DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-036 
 
Zzzz, Xxx X., xxxxxxxxxxx 
aka Xxxx, Xxx X., xxxxxxx, SC3c(R) (former) 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The case was docketed on January 
9, 2002, upon the Board’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military 
records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  26,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALELGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, Xxx X. Zzzz, alleged that he served in the Coast Guard Reserve 
during World War II under an erroneous name, Xxx X. Xxxx.  He asked the Board to 
change the name on his discharge form from Xxx X. Xxxx to Xxx X. Zzzz.  The applicant 
stated that his true last name was and is Zzzz.   
 

The applicant also asked the Board to upgrade the character of his May 29, 1946, 
discharge from “under honorable conditions” to honorable.  He alleged that he should 
have  received  an  honorable  discharge,  but  his  discharge  was  characterized  as  “under 
honorable  conditions”  without  sufficient  cause.    He  alleged  that  he  performed  “good 
honorable duty.”  He further alleged that he accepted the “under honorable conditions” 
discharge—which  resulted  from  his  once  returning  to  his  ship  from  shore  leave  less 
than 30 minutes late—because fighting it would have involved “lengthy due process.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD CONCERNING THE APPLICANT’S IDENTITY 

 
Military Record 
 
 
On January 24, 1945, Xxx Xxx Xxxx enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve, signing 
that name to all of his enlistment documents.  His enlistment papers show that he was 
born  in  xxxxxxxxxx,  New  York,  on  February  xx,  1927,  to  Ffffffff  and  Ggggg  Xxxx.  
Because he was a minor, his father had to sign a consent form to allow him to enlist, and 
the signature indicates that his father’s name was Ggggg Xxxx. 
 
 
The name Zzzz never appears in the military record of Xxx Xxx Xxxx, who was 
discharged  “under  honorable  conditions”  on  May  29,  1946.    The  military  record  also 
contains a photograph of Xxx Xxx Xxxx at the time of his enlistment. 
 
Applicant’s Submissions 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a photocopy of a New York 
State Certificate of Birth for Xxx Zzzz, with no middle name or initial provided.  The 
certificate was issued on March xx, 1927, and it shows the same town and date of birth 
that appear in the military record of Xxx Xxx Xxxx.  The name of the father on the birth 
certificate is Ggggg Zzzz, and the name of the mother on the birth certificate is Xxxxx 
Eeeee  Zzzz.    In  response  to  the  advisory  opinion  of  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast 
Guard  concerning  his  request  (which  is  attached  to  this  Final  Decision  below),  the 
applicant also submitted a copy of this same birth certificate with a signed stamp from 
the New Jersey Board of Veterans Services certifying that it is “a true and exact copy of 
the  original  document  (or  a  certified  copy  issued  by  a  public  custodian  [unreadable 
word]) that I have personally examined.” 
 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  photocopies  of  several  documents  and  identity 
cards from New Jersey State administrative, police, and veterans departments showing 
his  name  as  either  Xxxxx  Zzzz or  Xxxxx  X. Zzzz.    One  such  document  shows  that  in 
xxxx, he received a “xxxxxxxxxx Award” for being one of the “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”  
One  of  the  identity  cards  bears  the  applicant’s  photograph,  which  strongly  resembles 
the  photograph  of  Xxx  Xxx  Xxxx  in  the  military  record.1    In  addition,  the  applicant’s 

                                                 
1  In  a  telephone  conversation  with  the  Deputy  Chair  of  the  Board  on  September  16,  2002,  Mr.  Zzzz 
explained that when he was a child, many Americans mistook his Italian surname Zzzz for Yyyy or Xxxx, 
and his family gradually adopted the latter name.  His older brothers enlisted under the name Xxxx, and 
his  older  brothers  and  father  worked  for  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  under  the  name  Xxxx.    When  he 
enlisted, he used the last name Xxxx because his brothers had.  He explained that he received his middle 
name,  Xxx,  when  he  was  confirmed  as  a  child.    He  stated  that  his  mother’s  maiden  name  was  Eeeee 
Xxxxx.  Eeeee was “Americanized” to Ffffffff, and her maiden name was reversed on his birth certificate.  
He stated that he reverted to using his real last name, Zzzz, when he married in 19xx because his wife 
preferred it. 

The  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  with  respect  to  the  requested  name  change  are 

signature of “Xxx X. Zzzz” on his application form is very similar to the signatures in 
the military record of Xxx Xxx Xxxx. 
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
attached to this Final Decision below. 
 
Applicable Law 
 
 
Personnel Bulletin No. 57-44, which was in effect from April 6, 1944, to May 26, 
1948,  provided  instructions  on  completing  a  member’s  discharge  papers.    No  specific 
instruction  is  provided  regarding  a  member’s  name.    Under  current  regulations  in 
COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  the  DD  form  214  is  supposed  to  show  the  member’s  legal 
name at the time of his discharge. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD  

CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF DISCHARGE 

 
Military Record 
 
 
Xxx Xxx Xxxx enlisted in the Reserve for three years on January 24, 1945.  Upon 
completing basic training in May 1945, he was assigned to the U.S.S. Xxxxx as a seaman 
second  class.    On  October  23,  1945,  he  was  taken  to  “deck  court”  for  being  absent 
without leave (AWOL) “on or about 18 October, 1945 until 0330, 18 Oct. 1945.”  He pled 
guilty and was sentenced to perform an extra 12 hours of police duties and to lose $12 
of pay per month for two months. 
 
 
On January 5, 1946, Mr. Xxxx was transferred to the repair base at Constitution 
Wharf.  On January 30, 1946, he was transferred to the U.S.S. Xxxxxxx.  On March 19, 
1946, he was advanced to seaman first class, and on March 29, 1946, he was transferred 
to the U.S.S. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  On April 16, 1946, he was advanced to the rating ship’s 
cook third class (SC3c). 
 
 
On May 29, 1946, Mr. Xxxx was discharged “under honorable conditions” for the 
convenience  of  the  government.    During  his  time  in  service,  he    had  received  the 
American  Area  Campaign  Ribbon,  the  European-African-Middle  Eastern  Area  Cam-
paign Ribbon, and the World War II Victory Ribbon.  He had also received one conduct 
mark of 1.5 (on a 4.0 scale) for the period during which he was AWOL from the Xxxxx.  
His eleven other conduct marks are all 4.0s.  His proficiency in rating (PIR) marks were 
primarily 3.0s, with two 3.5s in the spring before his discharge and a 1.5 for the period 
during  which  he  was  AWOL  from  the  Xxxxx.    A  Termination  of  Service  form  in  his 

The views of the Coast Guard with respect to the requested upgrade of the char-

record indicates that his final average PIR mark was 2.85 and his final average conduct 
mark was 3.79. 
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
acter of discharge are attached to this final decision below. 
 
Applicable Law 
 
 
During  World  War  II,  the  Coast  Guard  functioned  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Navy, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3.  However, the applicant was discharged from the 
Coast Guard in 1946, after it had reverted to the Department of the Treasury and oper-
ated under its own rules.  Executive Order No. 9666, December 28, 1945.   
 
 
Article 583 of the 1940 Regulations for the United States Coast Guard states that 
“[t]he  Commandant,  without  recourse  to  a  board,  may  direct  the  discharge  of  an 
enlisted man under honorable conditions for the convenience of the government.”   

 
Article 584(4) of the 1940 Regulations provided that honorable discharges were 
awarded under any of five conditions:  expiration of enlistment; convenience of the gov-
ernment; hardship; minority (age); and disability not the result of own misconduct.  A 
general discharge could be awarded “for the same [five] reasons as an honorable dis-
charge  and  issued  to  individuals  whose  conduct  and  performance  of  duty  have  been 
satisfactory but not sufficiently deserving or meritorious to warrant an honorable dis-
charge.” 

 
Personnel Bulletin No. 4-46, issued on January 10, 1946, provided that a member 
discharged for the convenience of the government after April 6, 1944, would receive an 
honorable  discharge  if  he  was  “never  convicted  by  a  General  Court  Marital  or  more 
than once by a Summary Court Martial” and had a final average PIR mark of at least 3.0 
and a final average conduct mark of at least 3.25.  The bulletin does not mention deck 
courts. 
 
Prior to this time, under Article 4592 of the 1934 Personnel Instructions, members 
discharged for the convenience of the government could receive an honorable discharge 
with a final average PIR mark of “not less than 2.75” and a final average conduct mark 
of at least 3.0 if they were “[n]ever convicted by general Coast Guard court or more than 
once  by  a  summary  Coast  Guard  court,  or  more  than  twice  by  a  Coast  Guard  deck 
court.”  
 

On June 12, 1946, the  Commandant issued  ALCOAST (P) 101,  which  cancelled 
the new, higher PIR mark requirement for an honorable discharge in Personnel Bulletin 
No. 4.-46.  The ALCOAST stated the following: 

 
Effective immediately [PIR] mark for honorable discharge will be [2.75] instead of [3.0].  
Make changes in PB No. 4-46 … .  This change retroactive to 6 April 1944.  Any individ-
ual discharged on or subsequent to 6 April 1944 with discharge under honorable condi-
tions … solely because [PIR] mark was below [3.0] but mark [2.75] or above may forward 
his certificate of discharge to [Headquarters] with request that he be issued an honorable 
discharge form … .  The matter will be given the widest publicity. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552. 
 
2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.    The  applicant 
apparently signed and received his discharge papers with the name Xxx Xxx Xxxx and 
an “under honorable conditions” character of discharge in 1946.  Thus, his application 
was untimely by more than 50 years. 

 
3. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year statute 
of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  To determine whether it is in the 
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should consider the rea-
son  for  the  applicant’s  delay  and  conduct  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  
Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164  (D.D.C.  1992).    Although  the  applicant  did  not 
explain why he did not apply sooner for the requested corrections, a cursory review of 
the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  served  in  and  was  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard Reserve under an erroneous name and that his character of discharge was unjust.  
Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limi-
tations in this case. 

 
4. 

The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny 
the requested name change for lack of proof.  He stated that “at a minimum,” a certified 
copy  of  a  birth  certificate  might  be  considered  sufficient  evidence  of  the  applicant’s 
legal name at the time of his enlistment.  In response, the applicant has submitted a cer-
tified copy of the birth certificate of Xxx Zzzz.  On it, the place and date of birth and the 
father’s first name are the same as those provided by Xxx Xxx Xxxx upon his enlistment.  
Moreover,  the  photographs  and  signatures  of  Xxx  Xxx  Xxxx  and  Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz  are 

strikingly  similar  even  though  more  than  50  years  have  passed.    Therefore,  the 
applicant, Mr. Zzzz, has proved to the Board’s satisfaction that he is in fact the Xxx Xxx 
Xxxx who served in the Coast Guard Reserve from January 24, 1945, to May 29, 1946.  
Moreover, the Board concludes that, although the applicant enlisted and served in the 
Reserve with the last name Xxxx, his legal name at that time was Zzzz.  
 

5. 

The applicant has proved that his military record contains an error in that 
his last name should be Zzzz instead of Xxxx.  Although he himself caused this error, 
there is no evidence in the record that he intended to defraud the government by serv-
ing under the name Xxxx instead of his legal name.  The record indicates that his family 
was using the name Xxxx at the time, and his father consented to his enlistment under 
the name Xxxx. 
 

6. 

Although the applicant caused the error and waited more than 50 years to 
correct  the  error,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  correct  his  dis-
charge papers to reflect his legal name.  The applicant has a compelling interest in cor-
recting the record for posterity and his family’s sake.   

 
7. 

Under Personnel Bulletin No. 4-46, issued on January 10, 1946, a member 
discharged for the convenience of the government on May 29, 1946, whose final average 
PIR  mark  was  less  than  3.0  or  whose  final  average  conduct  mark  was  less  than  3.25 
would not receive an honorable discharge.  Because the applicant had once been AWOL 
for a short period, he had received both conduct and PIR marks of 1.5, and that one low 
PIR mark brought his final average down to 2.85, disqualifying him for an honorable 
discharge.  However, on June 12, 1946, the Commandant issued ALCOAST (P) 101, can-
celing the higher PIR mark requirement for an honorable discharge in Personnel Bulle-
tin No. 4-46 and retroactively permitting honorable discharges for members discharged 
for  the  convenience  of  the  government  with  final  average  PIR  marks  of  at  least  2.75.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge “under honorable conditions” 
is erroneous and unjust.  

