DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-033 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 on November 24, 
2006, upon receipt of the application and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated August  16,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  December  22,  1982,  as  an  E-2  (seaman 
apprentice) during a reduction in force (RIF or general demobilization).  The applicant alleged 
that she agreed to be discharged during the RIF only when she was told that her pay grade would 
be restored to E-4 90 days after her discharge.  The applicant admitted that she discovered the 
error  in  1984  but  argued  that  the  Board  should  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations 
“[b]ecause it is the correct thing to do.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On  September  24,  1979,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  as  an  E-1.    She 
advanced to E-2 upon completion of boot camp on November 16, 1979, and to E-3 on June 1, 
1980.  The applicant attended SS “A” School to earn the subsistence specialist rating, received 
the designation on July 24, 1980, and was advanced to SS3, pay grade E-4, on December 15, 
1980.   

 
On July 10, 1982, the applicant was convicted at court-martial for falsely altering, signing 
someone  else’s  name  to,  and  uttering  several  money  orders  with  intent  to  defraud,  and  for 
stealing about $921.55 from her unit’s non-appropriated fund.  The specifications included five 
violations  of  Article  123  and  one  violation  of  Article  121  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military 

Justice.  She was sentenced to reduction to E-2, restriction for 60 days, and forfeiture of $300.00 
per month for six months.  The sentence was approved on November 23, 1982. 

 
On December 22, 1982, the applicant received an honorable discharge during a general 
demobilization.  She had not advanced since her reduction to E-2.  Her separation code, LCC, 
denotes an involuntary separation pursuant to a general demobilization or force reduction. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 12, 2007, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  He argued that the 
application should be denied because of its untimeliness and adopted the findings and analysis of 
the case provided in a memorandum by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 
CGPC stated that under Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4, a DD 214 is supposed 
 
to  show  the  member’s  pay  grade  at  the  time  of  separation.    CGPC  stated  that  there  is  no 
regulation or policy that advances or restores the rates of former members after they have been 
discharged. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April  24,  2007,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory 

 
 
opinion and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in her record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The applicant was discharged in 
December 1982 and knew or should have known that she was discharged as an E-2 at that time.  
The applicant stated that she discovered the alleged error—not being restored to E-4—in 1984.  
Therefore, her application was untimely. 

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion 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,  165;  see  also  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

4. 

The  applicant  argued  that  the  Board  should  waive  the  statute  of  limitations 
“[b]ecause it is the correct thing to do.”  The applicant did not explain why she waited more than 
twenty years to request correction of the alleged error, and the Board does not find her argument 
that “it is the correct thing to do” to be compelling. 

The  record  shows  that  the  applicant  was  reduced  from  E-4  to  E-2  on  July  10, 
1982,  as  part  of  a  court-martial  sentence  for  stealing  more  than  $900  from  her  unit’s  non-
appropriated fund and for falsifying several money orders with intent to defraud.  Her DD 214 
shows  that  she  was  honorably  discharged  during  a  general  demobilization  on  December  22, 
1982, when her pay grade was still E-2.  As CGPC stated, under COMDTINST M1900.4, the 
DD 214 is supposed to show the member’s pay grade at the time of discharge, not the highest 
pay grade held during the enlistment.   

The applicant alleged that her discharge was voluntary and that she only agreed to 
it  because  someone  told  her  that  her  pay  grade  would  be  restored  to  E-4  90  days  after  her 
discharge.  However, her LCC separation code indicates that her discharge was not voluntary, 
and  there  is  no  regulation,  policy,  or  other  evidence  to  support  her  claim  that  her  pay  grade 
should have been restored 90 days after her discharge. 

Given the lack of evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations, the Board finds 
that it is unlikely that her case can prevail upon the merits.  Accordingly, the Board should not 
waive the statute of limitations in this case.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

of her military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

        

 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton