DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-078 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXX X., xxx-xxx, XXX  
 
aka XXXXXX, XXXXXX X., XXX XX XXXX  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on March 29, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  8,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  discharge  certificate  to  reflect  his 
legal  name,  instead  of  the  name  under  which  he  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The 
applicant  alleged  that  he  entered  the  Coast  Guard  and  served  during  World  War  II 
under his brother’s name.  In support of his application, he provided a copy of his birth 
certificate, dated October xx, 192x and showing XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX as his full 
legal  name,  and  a  copy  of  a  special  order  dated  December  xx,  195x  from  the  United 
States  Air  Force,  documenting  the  name  change  of  one  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX  to 
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX in Air Force records.  He alleged that the Board should find 
it in the interest of justice to consider his application “because [his] legal name should 
be on [his] honorable discharge [certificate].” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On  January  19,  1945,  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  enlisted  as  an  apprentice 
seaman  for  three  years  in  the  Coast  Guard Reserve.    All of  his  enlistment  documents 
were signed with that name and show his date of birth as May x, 192x.  His enlistment 
contract shows that he presented a birth certificate to his recruiting officer, who noted 
that  the  document  was  accurate.    Because  the  birth  certificate  he  presented  indicated 
that he was xx years and xx months old, his record also contains a “consent, declaration, 
and  oath  of  parent  or  guardian”  form,  which  was  signed  by  his  mother  and,  in  part, 
certified the following: 
 

And I, the said … XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am the … 
mother  of  the  said  …  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  to  be  enlisted  by  my  consent  as  … 
Apprentice Seaman (R), and that he has no other legal guardian but myself.  So help me 
God. 
 
Also on January 19, 1945, XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX was ordered to active duty 
and  transferred  to  a  Coast  Guard  station  for  training.    He  served  continuously  until 
being  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of  convenience  of  the  government  on  May  11, 
1946.  At the time of his separation, he was serving as a seaman first class and had a 
total of 1 year, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable service.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 16, 2002, the Chief Counsel provided the Coast Guard’s comments to 
the Board.  He attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared 
by  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).    In  concurring  with  the  analysis  of 
CGPC, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  application  should  be  dismissed  for 
 
untimeliness.  He stated that under 10 U.S.C. 1552 (b) and 33 C.F.R. 52.22, the Board is 
required to deny an application that is not filed within three years after the alleged error 
was  or  should  have  been  discovered,  unless  the  Board  decides  to  waive  this 
requirement in the interest of justice.  In making a determination whether to waive the 
statute  of  limitations,  the  Board  must  consider  the  reasons  for  the  delay  and  make  a 
cursory review of the potential merits of the claim.  See Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 
68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant  has  submitted  no  reason  why  his 
application should now be accepted.  He further stated that the applicant has offered no 
substantial evidence that the Coast Guard committed either an error or an injustice in 
issuing his discharge certificate.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel asserted that the Coast Guard does not amend service records 
to  reflect  changes  in  name  that  occurred  after  a  member  has  left  the  service.  
COMDTINST M1900.4D (stating that “[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 separation or discharge.”)  He argued that because the name “XXXXXX X. 
XXXXXX” is reflected throughout the applicant’s service record, it is clearly established 
that the applicant had assumed that name, even if it was not his legal name.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 19, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received by the 
Board within the given time to respond. 
 
 
On January 29, 2003, in a telephone conversation with the Attorney Advisor of 
the Board, the applicant explained that his brother, XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, knew 
that the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard under his (XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX’s) 
name.  He also stated that his brother never served in the Coast Guard during World 
War II or at any time.  The applicant was granted an extension of time to March 1, 2003 
to  submit  evidence  in  corroboration  of  his  claim.    However,  the  Board  received  no 
additional evidence from the applicant. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The  Commandant  issued  Personnel  Bulletin  No.  57-44,  in  effect  from  April  6, 
1944 to May 26, 1948, which 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. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
1. 
 
§ 1552.  
 
 
Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552  (b),  an  application  must  be  filed  with  the  Board 
within  three  years  of the  date  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was  discovered  or  should 
have  been  discovered.    XXXXXX  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  was  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard Reserve on May 11, 1946 and the applicant filed his application for the correction 
more than fifty years later on March 4, 2002.  Contrary to the applicant’s claim that he 
did not discover the alleged error until February 15, 2002, the alleged error should have 

2. 

3 

been  discovered  in  May  1946,  when  he  asserted  that  he  signed  and  received  his 
discharge papers.  Thus, his application is untimely. 
 
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.    The  interest  of  justice  is 
determined by taking into consideration the reasons for delay and conducting a cursory 
review of the merits of the case.  See Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.C.C. 1992).  
The Board’s regulations state that “[i]f an application is untimely, the applicant shall set 
forth  reasons  in  the  application  why  its  acceptance  is  in  the  interest  of  justice.    An 
untimely application shall be denied unless the Board finds that sufficient evidence has 
been presented to warrant a finding that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse 
the failure to file timely.”  33 C.F.R. § 52.22.  Although the applicant has not offered a 
persuasive reason for his not applying sooner, a cursory review of the record indicates 
that  in  195x,  the  Air  Force  granted  a  name  change  correction  that  is  identical  to  the 
applicant’s request of the Board.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case.   
 
 
The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  the  applicant’s 
own  birth  certificate  and  a  copy  of  a  special  order  from  the  Air  Force  confirming  a 
change of name on one XXXXXX X. XXXXXX’s Air Force records.  However, the Board 
finds  that  these  submissions  are  insufficient  in  and  of  themselves  to  prove  that  the 
Coast  Guard  erred  or  committed  an  injustice  in  issuing  an  honorable  discharge 
certificate in the name “XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX”.  There is insufficient evidence in 
the record to prove that the Air Force document necessarily pertains to the XXXXXX X. 
XXXXXX  who  served  in  the  Coast  Guard  or  to  the  applicant,  XXXXXX  XXXXXX 
XXXXXX.    The  applicant  could  have,  but  failed  to  submit  copies  from  his  Air  Force 
record  or  affidavits  that  would  have  proved  that  he  is  in  fact  the  XXXXXX  XXXXXX 
XXXXXX  who  served  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  from  January  19,  1945  to  May  11, 
1946.   

4. 

 
5. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard record at issue contains a notice of separation, 
which is authenticated with the signature of XXXXXX X. XXXXXX and confirms in item 
1 (listing last name, first name, and middle name), the name he used during his active 
duty service.  Given the authentication of information on the separation document and 
the  lack  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  is  compelled  to  presume 
administrative regularity in the Coast Guard’s preparation of the record.  See Arens v 
United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992);  Sanders  v.  United  States,  594  F.2d 
804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Consequently, the Board finds that the applicant has failed to 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the information contained in the military 
record of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX is in error or unjust. 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

6. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 James K. Augustine 

 
 
The  application  of  former  XXX  XXXXXX  XXXXXX  XXXXXX,  xxx-xxx,  (also 
known as XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XX XXXX) USCGR, for the correction of his 
military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 
 Quang Nguyen