 
8. 

 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

ORDER 

 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  former  SC3c  Xxx  Xxx 

Xxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, is granted.   

 
His military record shall be corrected to show that he received an honorable dis-
charge from the Coast Guard Reserve and that at the time of his discharge his last name 
was Zzzz instead of Xxxx.  The Coast Guard shall issue him papers showing that he was 
honorably discharged with the name Zzzz, instead of Xxxx.  The Coast Guard need not 

      
 

correct the applicant’s last name on every page of his military record, but copies of the 
corrected  discharge  papers  and  of  this  final  decision  shall  be  placed  in  his  military 
record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 

 
 Nilza F. Velazquez 

 
 L. L. Sutter 

       
 

 

 
 Blane A. Workie 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

                        Memorandum 

 
 

 Subject:  ADVISORY OPINION IN  

CGBCMR DOCKET NO. 2002-036 (ZZZZZ) 

  From:  Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard  

Date: 

Reply to 
Attn. Of: 

 
5420/3 
G-LMJ 
x7-0116 

To:  Chairman, Board for Correction 

 
               of Military Records (C-60) 

 

Ref:  (a)  Applicant's DD Form 149 filed 18 June 2001 

 
1.   Adopting the analysis of Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (en-
closure 1), I request that you accept that analysis and the following additional 
comments as the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion recommending partial relief. 

2.   Summary of Facts:  See Matters of Record in enclosure (1). 

3.   Summary  of  Analysis:    For  the  reasons  discussed  in  enclosure  (1),  the  Coast 
Guard  has  no  objection  to  upgrading  the  Applicant’s  discharge  characteriza-
tion  to  indicate  that  the  Applicant  received  an  Honorable  discharge  for  the 
convenience of the government.  With respect to the Applicant’s other request 
– that his discharge certificate be corrected to reflect his legal name – the Coast 
Guard recommends denying relief based on untimeliness and lack of merit.   

4.   Analysis of the Case 

a.  This Application Should be Dismissed for Untimeliness 

1.  Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R.§ 52.22, an application must be 
filed  within  three  years  of  the  date  that  the  alleged  error  or  injustice 
was,  or  should  have  been,  discovered.    If  there  had  been  an  error 
regarding  Applicant’s  last  name  as  it  appears  throughout  his  military 
record, including on his enlistment and discharge certificates, Applicant 
should have been aware of that error, at the latest, when he received his 
discharge certificate in 1946.  

2.  If an application is untimely, the applicant must set forth in the appli-
cation a reason why its acceptance is in the interest of justice.  In addi-
tion, the Board must deny relief unless the applicant provides sufficient 
evidence to warrant a finding that it would be in the interest of justice 

 

to  excuse  the  failure  to  file  timely.    In  making  that  determination,  the 
Board should consider the reasons (or lack of reasons) for delay and a 
cursory review of the potential merits of the claim.  See Dickson v. Sec-
retary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  Applicant has submit-
ted no reason why this Application should be accepted now and, as dis-
cussed infra, Applicant has failed to offer substantial evidence that the 
Coast Guard committed either an error or injustice in this case.  There-
fore, the BCMR should dismiss this case. 

b.  Applicant’s Contention of Error 

1.  Contention:  Applicant  requests  that  his  discharge  certificate  be  cor-
rected to reflect “Xxx Xxx Zzzz” vice “Xxx X. Xxxx.”  Applicant asserts 
that  “Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz”  is  his  legal  name  and  has  provided  various 
documents to support that assertion.   

2.   Analysis:  The  Coast  Guard  rejects  Applicant’s  allegation  of  error  for 
several reasons.  First, Applicant asserts that “Xxx Xxx Zzzz” is his legal 
name.    The  Coast  Guard  does  not  dispute  that  fact  based  on  the 
documents that Applicant has provided in the name “Xxx Xxx Zzzz” – 
most significantly is an uncertified State of New York certificate of birth 
and  a  New  Jersey  driver’s  license.    Clearly,  “Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz”  is  the 
Applicant’s legal name. However, as stated in enclosure (1), the Coast 
Guard does not amend service records to reflect changes in name that 
occurred after a member has left the service.  To do so, would be incon-
sistent  with  COMDTINST  M1900.4D  which  states  “[t]he  DD  form  214 
provides the member and the service with a concise record of a period 
of service with the Armed Forces at the time of the member’s separa-
tion or discharge.” (Emphasis added).  Indeed, the overwhelming evi-
dence  contained  in  the  Applicant’s  service  record  establishes  that 
Applicant’s  name  throughout  his  military  service  was  “Xxx  X.  Xxxx” 
and,  even  if  it  wasn’t  his  legal  name,2  the  evidence  is  clear  that  the 
Applicant had assumed that name.  For example, the Applicant signed 
his “enlistment contract” and “Application for Enlistment” as “Xxx X. 
Xxxx.”    Even  more  notable,  is  the  fact  that  the  Applicant’s  parents 
names are included in those documents as “Ffffffff Xxxx” and “Ggggg 
Xxxx.”  And, in the “Application for Enlistment,” the Applicant’s father, 
in giving his parental consent for his son, the Applicant, to enlist in the 
U.S. Coast Guard, fills in and signs his name “Ggggg Xxxx.”  

                                                 
2 The only evidence suggesting that “Xxx X. Xxxx” was not Applicant’s legal name at the time of his 
Coast  Guard  enlistment  is  an  uncertified  birth  certificate  that  the  Applicant  submitted  with  his 
Application.  At a minimum, the Coast Guard may consider a certified birth certificate issued before 
the date of Applicant’s enlistment in the U.S. Coast Guard as sufficient evidence that the Applicant’s 
legal name was “Xxx Xxx Zzzz” at the time of his enlistment.  

 

 
5.  Recommendation:    With  respect  to  Applicant’s  request  to  have  his  discharge 
certificate reissued in the name “Xxx Xxx Zzzz”, the Coast Guard recommends 
that the Board dismiss this case with prejudice based on the three-year time bar.  
In the alternative, the Coast Guard recommends that the Board deny relief for 
lack of proof.  As for the Applicant’s other request regarding his discharge char-
acterization, the Coast Guard recommends that the Applicant’s discharge char-
acterization be changed to reflect that the Applicant received an Honorable dis-
charge for the convenience of the government. 

 

 
 
 
Encl: 

 

 

 

 

        By direction 

G. T. VACHON 

(1)  CGPC ltr dtd 11 June 2002 
(2) Applicant’s Service Record 

 

 

States 

 
Commander 
United 
Personnel Command 
 
 

 

Coast 

Guard 

2100  Second  Street,  S.W. 
Washington,  DC  20593-0001 
Symbol:  CGPC-adm-2 
Staff 
Phone: 
267-6969 
FAX: (202) 267-4381 

(202) 

                                      5420 

  

 

Commandant (G-LMJ) 

(a) CGBCMR Application 2002-036 

 
 
From:  Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
To: 
 
Subj:  PROGRAM INPUT ON CGBCMR APPLICATION (ZZZZZ) 
 
Ref: 
 
1.  Comments on the application contained in reference (a) are attached as enclosure (1). 
 
2.   I recommend relief be granted. 
 
 
 
 
                                                                        Acting 
                                                                         
 
Encl:  (1) Comments concerning CGBCMR Application 2002-032 

D. A. DiIULIO 

 

 
 
 

Enclosure 1 - CGBCMR 2002-036 

 
RELIEF REQUESTED BY APPLICANT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  requests  “a  discharge  paper  in  my  legal  name  of  Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz  not 
Xxx X. Xxxx.”  Applicant also requests his Under Honorable Conditions discharge 
be upgraded to Honorable.  

 
APPLICANT’S STATED BASIS FOR RELIEF: 
 
1.  The applicant states he received an Under Honorable Conditions discharge due to 

being “late under half an hour.” 

 
MATTERS OF RECORD: 
 
1.  The application is not timely. 
 
2.  January 24, 1945: Per Form NCG 2500 (Enlistment Contract) applicant enlisted in the 
Coast Guard Regular Reserves for a period of 3 years.  This form was endorsed by 
applicant in the name of Xxx Xxx Xxxx. 

 
3.  January  24,  1945:  Per  Form  NAVCG-2599  (Report  of  Change  in  Personnel),  upon 
enlistment,  applicant  was  transferred  to  Coast  Guard  Training  Station,  Manhattan 
Beach,  Brooklyn,  NY  for  assignment  to  duty.    Applicant’s  name  on  this  form  was 
Xxx Xxx Xxxx.  

 
4.  May 12, 1945: Per Form NAVCG-2599, applicant reported to the USS XXXXXXX (PF-

xx) for assignment to duty.  Applicant’s name on this form was Xxx X. Xxxx. 

 
5.  October  23,  1945:  Per  Form  NAVCG-2599  dated  October  25,  1945,  applicant  was 
awarded  a  “deck  court”  for  “Absent  without  leave  from  proper  authority  on  or 
about 18 October, 1945 until 0330, 18 Oct., 1945.”  Per this form, applicant’s absence 
was proven through his own plea.  Applicant was awarded “extra police duties for a 
period of twelve hours, and to lose twelve dollars per month of his pay for a period 
of two months.” 

 
6.  May 21, 1946: Per NAVCG-2599, applicant was transferred to DCGO, 3rd Naval Dis-
trict, New York City, NY for “further transfer to CG SupCenter for Discharge.”  The 
authority listed for this action was “Commandant’s Circular Letter, 12-46.” 

 
7.  May  27,  1946:  Per  letter  to  Commandant  (PEA-AD),  SUBJ:  Xxxx,  Xxx  X.  (xxx-xxx) 
SC3c;  discharge  of,  applicant  was  to  be  discharged  “under  authority  of  Personnel 
Bulletin 94-45, Alcoast 57-46 and CGRS (Coast Guard Receiving Station) Ellis Island, 

 

 

NY/L dated 24 May, 1946, file 73-783-701-531.” 

 
8.  May  29,  1946:  Per  Form  NAVCG-553  (Notice  of  Separation  from  the  U.S.  Naval 
Service-Coast Guard), applicant was discharged with an “Under Honorable Condi-
tions” discharge. Applicant endorsed this form with the signature of Xxx X. Xxxx. 

 
9.  May 29, 1946: Per Form NAVCG 2500-C (Termination of Service, United States Coast 
Guard), applicant was discharged with an “Under Honorable Conditions” discharge 
for  the  “Convenience  of  the  Government”  by  the  authority  of  “PB  94-45”  and 
“Alcoast 57-46.”  Applicant’s final average Proficiency in Rating score was 2.85 and 
conduct score was 3.79. Applicant endorsed this form with the signature of Xxx X. 
Xxxx. 

 
10. It was determined, after a thorough search with the Coast Guard Historian’s office at 
Coast  Guard  Headquarters  and  with  the  National  Archives,  that  no  copy  of  the 
Commandant’s  Circular  Letter,  12-46,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Bulletin  94-45  or 
Alcoast  message  57-46  is  available  for  review.    It  is  believed  that  any  of  these 
resources could indicate the separation procedures of member’s at the conclusion of 
World War II. 

 
11. Per  the  most  closely  dated  (1953)  and  available  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual 
(PERSMAN)  after  applicant’s  separation,  Article  12-B-16  states  “During  war  or 
national emergency, enlisted Reserve and retired personnel serving on active duty 
will be released from active duty only in accordance with instructions issued by the 
Commandant.” 

 
12. Per the PERSMAN of 1953 Article 12-B-6 “The Commandant may authorize or direct 
the discharge of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the Government for any of 
the following reasons: (a) General demobilization or by order applicable to all cases 
of  a  class  of  personnel  specified  in  the  order.”    This  Article  continues  in  subpara-
graph (j) “An individual discharged for the convenience of the Government shall be 
given an honorable discharge (DD Form 256 CG) if during his current enlistment or 
extension  thereof,  he  has  not  been  convicted  by  a  General  Courts-Martial  or  more 
than once by a Special Courts-Martial and his minimum final average marks are 2.75 
in proficiency in rating and 3.25 in conduct.  Individuals not qualifying for an hon-
orable discharge will be given a general discharge.” 

 
13. Per  Article  12-B-3b  of  the  PERSMAN  an  individual  who  received  a  General  Dis-
charge for the convenience of the Government is given this discharge “for the same 
reasons as an honorable discharge and issued to individuals whose conduct and per-
formance of duty have been satisfactory but not sufficiently deserving or meritori-
ous to warrant an honorable discharge.  It is also given for the additional reasons of 
inaptitude and unsuitability.”   

 
14. At  the  time  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty,  his  legal  name  was  Xxx  Xxx 

Xxxx.  His legal name appears on his discharge certificate. 

 

 
 
15. The  appropriate  manual,  which  described  the  process  for  completing  a  discharge 
certificate  at  the  time  the  applicant  was  separated,  is  not  available.    However,  the 
current Coast Guard DD-214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
instruction, COMDTINST M1900.4D, states “The DD form 214 provides the member 
and the service with a concise record of a period of service with the Armed Forces at 
the time of the member’s separation or discharge.” 

 
16. May 29, 1946: Per letter to Mrs. Ffffffff Xxxx (applicant’s mother), applicant “Xxx X. 
Xxxx,”  was  “issued  this  date  a  certificate of  discharge  under  honorable  conditions 
from the United States Coast Guard Reserve.” 

 
CONCLUSIONS: 
 
1.  The Coast Guard does not normally re-issue records to reflect changes in name (the 
most common involving the name change of female former members who marry), 
unless  required  to  change  obvious  typing  errors.    It  is  possible  in  the  Applicant’s 
case that a simple clerical error committed at the start of his enlistment went uncor-
rected through no fault of his own.  However, his record throughout his enlistment 
process and final separation clearly indicates that he enlisted and represented him-
self  as  Xxx  Xxx  Xxxx.  Without  exception,  every  document  in  applicant’s  military 
record  shows  his  name  as  Xxx  Xxx  Xxxx,  including  documents  requiring  his  sig-
nature.  There is no evidence that the applicant questioned or attempted to correct 
his name during his enlistment, so at this time, the documentation provided by the 
Applicant  is  insufficient  to  consider  granting  this  request.    The  Coast  Guard  may 
consider  issuing  discharge  documents  under  the  name  of  Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz  if  more 
information and documentation can be provided.  At a minimum, the Coast Guard 
requests submission of a  certified copy of the Applicant’s birth certificate, with an 
explanation from him about how he was enlisted under an incorrect last name and 
why it was not corrected during his enlistment.  Statements from family members or 
other  third  parties  familiar  with  the  circumstances  of  the  Applicant’s  enlistment 
should also be submitted, along with any other documentation that would provide 
evidence that the spelling of Applicant’s name was a clerical error.   

 
2.  The  appropriateness  of  applicant’s  discharge  characterization  is  not  possible  to 
determine due to the length of time (56 years) since applicant’s separation and the 
Coast  Guard’s  inability  to  locate  and  review  a  record  of  the  regulatory  authority 
under which the applicant was separated.  When applicant’s entire record, including 
his one disciplinary incident, is taken into consideration, and coupled with the sepa-
ration  policies  known  to  be  in  effect  at  least  since  the  1953  Personnel  Manual,  the 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  would  not  object  to  upgrading  applicant’s  dis-
charge to an Honorable discharge for the Convenience of the Government.   

 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
1.  Applicant’s  name  should  remain  as  it  appears  in  his  military  record  and  on  his 
 

 

original discharge certificate.  However, the documentation applicant provided with 
this  application  that  indicates  he  is  currently  known  as  Xxx  Xxx  Zzzz  shall  be 
included  in  his  official  military  record.    The  Applicant  may  submit  further  docu-
mentation as discussed above for reconsideration of his request to be issued a certifi-
cate of discharge under the name Xxx Xxx Zzzz.  

 
2.  Applicant’s discharge characterization should be upgraded to indicate he received 

an Honorable discharge for the convenience of the Government.