DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-078 
 
W______, W__ X__ 
a.k.a. Z________, W__ X__ 
xxx xx xxxx, 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 January 12, 2009, 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, W__ X__ W______, alleged that he is W__ X__ Z________, a disabled 
veteran of the Coast Guard Reserve.  He alleged that he served on active duty in the Reserve 
with an incorrect name (not the name on his birth certificate) and asked the Board to correct his 
military  records,  particularly  his  DD  214,  to  reflect  his  legal  name  as  it  appears  on  his  birth 
certificate, which he submitted.  The applicant alleged that he discovered the error in 1980 but 
that he needs his last name corrected “for reasons of employment, mortgage info, identification.”  
The  applicant  also  submitted  a  copy  of  the  DD  214  of  W__  X__  Z________,  but  he  did  not 
submit any official document bearing both his own legal name and the SSN of the veteran. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The birth certificate submitted by the applicant shows that W__ X__ W______ was born 
to A___ B___ W______ on January XX, 1956, in XXXX, Montgomery County, Alabama.  The 
birth certificate does not list a father.  It also indicates that the birth was single (without twin). 

 
The military records of W__ X__ Z________ show that he enlisted in the Coast Guard 
Reserve on February 13, 1979, underwent training, and was honorably discharged from active 
duty  due  to  a  physical  disability  seven  months  later,  on  September  10,  1979.    His  enlistment 
application, dated January 19, 1979, shows that he was born on January XX, 1956, in XXXX, 

Montgomery County, Alabama; that his mother’s name was A___ B___ Z________; and that his 
father’s name was C___ Z________.  His parents were was living in California and he enlisted 
in California.  In Part IV of the enlistment application, the recruiter certified that he had “verified 
the applicant’s name and the date and place of birth” by reviewing his birth certificate.   

 
W__  X__  Z________’s  military  records  include  a  copy  of  a  high  school  graduation 
certificate issued in the name of “W__ Z________” and a copy of a Social Security card issued 
to “W__ X__ Z________.”  The military records of W__ X__ Z________ indicate that he never 
used the last name W______ while in the service.   

 
W__ X__ Z________ requested copies of his military record in 1980 and 1990.  W__ 
X__ W______ requested copies of the military records under the SSN of W__ X__ Z________ 
in 1999. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 21, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief. 
 
 
The JAG stated that the application should be denied for untimeliness and lack of merit 
because the applicant provided “no rationale for his approximately 30-year delay” in applying to 
the Board for the requested correction.   
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
submitted  by  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC),  who  also  recommended  that  the 
Board deny relief.  The PSC stated that the military records are presumptively correct and that 
the birth certificate does not prove that the veteran’s legal name was W__ X__ W______ when 
he  served  on  active  duty.    The  PSC  noted  that  “issuance  of  additional  birth  certificates  in 
conjunction with adoption and other legal name changes is not uncommon.”  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 29, 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. 
 

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.   

2. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant wrote on his application form that he discov-

 

3. 

ered the alleged error regarding his name in 1980.  Therefore, the applicant knew or should have 
known of the alleged error in his military record at that time, and his application is untimely. 
 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”  Id. at 164-65; see also Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

The applicant did not explain his long delay in seeking the correction of his name 
but argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness of his appli-
cation because he is now experiencing problems with employment and a mortgage application 
because his name on his DD 214 does not match the name on his birth certificate.  The Board 
notes in this regard that recent legislation and the rise in identity theft has greatly increased citi-
zens’  need  for  clear,  consistent  identification  in  legal  documents  required  for  employment, 
travel, and many financial matters. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant, W__ X__ 
W______, is likely the same person as W__ X__ Z________, who served on active duty in the 
Coast Guard for seven months in 1979.  Despite the fact that the applicant’s recruiter certified on 
the enlistment application that W__ X__ Z________ was the name shown on the birth certificate 
he  reviewed,  the  Board  believes  that  the  odds  of  W__  X__  W______,  born  to  a A___  B___ 
W______ in XXXX, Alabama, on January XX, 1956, not being the same person as the Coast 
Guard  veteran  W__  X__  Z________,  who  was  born  to  A___  B___  Z________  and  C___ 
Z________ in XXXX, Alabama, on January XX, 1956, and who was issued an SSN in the name 
of W__ X__ Z________, are small.  In light of this apparent identity of person, the Board finds 
that it is in the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness of the application and consider the 
applicant’s request on the merits. 

Although  the  applicant,  W__  X__  W______,  is  likely  the  same  person  as  the 
veteran W__  X__  Z________,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  official  document  linking  his 
current name with the SSN of W__ X__ Z________.  Without a Social Security card linking the 
name  W__  X__  W______  with  the  SSN  of  W__  X__  Z________,  the  Board  cannot  say  for 
certain that they are one and the same person. 

Moreover, even assuming that the applicant could submit such evidence, it would 
not prove that in 1979 the applicant’s legal last name was W______, rather than Z________.  As 
the  Coast  Guard  indicated,  the  applicant  could  have  been  born W__  X__ W______  and  been 
adopted  by  his  father  and  legally  renamed  W__  X__  Z________  upon  the  marriage  of  his 
parents.  The applicant’s high school graduation certificate and old Social Security card, which 
are among his military records, and all of his other military records indicate that his legal name 
was W__ X__ Z________ in 1979.  The 1956 Alabama birth certificate does not prove that his 
legal  name  when  he  enlisted  in  California  in  1979  was  still W__  X__ W______.   The  Board 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 

begins every case by presuming that the disputed military records are correct,1 and the applicant 
bears  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  military  records  are 
erroneous or unjust.  In light of all the evidence in the record, the Board cannot conclude that the 
applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his legal name in 1979 was W__ 
X__ W______ rather than W__ X__ Z________. 

In addition, under Chapter 1.D.2.a. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, the manual for 
completing DD 214s, a DD 214 is a record of a single period of enlistment, and it is supposed to 
reflect the facts of that enlistment and to be accurate as of the date of discharge.  COMDTINST 
M1900.4D 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 military service, changes in personal data are recorded by 
the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, not by the military service.  Therefore, the Coast Guard’s 
refusal to change the applicant’s DD 214 to reflect the name he was apparently born with and is 
currently using is neither erroneous nor unjust.2 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); 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). 
2 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. 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

W__ X__ Z________, xxx xx xxxx, USCGR, is denied. 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The application of W__ X__ W______ for correction of the military record of former SA 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan