DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-065 
 
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  December  18,  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  August  12,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military records to reflect his new name as 
indicated in the parenthesis in the caption above.  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on 
April  10,  1967,  and  was  discharged  on  September  2,  1970,  under  the  name  listed  above.    He 
claimed that in a divorce action in Lincoln County Superior Court of Washington State his name 
was ordered changed1 to his birth name.   

 
In support of his allegations regarding his name change, the applicant submitted a partial 
copy  of  an  order  from  the  Lincoln  County  Superior  court  of  Washington  State  dated  June  30, 
2009, changing his name.  He also submitted a photocopy of a social security card and driver’s 
license showing his new name. 

 

  

 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

                                                 
1    The  applicant’s  DD  149  indicates  that  this  most  recent  name  change  is  not  his  first.    The  record  indicates  that 
sometime  after  his  1970  discharge,  the  applicant  changed  his  name  from  that  in  official  military  record  to  C___ 
J____  (there is no evidence of this name change in the military record).  According to the applicant, his most recent 
name change was from C____ J____ to that recently obtained.  

 

 

 
 
On  April  28,  2010, the Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an  advi-
sory  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  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 stated 
that there is no error or injustice with regard to the applicant’s records, and that records of former 
service members are filed based upon Social Security Numbers and the names of the veterans at 
the time of discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant  a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and  invited  him  to  respond  within  thirty  days.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a  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  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 obtained a legal name change. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that his military records are erroneous and unjust2 because 
they do not reflect his new name, which is his birth name.  The Board begins its analysis in every 
case by presuming 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 

                                                 
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. 

 

 

information  is  erroneous  or  unjust.3  Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that 
Coast Guard officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”4  

 
3.  The applicant submitted a copy of  a portion  of a  court order that purports to  legally 
change  his  name.    He  also  submitted  a  copy  of  his  social  security  card  and  a  copy  of  his  state 
driver’s  license  issued  in  his  new  name.    However,  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 under the 
name shown on his DD 214. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s military records 
are not erroneous even though they do not reflect his new name. 

  
4. 

 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.    Therefore,  the  Coast  Guard’s  refusal  to  update  the 
applicant’s active duty military records and 1970 DD 214 is not an error. 

 
5. 

In the absence of error, the Board must determine whether the applicant’s name as 
it  appears  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.”6  For the purposes of the BCMRs, “injustice” is “treatment 
by the military authorities that shocks the sense of justice but is not technically illegal.”7   

 
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 
some difficulty if potential employers realize that the name on his DD 214 is different from that 
he  currently  uses.    However,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  evidence  of  such  difficulty.  
Moreover,  such  treatment  would  be  an  injustice  caused  by  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  or 
should  have  court  documents  to  show  that  his  name  was  once  that  shown  on  the  DD  214.  
Therefore,  the  Board  concludes  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the 

                                                 
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 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chap. 1.D.2.a.   
6 Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607 (Ct. Cl. 1959).   

7 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976); see Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket 
No. 346-89. 

 

 

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.8 

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

record should be denied. 

                                                 
8 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  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 
 George A. Weller 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.