DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-226 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  9,  2011,  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). 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated May 2, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant alleged that she is the veteran whose name appears below her current name 
in the case caption above.  She asked the Board to correct the veteran’s DD 214 to show her cur-
rent name.   

 
The veteran enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 15, 1991, and was honorably retired from 
the Coast Guard due to a physical disability on January 19, 2005.  The veteran’s military records 
show that the veteran was born male and served in the Coast Guard with a male name.1   

 
The applicant alleged that she is the veteran and that a State court has legally changed her 
name to the female name shown in the case caption.  The applicant submitted a photocopy of a 
State court order changing her name from the male name in the caption to her female name as of 
July 20, 2011.   The Social  Security  Number of the veteran is  written by  hand at  the bottom  of 
this document.  The applicant made no allegations of error or injustice. 
  
 

 

                                                 
1 The Board notes that persons’ names are considered “male” or “female” (or both) because of social tradition, not 
law.  This decision labels the names at issue “male” or “female” in accordance with American social tradition.  

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 20, 2011, 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, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC), who recommend-
ed 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, PSC stated, 
the DD 214 was properly prepared with the applicant’s legal name at the time. 
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant’s “name change became effective after the period of sevice 
indicated on the DD-214 [citation omitted].  Therefore there is no error or injustice with regards 
to the applicant’s name as it appears on the DD-214 or in official military records.  Furthermore, 
it should be noted that records of former service members are filed based upon Social Security 
Number  and  the  name  of  the  veteran  at  the  time  of  discharge.”    PSC  recommended  that  the 
Board  deny  relief  because  the  applicant  “has  failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  with 
regards to [her] record.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 24, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited her 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.    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, her legal name change. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  she  is  the  veteran  whose  male  name  is  shown  in  the 
case caption above and that her military records should be corrected because they do not reflect 
her  new  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 information is erroneous or unjust.2 

                                                 
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)).   

 

 

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

 
3. 

The  applicant  submitted  no  official  document  proving  that  her  Social  Security 
Number is the same as that of the veteran.  Therefore, she has not proved by a preponderance of 
the evidence that she is the same person as the veteran.  The applicant submitted a copy of the 
court order that legally changed her name from that of the veteran to her current name, but many 
people have the same name, so the court order does not prove that she is the veteran. 

 
4. 

Even assuming arguendo that the applicant is the veteran, she has not proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence that her military records contain any error or injustice or that she 
is being denied any veterans’ benefits to which she is entitled.  The records show that the veteran 
entered, served in, and was retired from the Coast Guard with the male name shown in the case 
caption.    A  DD  214  is  a  record  of  a  single  period  of  enlistment,  like  a  snapshot,  and  it  is  sup-
posed  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.   

 
5. 

denied. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s request for correction should be 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
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.   

 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG (Retired), is denied.