DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-073 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 January 13, 2009, and subsequently drafted 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 24, 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 August 4, 1992, and was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard on May 1, 1997.  The 
veteran’s military  records show that he was  female when he  served in the Coast Guard.   The 
applicant alleged that he is the veteran and that a XXXXXXX State court has legally changed 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 to eliminate any potential future 
discrimination and so that his information matches when background investigations are done for 
employment purposes. 

 
In support of his allegations regarding his identity and name, the applicant submitted a 
photocopy of a Wake County, North Carolina State court order dated May 9, 2008, ordering that 
the veteran’s original first and middle names be changed from female names to male names, with 
no change to the last name.   

 
In  support  of  his  allegations  regarding  his  gender  change,  the  applicant  submitted  a 
photocopy of a letter dated July 18, 2008, from a doctor specializing in plastic and reconstructive 
surgery, who stated that he had performed permanent and irreversible sex change surgery on the 
applicant on July 10, 2007, and that the applicant should now be allowed to change the gender on 
his social security card, birth certificate, and other legal documents to male.   

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.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  February  13,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

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

 
The applicant also submitted a photocopy of a social security card showing that his name 
has  been  changed  to  male  and  the  SSN  is  the  same  as  that  listed  on  his  DD  214.    He  also 
submitted a copy of his current state driver’s license showing his male name and the same birth 
date as that listed on his DD 214 and the court order.   
  

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 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. 
 

2. 

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 unjust1 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.2 Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard offi-
cials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”3  

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.  
The applicant also submitted a copy of the court order that legally changed his gender to male, a 
copy of his social security card, and  a copy of his state driver’s license issued in his male name. 

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. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s military records are not erroneous 
even though they do not reflect his new name and gender. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

  
5. 

 
6. 

 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.4  
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.  Therefore, the Coast Guard’s refusal to update the applicant’s active duty military 
records and 1997 DD 214 is not an error. 

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 

                                                 
1 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. 
2 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)).   
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
4 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chap. 1.D.2.a.   

steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.”5  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.”6   

Some employers ask job applicants to present their DD 214s if they claim to have 
previously served in the military.   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 DD 214 with 
his new name, the Coast Guard is not treating the applicant differently than any other veteran 
whose personal data changed 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 in his military record and on his DD 214 constitutes 
treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice.7 

 
7. 

 
8. 

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

military record should be denied. 

                                                 
5 Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959).   
6 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976); see Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket 
No. 346-89. 
7 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 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, is denied. 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal