DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-151 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on 
June 26, 2000, when the application was completed by the Board’s receipt of the 
applicant’s military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  17,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  is  a  former  xxxxxxxxxx  who  was  honorably  discharged 
from the Coast Guard on xxxxxxx, having served 4 years, 11 months, and 27 days 
on active duty.  The applicant was born male and served in the Coast Guard as a 
man.  She asked the Board to correct her discharge form DD 214 and her military 
record to show that she served as a woman with the name shown in the caption 
of this final decision, rather than as a man.   

 
The applicant submitted a letter signed by a doctor indicating that she has 
been diagnosed with “gender identity disorder” and underwent “the transition 
to live full-time as a woman in the ’real-life test’ as required by the Harry Benja-
min Standards.”  She applied to have her gender changed on her driver’s license 
on May 14, 2000, and the Circuit Court of the State of XXXXX legally changed her 
name to the female name shown in the caption on xxxxxxxxxx.   

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  her  gender  identity  disorder  has  been  “long 
standing”  and  existed  prior  to  her  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  in  1986.  
However, she did nothing about it because of the problems it would cause.  She 
indicated that she is  seeking this correction because she  will  have to show her 
DD 214 to future employers and might be discriminated against if they learn of 
her gender change because of the male name on it. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 27, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Board  should  deny  relief  under  the 
Board’s  3-year  statute  of  limitations  because  the  application  was  filed  14  years 
after the applicant received “his”1 DD 214.  The Chief Counsel alleged that the 
applicant’s statement that his disorder is long standing proves that the applica-
tion is untimely. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel further argued that under COMDTINST M1900.4C, the 
applicant’s DD 214 should reflect his actual gender during his service.  The Chief 
Counsel argued that the applicant’s DD 214 is correct because all of his military 
records indicate that he was a man with the name shown in the caption above 
when he served on active duty.  He argued that the applicant has not proved that 
his military records were erroneous because he has not shown that he was female 
while he served on active duty.  The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant has 
only proved that he changed his name to a female name in 2000 and that he has 
not proved that he actually changed his gender. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the Coast Guard has an interest in main-
taining the accuracy of its records for historical purposes and that the “informa-
tion contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circum-
stances  that  existed  at  the  time  the  records  were  created.”    He  argued  that 
“[w]hile there may exist sufficient authority for the BCMR to order a post-service 
name change for reasonable cause, there is  no authority to change a member’s 
record to reflect a name change based on a non-existent gender change.”  He also 
argued  that  the  Board  is  not  required  to  recognize  the  XXXXX  court’s  order 
changing the applicant’s name. 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel argued that if the Board granted relief, it would 
also be required to change the applicant’s reenlistment code from RE-1 (eligible 
to  reenlist)  to  RE-4  (ineligible  to  reenlist).    Therefore,  because  under  Doyle  v. 
                                                 
1  The Chief Counsel chose to address the applicant as a man. 

United  States,  220  Ct.  Cl.  285  (1979),  the  Board  is  prohibited  from  changing  a 
record in a manner adverse to the applicant’s interests, it cannot grant the appli-
cant’s request. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  December  28,  2000,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the 
views of the Coast Guard and invited her to respond within 15 days.  The Board 
received no response. 
 

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.   
 

2. 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  case  is  untimely  because  the 
applicant was discharged more than three years before she filed her application.  
However, under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), applications must be filed within three years 
of the date the applicant discovered or should have discovered the alleged error.  
Although the applicant’s gender identity disorder may be long standing, she did 
not change her name or complete the transition to life as a woman until last year.  
Therefore, the Board concludes that her application was timely. 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant’s  request  should  be 
denied because the Coast Guard has a strong interest in maintaining the accuracy 
of its records for historical purposes.  However, the Board is not persuaded that 
issuing a second DD 214 with a new name for the applicant would necessarily 
corrupt the integrity of the Coast Guard’s historical records and statistics.   

The Chief Counsel argued that the Board is barred from granting 
relief because changing the name on the applicant’s DD 214 from male to female 
would also require changing her reenlistment code.  It is true that the applicant 
might have received an RE-4 if she had switched genders while in the service.  It 
is  also  true  that  her  gender  identity  change  might  disqualify  her  for  further 
military service.  However, the Board knows of no rule—and the Chief Counsel 
did not cite one—that requires a reenlistment code to be changed when the name 
on a DD 214 is altered from male to female.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is 
not barred from granting relief in this case as the Chief Counsel alleged. 

  
3. 

 
4. 

 

6. 

 
7. 

5. 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Board  should  not  grant  relief 
because the applicant has not proved that she has undergone a sex-change opera-
tion.  In Army BCMR Docket No. AC98-12376, decided on January 13, 1999, the 
Army BCMR denied relief to a veteran who had undergone a sex-change opera-
tion from female to male based on its determination that he had “failed to submit 
sufficient  relevant  evidence  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or 
injustice.”    The  Board  finds  that  whether  an  applicant  has  undergone  a  sex-
change  operation,  while  possibly  relevant  to  the  permanence  of  the  change  in 
gender identity, should not necessarily determine the outcome of a case.  
 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that her military records contain any error, even though they do not reflect her 
current name or gender identity.  The record shows that the applicant entered, 
served  in,  and  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  as  a  man  with  the  male 
name shown in the caption of this final decision.  Therefore, the Board concludes 
that her military records are not in error.  

In  the  absence  of  error,  the  Board  must  determine  whether  the 
applicant’s male name and gender identity in her military records constitute an 
injustice.  The BCMR has “an abiding moral sanction to determine insofar as pos-
sible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough 
and fitting relief.”  Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959).  
However,  the  Deputy  General  Counsel  has  ruled  that  in  the  absence  of  legal 
error, an applicant’s treatment by military authorities must “shock the sense of 
justice” to justify correction by the Board.  Decision of the Deputy General Coun-
sel, BCMR Docket No. 346-89 (citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 
(1976)).  
 
8. 

Many employers require job applicants to present their DD 214s if 
they have previously served in the military.  The applicant may face discrimina-
tion and lose job offers if potential employers realize that she was born male and 
has changed her gender identity.  However, such unfair treatment would be an 
injustice  caused  by  prejudice  in  society,  not  by  the  Coast  Guard’s  treatment of 
the applicant.  The Coast Guard does not issue new DD 214s when former mem-
bers  change  their  names  due  to  marriage  or  divorce,  for  example,  so  it  is  not 
treating the applicant differently by refusing to issue her a DD 214 with her new 
name.    Therefore,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  male  name  appearing  on  the 
applicant’s  DD  214  does  not  constitute  treatment  by  military  authorities  that 
shocks the sense of justice. 

 
9. 

record should be denied. 
 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  correction  of  her  military 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 
Sherri L. Pappas 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan