-
cation card.  However, based on the advice of someone at Coast Guard Headquarters, she 
believes that the gender shown should be changed to female so that her husband may get 
an identification card as a dependent.   
 

The applicant submitted with her response State database printouts showing that 
while she was still named Jim Roe, her gender was noted as female and her SSN was 
entered in the State’s database as the SSN that belongs to Jane Roe.  She also submitted 
two certified “true copies” of court orders that bear original signatures and the embossed 

seals of State circuit courts.  The first of these court orders changed John Doe’s name to 
Jim Roe on December 23, 2002.  The second changed Jim Roe’s name to Jane Roe on 
November 20, 2006.  Both court orders are signed by a State circuit court judge and a 
deputy clerk of the court.1 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the appli-
 
cant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submissions,  and  applicable 
law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  
Because  John  Doe  has  become  eligible  for  retired  pay  and  the  applicant’s  name  has 
changed within the last three years, the application is timely under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
 

1. 

2. 

The applicant, whose name and SSN appear first in the caption on the first 
page of this decision, alleged that the military records of John Doe (the veteran whose 
name and SSN appear last in the caption) are her own records because she is the same 
person who served in and retired from the Coast Guard Reserve with that name.  As John 
Doe’s 60th birthday has passed, she asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay her 
the retirement pay and allowances, under her new SSN, to which John Doe is entitled and 
also to correct the Coast Guard’s database to show her gender as female. 

 
3. 

 The JAG recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request if it 
can verify her identity changes by reviewing originals of the court orders changing John 
Doe’s name to Jim Roe and Jim Roe’s name to Jane Roe (the applicant).  In response, the 
applicant submitted certified “true copies”—bearing original signatures and the embossed 
seals of the State circuit court—of the two court orders that respectively changed John 
Doe’s name to Jim Roe as of December 23, 2002, and Jim Roe’s name to Jane Roe as of 
November 20, 2006.  Moreover, the applicant’s military records and submissions show 
the following: 

 
•  The John Doe whose name was changed to Jim Roe by order of a State circuit 
court on December 23, 2002, has the same parents and date and place of birth 
as  John  Doe  the  veteran  reservist  whose  retirement  pay  the  applicant  is 
claiming. 

•  Jim Roe changed his gender to female and acquired the SSN that now belongs 
to  the  applicant  under  the  name  Jane  Roe.    Jim  Roe  thereafter  underwent 
another legal name change to become known as Jane Roe. 

•  The fact that John Doe and Jane Roe are the same person is acknowledged by 
the  federal  agency  from  which  the  applicant  retired  as  a  civilian  employee 

                                                 
1 The applicant asked that these true copies be returned to her as they are very difficult to attain since the 
records are sealed. 

 

 

under the name John Doe and by the DVA, which has provided medical care 
to  this  person  under  both  names  and,  in  particular,  medical  procedures  that 
have changed this person’s gender from male to female. 

•  The applicant’s home State recognizes her gender as female. 
 
4. 

The Board has verified by reviewing true copies of the court orders that 
the applicant is the same person as John Doe, who retired from the Coast Guard Reserve 
as a PSC/E-7 with more than 20  years of satisfactory service; who recently passed his 
60th birthday; and who has undergone two legal name changes, a gender change, and an 
SSN change.  The applicant has submitted clear proof that she is the retired reservist she 
claims to be, that she has a new SSN, and that she is entitled to the retirement pay and 
benefits she earned under her original name and the SSN of John Doe.  She has proved a 
linkage between the two names and SSNs in the caption on the first page of this decision 
by a preponderance of the evidence.  Although her name, gender, and SSN have changed 
since she retired from the Reserve, the applicant is in fact the veteran whose name and 
SSN appear last in the caption on the first page of this decision. 
 
 
The applicant is entitled to the retirement pay of John Doe—the veteran 
whose name and SSN appear last in the caption on the first page of this decision—and 
her husband is entitled to a dependent’s identification card.  Therefore, the fact that the 
Personnel Services Center’s database still shows that the retirement pay is owed to a man, 
John  Doe,  under  his  old  SSN  is  erroneous  and  unjust  because  the  applicant  is  being 
denied significant pay and benefits owed to her by the Coast Guard. 
 

5. 

6. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by ordering the Coast Guard to cor-
rect  the  Personnel  Services  Center’s  electronic  pay  database  to  show  that  all  of  John 
Doe’s retirement pay and benefits are to be paid to the applicant under her new name and 
SSN and that she is female. 

 

 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 

 

The application is granted and the military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
USCGR (Retired), now legally identified as xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shall be 
corrected as follows: 

The Coast Guard shall pay her any amount she may be due as a result of these 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct the electronic database of the Personnel Services 
 
Center to show that this retired reservist is female, rather than male.  In addition, the pay 
database shall be corrected so as to ensure that all of this retired reservist’s accrued and 
future pay and benefits are paid to her under the name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and her 
new Social Security Number:  xxx xx xxxx. 
 
 
corrections. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan