DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

____________________________________________________________________________ 
                                                                           
Application for Correction     
 
of Coast Guard Record of:               
       
                                                         
                                                    
 ____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

                                       BCMR Docket    
                No. 2004-003    
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 her military record.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

The  final  decision,  dated  June  10,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  change  the  name  on  her  DD  Form  214 
 
(discharge  certificate  from  the  Coast  Guard)  from  her  married  name  to  her  maiden 
name.  She stated that she needs her record corrected "for veteran services for [her]self 
and her children." 
 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  November  26,  1987,  and  was 
unmarried.    While  in  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  married  and  assumed  her 
husband's last name.  All documents in her military record were corrected to reflect her 
married  name.  She  was  released  from  active  duty  into  the  Reserve  on  November  24, 
1991.  On December 13, 1995, she was discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve.   
 

On  March  30,  2001,  the  applicant  was  divorced  in  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts and the Judgment of Divorce directed that she could resume using her 
maiden name.  
 

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.   

 

TJAG argued that the application was untimely.  He stated that applications for 
correction  of  military  records  must  be  filed within three years of the date the alleged 
error or injustice was, or should have been, discovered.  33 CFR § 52.22.   He said that 
the Board could waive the statute of limitations and consider the case if the applicant 
presents sufficient evidence that it is in the interest of justice to do so.   He further stated 
as follows: 

 
Here, Applicant's record was correct at the time it was issued in 1991.  It 
was  not  until  Applicant  voluntarily  changed  her  name  in  2001  that  the 
alleged  "error"  was  created.    Applicant  should  not  be  able  to  create  an 
"error"  ten  years  after  the  creation  of  a  record  and  seven  years  after  the 
statute  of  limitations  has  run  and  use  that  newly  created  "error"  as  the 
starting point for her BCMR petition.   
 
TJAG  argued  that  in  deciding  whether  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  the 
Board  should  consider  the  length  of  the  delay,  the  reasons  for  the  delay,  and  the 
likelihood of the applicant's success on the merits of her claim.  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 the DD Form 214.    
 

TJAG further argued that the applicant's situation fails to rise to the level of an 
injustice because the Coast Guard took no action against the applicant that shocks one's 
sense  of  justice.    See  Reale  v.  United  States,  298  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976).    He  further 
stated that the applicant's decision to change her name upon her divorce was voluntary 
and that she has offered no evidence that her current DD Form 214, together with her 
Judgment  of  Divorce  ordering  her  name  change,  are  insufficient  documentation  to 
establish entitlement to veterans benefits.  He asserted that without a reasonable chance 
of  prevailing  on  the  merits,  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations in this case.    
 

TJAG stated that the applicant offered no evidence that the Coast Guard erred in 
any  way  in  this  case.    He  further  stated  that  absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
government officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, 
and  in  good  faith.    Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (1992).    Moreover 
applicant bears the burden of proving error.  33 C.F.R. § 52.24.  Here, applicant offers no 
evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  and  error  or  injustice  at  the  time  of  her 
separation.  
 
 
TJAG  attached  a  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command  (CGPC)  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.      CGPC  noted  that 
COMDTINST M1900.4D (Coast Guard DD Form 214 Instruction) 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."   CGPC 
argued  that  there  are  no  provisions  in  the  instruction  for  reissuing  a  DD  Form  214 
under  a  person's  different  name  subsequent  to  its  issuance,  except  in  clear  cases  of 
administrative error.   
 
 
 
 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 1, 2004, a copy of the Coast Guard views was mailed to the applicant 

 
 
inviting her to submit a reply.  She did not respond.  
 
 

 

 

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: 
 
  
United States Code.   
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the 

2.  An application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after 
the  applicant  discovered  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  error  or  injustice.   
See 33 CFR § 52.22.   The applicant in this case could not have discovered the alleged 
error or injustice until she was granted a Judgment of Divorce on March 30, 2001 that 
allowed  her  to  resume  using  her  maiden  name.  She  filed  her  correction  application 
within three years of that date.  Therefore, her application is timely. 
 
 
3. The applicant has not established that the Coast Guard committed any error or 
injustice regarding her name as it appears on the DD Form 214 that was issued to her in 
1991.  Nor has the applicant produced evidence that the 2001 court order regarding her 
name change has any effect on events in 1991.  Finally, even if relevant, the applicant 
produced no evidence that she is encountering any prejudice by having her DD Form 
214 reflect her then married name rather than her maiden name, which she is currently 
using.   
 
 
4.  The Judgment of Divorce, together with her DD Form 214, should be sufficient 
evidence to establish the applicant's identity for entitlement to any benefits through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and otherwise.  
 
 
  

5. Accordingly, the application should be denied. 

 

ORDER 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
        
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Audrey Roh 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.