DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-060 
 
XXXX, xxxxx 
née xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxx, SA (former) 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 

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 Chair docketed the case after receiving the 
completed application on December 17, 2008, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 10, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  is  the  veteran  whose  name  and  Social  Security  number 
(SSN) appear below his name in the case caption above.  The veteran enlisted in the Coast Guard 
on  October  13,  1986,  and  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  due  to  a  physical 
disability  (a  knee  impairment)  two  years  later,  on  October  27,  1988.    The  veteran’s  military 
records, which include a birth certificate, show that the veteran was born female and served in 
the Coast Guard with a female name.1  The applicant alleged that he is the veteran and that State 
courts have legally changed his gender to male and his name to the male name shown in the case 
caption.  The applicant asked the Board to correct his military records to reflect his new male 
name and male gender.  He specifically asked to be issued a new discharge form, DD 214, with 
his new name.  (DD 214s do not include a notation of gender.) 

 
In  support  of  his  allegations  regarding  his  identity  and  name,  the  applicant  submitted 
photocopies of two State court orders.  The first, dated October 25, 1995, appears to change the 
veteran’s original first name from a female name to a male name; drop the middle name; and not 
change the last name.  The second, dated August 16, 2005, appears to change the veteran’s first 
name to another male name and to change the last name as well.  
                                                 
1 The Board notes that persons’ names are considered “male” or “female” (or both) because of cultural tradition, not 
law.  This decision labels the names at issue “male” or “female” in accordance with American cultural tradition.  

 
In  support  of  his  allegations  regarding  his  gender  change,  the  applicant  submitted  a 
photocopy of  a notarized letter dated June 27, 2006, from a doctor specializing in plastic and 
reconstructive surgery, who stated that psychological testing had determined that the applicant’s 
“true gender” is male and that the applicant underwent surgical procedures on June 5, 2006, “to 
irreversibly alter his anatomy and appearance to that of male.”  The applicant also submitted a 
photocopy of a third court order, dated December 5, 2006, which states that the “gender of the 
petitioner [the applicant] has been changed … from female to male.”  The court also ordered the 
State to issue the applicant a new birth certificate reflecting his new gender.   

 
The applicant also submitted a color photocopy of the first page of his United States pass-
port, issued on July 19, 2007, which shows that his sex is male.  None of the official documents 
submitted by the applicant show the veteran’s (or any other) SSN.  However, the applicant sub-
mitted  a  photocopy  of  his  new  birth  certificate,  issued  on  March  8,  2007,  which  includes  the 
same date, time, and hospital of birth and the same parents’ names, ages, and places of birth as 
appear  on  the  veteran’s  Coast  Guard  enlistment  documents  and  on  the  birth  certificate  in  the 
veterans’ military record.  Moreover, it was a single birth (without a twin). 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within thirty days.  The Board received no response. 

On  February  19,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  10,  2009,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on 
the  case  submitted  by  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  who  recom-
mended that the Board deny relief. 
 
CGPC stated that in COMDTINST M1900.4D, the manual for preparing DD 214s, Chap-
 
ter 1.D.2.a. states that “[a]ll entries [on the DD 214], unless specified otherwise (i.e., block 7a, 
7b), are for the current period of active duty only from the date of entry as shown in block 12a 
through the date of separation as shown in block 12b.”  Pursuant to this regulation, CGPC stated, 
the DD 214 was properly prepared with the applicant’s legal name at the time. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s “legal name changes and gender reassignment became 
effective  after the period of service indicated on the DD 214.  Therefore, there is no error or 
injustice with regards to the applicant’s name as it appears on the DD 214 or in [other] official 
military records.” 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “military  records  are  correct  as  the  applicant  served 
 
under his earlier name and gender, not the name and gender that were attained subsequent to dis-
charge.  There is no error or injustice with regards to the applicant’s records.  Records of former 
servicemembers are filed based upon Social Security Number and the name of the veteran at the 
time of discharge.” 
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The 
application was timely under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) because it was filed within three years of the 
date the applicant completed, and hence discovered, his legal gender and name changes. 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  is  the  veteran  whose  female  name  and  SSN  are 
shown in the case caption above and that his military records are erroneous and unjust2 because 
they do not reflect his new name and gender.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by pre-
suming that the disputed information in the veteran’s military record is correct, and the applicant 
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is 
erroneous or unjust.3 Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard offi-
cials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”4  

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is the same 
person as the veteran whose original, female name and SSN appear in the case caption above.  
Although he did not submit any official documents showing his SSN, all of the identifying data 
on his new birth certificate, issued on March, 8, 2007, are identical to the identifying data on the 
birth certificate in the veteran’s military record, except for the name and gender of the child born, 
and it was a single birth.  The applicant also submitted a copy of the court order that legally 
changed his gender to male and ordered the State to issue him a new birth certificate to reflect 
this gender. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his military 
records contain any factual error.  The records show that the applicant entered, served in, and 
was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  as  a  woman  with  the  female  name  shown  in  the  case 
caption, and the birth certificate submitted at the time of enlistment shows that the applicant was 
born female.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s military records are not errone-
ous even though they do not reflect his new name and gender. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

  

                                                 
2 Under the BCMR statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1), the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the Secretary to 
“correct  an  error  or  remove  an  injustice”  from  any  member’s  or  veteran’s  Coast  Guard  military  record.    For  the 
purposes of the BCMRs, “injustice” is “treatment by the military authorities that shocks the sense of justice but is 
not technically illegal.”  Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976); see Decision of the Deputy General 
Counsel, BCMR Docket No. 346-89. 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
4 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

5. 

 A DD 214 is a record of a single period of enlistment, like a snapshot, and it is 
supposed to reflect the facts of that enlistment and to be accurate as of the date of discharge.5  
COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  the  manual  for  completing  DD  214s,  contains  no  provisions  for 
updating DD 214s when veterans’ personal data change after their separation from the Service.  
For example, the Coast Guard does not correct or issue new DD 214s when members or veterans 
later change their names due to marriage; change their home address; or earn new awards or time 
in service.  Once a veteran is no longer a member of and has no ongoing connection with a mili-
tary service, changes in personal data are recorded by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, not 
by the military service.6  Therefore, the Coast Guard’s refusal to update the applicant’s active 
duty military records and 1988 DD 214 is not an error. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

In the absence of error, the Board must determine whether the applicant’s female 
name  and  gender  in  his  military  records  constitute  an  injustice.    The  BCMR  has  “an  abiding 
moral sanction to determine insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take 
steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.”7  For the purposes of the BCMRs, “injustice” is “treat-
ment by the military authorities that shocks the sense of justice but is not technically illegal.”8   

Some employers ask job applicants to present their DD 214s if they claim to have 
previously  served  in  the  military.    Given  common  American  mores,  the  Board  notes  that  the 
applicant could theoretically face discrimination and lose job offers if potential employers realize 
that he was born female and has changed his gender.  However, the applicant has not submitted 
evidence of such discrimination.  Moreover, such treatment would be an injustice caused by the 
prejudice of the employer, not by the Coast Guard’s treatment of the applicant.  In refusing to 
update  the  applicant’s  1988  DD  214  with  his  new  name,  the  Coast  Guard  is  not  treating  the 
applicant differently than any other veteran whose personal data change after separation.  The 
applicant’s DD 214 bears his SSN, and he has the court documents to prove that his name was 
once the name shown on the DD 214.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant has not 
proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  original  name  appearing  on  his  DD  214 
constitutes treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice.9 

 
8. 

military record should be denied. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  correction  of  his 

                                                 
5 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chap. 1.D.2.a.   
6 The Board notes that this case differs significantly from BCMR Docket No. 2008-181, in which the veteran, as a 
retired  reservist,  had  an  ongoing  connection  with  the  Coast  Guard,  which  owed  the  veteran  retirement  pay  and 
benefits for 20 years of service.  The Coast Guard was denying the veteran retirement pay or benefits because the 
veteran had changed her SSN, due to a threat of domestic violence, as well as her name and gender from male to 
female.  In that case, the Board did not order the Coast Guard to issue the applicant a new DD 214 or to change her 
name or gender on any paper record.  Instead, the Board ordered the Coast Guard to change the applicant’s name, 
gender, and SSN in a database to ensure that she would receive the retirement pay and benefits she had earned. 
7 Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959).   
8 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976); see Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket 
No. 346-89. 
9 This finding is consistent with the Board’s decision in BCMR Docket No. 2000-151, in which a veteran who had 
served in the Coast Guard as a male changed his first and middle names to female names several years after his 
discharge from the Service. 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  former  SA  xxxxxxxxxx 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, now known as xxxxxx xxxx, is denied. 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan