DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-045 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 December 8, 
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,  who  was  released  from  active  duty  into  the  Reserve  on  December  26, 
1972, asked the Board to correct his DD 214 to show that he was an SK1/E-6, rather than an 
SK2/E-5.  The applicant alleged that in May 1972, he took and passed the servicewide examina-
tion for  advancement to SK1, and the  advancement list was supposed  to become effective on 
December 1, 1972, but it was delayed for some  reason.  However, sometime after his release 
from active duty on December 26, 1972, his Reserve commanding officer advised him that the 
list had been issued and that the advancements were made retroactive to December 1, 1972. 
 
 
The applicant stated that although he learned about the retroactive advancements in 1973 
and knew that his DD 214 showed his rating to be SK2/E-5, the Board should waive the three-
year statute of limitations because he did not learn until recently that he could get his DD 214 
corrected and because it would “mean[] a lot to [him] to have [his] DD 214 correct.  [He] worked 
hard to achieve E-6 [in] under 4 years [of] active duty and believe a correction is appropriate.” 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of the advancement eligibil-
ity list, dated November 30, 1972, which shows that he placed in the 32nd spot out of 60 SK2s 
eligible for advancement to SK1 after the servicewide examination. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
ment Sheets in his record show the following: 

On February 17, 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  Achieve-

 
•  On May 2, 1969, the applicant completed boot camp and advanced from E-1 to E-2. 
•  On November 26, 1969, the applicant advanced to E-3. 
•  On October 30, 1970, the applicant completed Storekeeper “A” School and advanced 
to SK3/E-4. 
•  On December 1, 1971, the applicant advanced to SK2/E-5.   
•  On  May  22,  1972,  he  completed  the  servicewide  examination  for  advancement  to 
SK1/E-6 with a mark of 80%. 
•  On February 6, 1973, following his release from active duty, the applicant advanced 
to SK1 as a reservist. 
 
On July 11, 1972, the applicant wrote a letter to his District Commander  asking to be 

released from his enlistment in December 1972 in order to start college in January 1973. 

 
The applicant’s DD 214 shows that he was released into the Reserve on December 26, 
1972,  and  that  his  rating  was  SK2.    He  also  signed  a  form  acknowledging  that  he  had  been 
advised that he had to reenlist on active duty within three months to “remain in a continuous ser-
vice status” and that he might “not be reenlisted in [his] present rate (SK2) unless that rate is on 
the open rate list.” 

 
On February 1, 1973, the applicant wrote a letter to the Commander of the Reserve ask-
ing to be assigned to the “Active Reserves.”  He noted that he had been in the 32nd spot on the 
active duty SK1 advancement eligibility list upon his release from active duty and asked to “be 
advanced to SK1 upon entering the Active Reserves.” 

 
On February 6, 1973, the applicant was assigned to a unit in Denver in a drill pay status 
and advanced to SK1.  A Pay Adjustment Authorization form dated June 3, 1973, shows that in 
March and April 1973, he was erroneously paid as an SK2, instead of an SK1, so his pay was 
adjusted. 
 
 
discharged from the Reserve. 
 

On February 16, 1975, the applicant completed his military obligation and was honorably 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On May 1, 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 adopted the find-
ings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum by the Coast Guard Personnel Com-
mand (CGPC).   
 
 
CGPC argued that the application should be denied because of its untimeliness.  CGPC 
also 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 and that the applicant’s military records show that 
he was an SK2 on December 26, 1972, when he was released from active duty.  CGPC stated 
that his allegation that he was or should have been retroactively advanced to SK1 as of Decem-
ber 1, 1972, is not supported in the record, which is presumptively correct. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 3, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory opin-

 
 
ion and invited him 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 his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). The applicant was released from 
active  duty  in  December  1972  and  knew  or  should  have  known  that  he  was  released  as  an 
SK2/E-5 at that time.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

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).   

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  argued  that  the  Board  should  waive  the  statute  of  limitations 
because he did not know until recently that his DD 214 could be corrected and because it would 
mean a lot to him to have the record corrected.  The Board does not find these arguments to be 
compelling.   The  record  contains  several  communications  dated  in  1973  about  the  applicant’s 
advancement to SK1, including a letter from the applicant himself.  If the applicant’s command-
ing officer told him that his date of rank should have been made effective as of  December 1, 
1973, the applicant should have addressed the matter at that time.  

Under COMDTINST M1900.4, the discharge form DD 214 is supposed to show 
the member’s pay grade at the time of separation, and the applicant’s records show that he was 
still an SK2 on December 26, 1972.  Although the applicant placed in the 32nd spot on the active 
duty SK1 eligibility advancement list following the May 1972 servicewide examination, there is 
no evidence to support his claim that, after his release from active duty, he became entitled to a 
retroactive advancement effective as of December 1, 1972.  While it is possible that retroactive 
advancements were made in 1973 and it is possible that even members who had been released 

from  active  duty  into  the  Reserve  could  be  retroactively  advanced  off  an  active  duty  list,  the 
applicant has presented no evidence to support these allegations.  Aside from the applicant’s own 
statement, all of the evidence in the record shows that he was advanced to SK1 on February 6, 
1973, while a member of the Reserve. 

Given the lack of evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations, the Board finds 
that it is unlikely that his 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. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
6. 

 

 
 
 

The  application  of  former  SK1  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

        

 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 
  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

correction of his military record is denied.