DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-047 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The applica-
tion was docketed upon its completion on January 13, 1999. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 18, 1999, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  “Home  of 
 
Record” from xxxxxxx, to xxxx.  The correction would entitle him to travel and 
moving expenses from his place of discharge to his post-service home in xxxx. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that, when he filled out his enlistment forms, he was 
on vacation in xxxxxxx and wrote down the address where he was staying as his 
Home of Record.  He alleged that his permanent address at the time was xxxx, 
and he was not informed that the address he wrote down as his Home of Record 
would have any affect on his post-discharge travel allowance.  He argued that 
the Coast Guard should have told him the implications of his Home of Record.  
He  alleged  that,  if  he  had  known  its  effect,  he  would  have  written  down  his 
home address in xxxx as his Home of Record. 
 
 
The applicant stated that his family lived in xxxxxxxx from 1978 to 1990, 
but in 1990, his family moved to xxxx.  He submitted with his application copies 

of his income tax returns and his leave and earning statements showing that he 
had  been  paying  income  tax  to  the  State  of  xxxx  for  seven  years.    He  also 
submitted  an  affidavit  from  a resident  of  xxxx,  who  stated  that  the  applicant’s 
family  had  been  neighbors  of  his  since  1990.    The  owner  of  a  construction 
company in xxxx, also submitted an affidavit indicating that he had offered a job 
to the applicant and expected the applicant to begin working for him as soon as 
he was discharged from the Coast Guard. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 1, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommend-

 
 
ed that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) 
 
prohibit the applicant’s requested change.  Under the JFTR, the Home of Record 
is  defined  as  “the  place  recorded  as  the  home  of  the  individual  when  commis-
sioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into the relevant tour of active 
duty.”    The  Chief  Counsel  explained  that  the  purpose  of  having  a  Home  of 
Record  is  “to  determine  the  extent  of  the  member’s  entitlement  to  travel  and 
transportation  allowances  upon  separation  from  service.”    He  stated  that  the 
JFTR requires any change of the Home of Record to be “fully justified” and that 
the  member  must  show  that  “through  a  bona  fide  error,  the  place  originally 
named  at  the  time  of  current  entry  into  the  Service  was  not  in  fact  the  actual 
home … and not a different place selected for the member’s convenience.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s enlistment documents fully 
support the Coast Guard’s position that xxxxxxxx, is his correct Home of Record.  
The Chief Counsel also stated that the applicant failed to provide any evidence 
that  he  lived  in  xxxx  immediately  prior  to  his  enlistment  in  1991.    In  fact,  he 
alleged,  the  applicant’s  W-2  indicates  he  was  working  in  xxxxxxxx  when  he 
enlisted in 1991. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel further alleged that a Home of Record is not necessar-
ily a member’s State of Legal Residence or Domicile.  Morton v. United States, No. 
290-77, 1981 Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1546, at *16 (Cl. Ct. Dec. 14, 1981). 
 
Finally,  the  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  “even  assuming,  arguendo,  that 
 
Applicant  could  prove  that  his  Home  of  Record  was  erroneous,  he  has  not 
proven  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  error  or  injustice  and  is  therefore  not 
entitled to a correction before the Board.  Under the Statute of Frauds, the Coast 
Guard was certainly entitled to rely on Applicant’s certification of this matter in 
his  enlistment  contract.    If  there  was  error  in  this  contract,  it  was  the  result  of 
Applicant’s own certification of facts that were not true.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On  September  1,  1999,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the 
 
views  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond.    The  applicant  did  not 
respond.1 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
Applicant’s Personnel Data Record 
 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years on Feb-
ruary 14, 1991, at the Coast Guard recruiting office in xxxxxxxx.  He was 24 years 
old.  
 

In block A.3. of the Enlistment/Reenlistment Document (DD Form 4/1) he 

signed and certified, his Home of Record is listed as xxxxxxxx. 

  
On April 4, 1991, the applicant signed a Record of Military Processing (DD 
Form 1966/1), certifying that he had reviewed it and that all the information in it 
was true.  In block 4 on the form, his current address is listed as the xxxxxxxx 
address.  In block 5, his Home of Record address is listed as “SAME AS #4.”  His 
place of birth is listed as xxxxxxxx, in block 17.  Block 23 shows that he attended 
high school in xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxxx, where he graduated in 1984.  

 
On March 22, 1994, the applicant extended his enlistment for two years in 
order to accept orders for a permanent change of station.  On February 16, 1995, 
the  applicant  was  discharged  and  immediately  reenlisted  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  Block 9 on the Discharge and Reenlistment Contract he signed indicates 
that his Home of Record is xxxxxxxxx. 

 
On  February  15,  1999,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  his  unit  in 

xxxxxxxxxxx. 

 

Applicant’s Tax and Pay Records 
 
 
The applicant submitted copies of his xxxx state tax returns for the years 
1993  through  1997.    He  also  submitted  Leave  and  Earning  Statements  from 

                                                 
1    The  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  was  sent  to  the  applicant’s  address  in 
xxxxxxxx,  shown  on  his  application.    At  the  time  he  applied,  the  applicant  was  informed  in 
writing that he must advise the Board of any change of address.  He did not do so. 

August  1997  through  November  1998,  which  show  that  money  was  deducted 
from his pay for the purpose of paying xxxx state income tax. 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  two  1991  W-2  forms  he  received  from 
 
employers.  On the first, the employer shown is the xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx.  The 
W-2 lists the applicant’s address as xxxx, but shows that money was deducted to 
pay income taxes to the state of xxxxxxxx.  On the second, the employer shown is 
the  Coast  Guard.    It  lists  his  address  as  a  Coast  Guard  cutter  and  shows  that 
money was deducted to pay income taxes to the state of xxxx. 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

Section  U(A)-7  of  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulations  define  Home  of 

 
 
Record as follows: 
 

The  place  recorded  as  the  home  of  the  individual  when  commissioned, 
appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into the relevant tour of active 
duty.  The place recorded as the home of the individual when … reenlist-
ed remains the same as that recorded when … enlisted … into the rele-
vant tour of active duty unless there is a break in service of more than one 
full day. …  Travel and transportation allowances are based on the offi-
cially  corrected  recording  in  those  instances  when,  through  a  bona  fide 
error, the place originally named at time of current entry into the Service 
wasn’t in fact the actual home.  Any such correction must be fully justi-
fied and the home, as corrected, must be the actual home of the member 
upon entering the Service, and not a different place selected for the mem-
ber’s convenience. … 

 

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 applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that he was a resident of xxxx and merely on 
vacation in xxxxxxxxx when he enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1991.  However, 
the  W-2  form  he  received  from  his  civilian  employer  shows  that  he  was 
employed  in  xxxxxxxxx,  and  paying  income  taxes  to  xxxxxxxxx  prior  to  his 
enlistment.    The  record  also  indicates  that  he  went  to  high  school  in  xxxxxxxx 
and that his family lived in xxxxxxxxx until 1990, the year before he enlisted.  The 
applicant  did  not  submit  any  proof  that  he  lived  or  worked  in  xxxx  on  a  per-

manent basis prior to his enlistment.  The affidavit submitted by a neighbor indi-
cates  merely  that  the  applicant’s  “family,”  presumably  his  parents,  moved  to 
xxxx the year before he enlisted.  Furthermore, the applicant signed two enlist-
ment documents certifying that his Home of Record was in xxxxxxxx.  Therefore, 
the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  actual  Home  of  Record  at  the  time  of  his 
enlistment was in xxxxxxxxx. 

The applicant alleged that no one told him the significance of the 
Home of Record and that, had he been told, he would have listed his parents’ 
address in xxxx as his home address.  However, the DD Form 1966/1 signed by 
the applicant clearly indicates that a person may have a Home of Record distinct 
from  his  or  her  “Current  Address.”    Despite  this  distinction,  the  applicant 
apparently did not inquire into the meaning of the Home of Record and certified 
that  his  Home  of  Record  was  the  “same  as”  his  current  address  in  xxxxxxxxx.  
Moreover, in light of the applicant’s long-standing residence and employment in 
xxxxxxxxx,  the  Board  is  not  convinced  that  he  would  have  listed  xxxx,  as  his 
Home of Record even if he had known of the effects on his post-discharge travel 
allowance.    At  the  time  he  enlisted,  the  applicant  could  not  know  for  certain 
where he would be stationed at the time of his discharge, when he would be dis-
charged, where his parents would live at the time of his discharge, or where he 
would find employment.  

The applicant alleged that the fact that he paid income taxes to xxxx 
while  he  was  in  the  Coast  Guard  proves  that  xxxx  is  his  Home  of  Record.   
However, an individual’s legal domicile for purposes of paying state income tax 
need not be the same as his Home of Record. 

The  applicant  has  not  proved  that  a  correction  of  his  Home  of 
Record is “fully justified” in accordance with the terms of Section U(A)-7 of the 
Joint Federal Travel Regulations or that the Coast Guard committed any error or 
injustice in refusing to change his Home of Record from xxxxxxxxx, to xxxx. 

 
3. 

 
6. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
George Kuehnle, Jr. 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs