DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-235 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 August 15, 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  May  13,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by changing his name and 
gender.  He 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 April 10, 
1989,  and  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  October  25,  1991  due  to  a 
physical  disability  rated  at  10%  disabling.    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 
California State court has legally changed his name to the male name shown in the case caption 
and his gender to male.  The applicant stated that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to 
consider his application even though more than three years have passed since he discovered the 
alleged error because for him to be recognized as a veteran his military documents need to match 
his legal name and gender.   

 
In support of his allegations regarding his identity and name, the applicant submitted a 
photocopy of a California Superior Court order dated July 10, 2003, 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  California  Superior  Court  order  dated  November  3,  2005,  ordering  that  the 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 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, Personnel Service Center (PSC), who recommended that the 
Board deny relief. 
 
 
PSC stated that in COMDTINST M1900.4D, the Manual for preparing DD 214s, Chapter 
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. 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “legal  name  change  and  gender  reassignment  became 
effective  after the period of service indicated on the DD 214.  Therefore, there is no error or 
injustice with regard to the applicant’s name as it appears on the DD 214 or in [other] official 
military records.”  PSC noted that 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 December 11, 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 from the 
applicant. 
 

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 section 1552 of title 10 of the 

veteran’s gender be changed from female to male and that he be issued a new birth certificate.  
The applicant submitted a copy of his birth certificate showing that he is a male. 
 

United States Code.   

 
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 discovered, the 
alleged error or injustice.  The application should have been filed within three  years after the 
applicant  obtained  the  legal  order  changing  his  gender  on  November  3,  2005.    Therefore,  the 
application is untimely by approximately eight months.   
 

3.  However, the Board may still consider the application on the merits, if it finds 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  in  assessing  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 stated 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, 165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
4.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  consider  his  application 
because in order for him to be recognized as a veteran, he needs his military documents to match 
his legal name and gender.  However, the applicant’s reason is not specific enough for the Board 
to make a determination with regard to waiving the statute in the interest of justice.  He offered 
no evidence of any prejudice or discrimination that he has suffered as a result of not having his 
military documents reflect his current legal name and gender.   
 

5.    Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  based  on  a  cursory 
review of the merits.  Although the applicant has proved that he is the same person as the veteran 
whose original,  female  name and SSN appear in the case  caption  above and that a California 
Superior  Court  ordered  that  his  gender  be  changed  to  male,  he  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. 
  
6. A DD 214 (document discharging member from active duty) 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.1  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 is not an error. 

 
7. Nor has the applicant proven an injustice.  For the purposes of the BCMRs, “injustice” 
is  “treatment  by  the  military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice  but  is  not  technically 
illegal.”2  The Board notes that the applicant could theoretically face some prejudice as a result 
of his situation, but he has not submitted any evidence of actual prejudice or denial of veterans’ 
benefits.    This  case  is  distinguishable  from  Docket  No.2008-181  in  which  that  applicant  had 
earned reserve retired pay as a man, changed his social security number under threat of domestic 
violence and subsequently changed his gender to female after surgery. The Coast Guard refused 
to pay her retired pay under her new social security number and name.  The Board finding an 
injustice, granted limited relief by directing the Coast Guard to correct its electronic database of 
the  Personnel  Services  Center  to  show  that  applicant  as  a  female  retired  reservist,  rather  than 
male, and to correct the pay database to ensure that that applicant’s retired pay and benefits are 

                                                 
1 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chap. 1.D.2.a.   
2 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976); see Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket 
No. 346-89. 

paid to her under her female name and her new Social Security Number.  In the instant case, the 
applicant has not demonstrated that he is suffering any injustice as a result of any Coast Guard 
action.   His 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, which should be sufficient to establish his identity.  

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

record should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   

 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXX,  

XXXXXXXXX, USCG, now known as XXXXXXXXXX, is denied.