DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
____________________________________________________________________________
Application for Correction
of Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
_____________________________________________________________________________
BCMR Docket
No. 2002-118
FINAL DECISION
The final decision, dated April 8, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed
This is a proceeding under section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the
United States Code. It was docketed on June 24, 2002, upon the Board's receipt of the
applicant's complete application for the correction of his military record.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on December 10, 1991, and he was
discharged on December 7, 1995. On March 27, 2002, a Texas District Court, upon
petition, entered an order changing the applicant's name.
The applicant asked the Board to change the name on his DD Form 214
(discharge certificate from the Coast Guard) to that recently ordered by the Texas
Court.
Views of the Coast Guard
On October 22, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that
the Board deny the applicant's request because he failed to prove an error or injustice in
his military record.
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant's military record, including his DD
214, should remain undisturbed as an accurate reflection of the applicant's service in the
Coast Guard. He stated that the applicant enlisted and served in the Coast Guard
under the name as it appears in his military record. The Chief Counsel further stated the
following:
For historical purposes, the Coast Guard has an interest in maintaining the
accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those
records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstance that
existed at the time the records were created. Moreover, under the
principle of dual sovereigns and federal supremacy, neither the Coast
Guard not the BCMR is legally required to recognize a Texas District
Court ordering Applicant's name change.
According to the Chief Counsel, the 2002 court order has no affect on the
discharge and separation papers that the applicant received from the Coast Guard in
1995.
Applicant's Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard
applicant inviting him to submit a reply. He did not respond.
On October 28, 2002, a copy of the Coast Guard views was mailed to the
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
submissions of the applicant and of the Coast Guard, the applicant's military record,
and applicable law:
1. The Board has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the
United States Code. It is timely because it was filed within three years of the court
order changing the applicant's name.
2. First and foremost, the applicant has not established that the Coast Guard
committed any error or injustice regarding his name as it appears on the DD Form 214
that was issued to him in 1995. Nor has the applicant produced evidence that the 2002
court order regarding his name change has any affect on events in 1995. Finally, even if
relevant, the applicant produced no evidence that he is currently encountering
prejudice by having his DD Form 214 reflect a name different than that ordered by the
Court.
3. Presenting the order from the court together with his DD Form 214 should be
sufficient evidence that the applicant served in the Coast Guard under a different name
but is in fact that same person as identified in the court order.
4. Accordingly, the application should be denied.
ORDER
The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction
James K. Augustine
Quang Nguyen
Dorothy J. Ulmer
of his military record is denied.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2002-110
Clearly the Coast Guard committed no error in taking the course of action it did at the time it did.” However, the Chief Counsel stated, in light of the xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx recantation and the decision of the State to dismiss the charges, “the Coast Guard agrees that the results of the Boards of Inquiry and Review, as well as the OERs in question and the Applicant’s eligibility to gain a security clearance, should be revisited and the Applicant’s BCMR petition for relief should be favorably...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2003-070
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that that he was not AWOL for the period April 16, 1996 to April 29, 1996, but was on authorized leave.3 He alleged that Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) had authorized his retirement effective July 1, 1996.4 He further claimed that Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, had approved his request to travel outside the continental United States during the period April 10, 1996 to June 30, 1996. The military records before the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-083
The CO attached a signed statement from the XO who stated in pertinent part: for the recommendation On May 31, 1960, I personally served a copy of [the CO's] letter dated 31 May 1960, recommending [the applicant] for a discharge as undesirable from service in the United States Coast Guard. He signed the letter, which was enclosed with the [CO's] letter of 31 May 1960 recommending his discharge as undesirable.2 2 Neither the CO's letter informing the applicant of his rights, nor the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-084
The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case under section 1552 of title 10, United States The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: Code. The applicant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his final multiple for the 1995 SWE for advancement to AM1 was in error, because it did not include the one point the applicant was entitled to receive as a result of having been...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2004-003
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On February 25, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant's request because it is untimely and because she failed to prove an error or injustice in her military record. He argued there is very little chance that the applicant will prevail because the DD Form 214 accurately documents the name under which the applicant served on active duty and her subsequent name change is irrelevant to the accuracy of...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-129
This final decision, dated May 13, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, who received a discharge under other than honorable (OTH) conditions on January 29, 1992, asked the Board to correct his record by upgrading his discharge to honorable. 14 U.S. COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1000.6, COAST GUARD PERSONNEL MANUAL (Change 27, 1986). The Board finds that the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in considering...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2006-130
[The applicant] further claims that the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard improperly removed him from the rolls of the Coast Guard Reserve. of the Coast Guard Pay Manual and section 501 of title 37 of the United States Code, a member may receive payment for unused accrued leave up to a career maximum of 60 days, which the applicant had already met at the time of his release from active duty in December 2001. The JAG summarized the Coast Guard's recommendations, as follows: A) the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-136
He stated that in January 1989 he received a letter from the Commandant, endorsed by CCGD one, stating that the applicant had failed to earn the minimum 27 points required to remain in the Active Reserve for the anniversary year ending September 2, 1988. The Chief Counsel stated that notwithstanding the Coast Guard's delay in processing the applicant's reserve application and oath of office, the applicant is not entitled to a correction of his record to provide point credit for drills that...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-153
The Coast Guard stated that if the CY 2001 LCDR selection board had considered and selected the applicant for promotion to LCDR, he would have been promoted to that grade on July 1, 2002. it could correct the administrative error by promoting the applicant without further selection board consideration because his name had never been removed from the promotion list as a result of his 1999 selection, even though he declined that promotion. Accordingly, the Coast Guard recommended that this...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-022
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing his home of record from XXXXXXXXX, New Jersey to XXXXXXXXXX, Kansas. He recommended that the Board deny relief to the applicant because the applicant failed to submit persuasive evidence that his home of record was incorrectly listed in his military record. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant listed XXXXXXXX, New Jersey as his home of record when he enlisted in the Army in 1995 and listed XXXXXXXXX, New Jersey as his...