DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-224 
 
XXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxx, Slc(former) 
   

 

 
 

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 on September 28, 
2007, upon receipt of the completed application.  On November 7, 2007, the Chair permitted the 
applicant  to  amend  his  application  to  request  additional  relief.     The  Chair  prepared  the  final 
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  14,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  he  was 
advanced to petty officer during his Coast Guard service from April 17, 1943 to March 19, 1946.  
In subsequent correspondence the applicant stated that he wanted his record corrected to show 
that he was discharged as a boatswain’s mate second class (BM2).  He also asked the Board to 
award  him  the  Silver  Star  or  the  Silver  Lifesaving  Medal  rather  than  the  Coast  Guard 
Commendation Medal that was awarded to him in 2004 for his heroic service in rescuing Army 
personnel on March 6, 1945. 
 
The applicant noted on his application that he was aware of the alleged error with regard 
 
to his promotion in 1946.  However he stated that it should never be too late to correct a mistake.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that he was overlooked for promotion to petty officer while in the 
Coast Guard.  He argued that he should have been promoted to petty officer because he served 
for over 10 months as second in command at a Coast Guard unit and that he performed the duties 

At  about  2200,  6  March  [1945],  cries  for  help  were  heard  off  the  small  ship’s 
dock  in  Tacloban.  [The  applicant  and  several  crewmembers]  proceeded  to  the 
scene immediately.  A small boat with Army personnel had been swamped and 
sunk.  Life preservers were thrown to those able to swim, and when it was seen 
that two men were in serious difficulty, [the applicant and another crewmember] 
unhesitatingly went overboard to their assistance.  [The crewmember] got hold of 
one  man  with  head  injuries  and  towed  him  to  an  Army  personnel  craft.    [The 
applicant] brought the other man  . . .  to the launch, where he was hauled aboard 
unconscious.  [A crewmember began resuscitation] while the [applicant] took the 
boat into the dock.  Resuscitation was continued until the arrival of the ambulance 
. . .   

 
 
On September 7, 2004, the Commandant of the Coast Guard awarded the Coast Guard 
Commendation Medal to the applicant for superior performance of duty on March 6, 1945.  The 
applicant believes that he should have been awarded a Silver Star or the Silver Lifesaving Medal 
for his heroic act.   
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

of  a  petty  officer  but  was  never  promoted.    His  notice  of  separation  states  in  section  20:  
“Qualified for general duties of Slc.  Performed duties of Cox[swain] for 20 months.”1 
 
 
With regard to his request for a higher award, the applicant submitted a March 2004 letter 
form the National Secretary/Treasurer of the Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association to the 
applicant that stated the following in pertinent part: “you should have been awarded at least a 
Silver Lifesaving Medal for the saving of U. S. Army [Private’s] live while risking your own and 
requiring your hospitalization.   
 
 
Army private that had fallen overboard:  The entry stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

An entry in the applicant’s military record confirms that he assisted in the rescue of an 

 
On  March  4,  2008,  the  Board  received  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General (JAG).  The JAG stated that the Coast Guard adopted the analysis provided by 
the Commander, Coast  Guard Personnel Command (CGPC)  as the advisory  opinion.    CGPC 
recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  to  the  applicant.      In  this  regard,  CGPC  stated  the 
following: 
 

The application is not timely in regard to the alleged error relative to the rank [the 
applicant] held at the time of discharge . . .   
 
A  complete  review  of  the  applicant’s  record  reveals  that  Seaman  l/c  was  the 
highest grade [to which] the applicant was advanced . . .  While he contends that 
he performed duties of a petty officer while on active duty, this does not affirm 
that  he  actually  was  advanced  to  the  higher  pay  grade.    The  applicant  has  not 

                                                 
1   A coxswain is a person in charge of a boat, particularly its navigation and steering.  Any member of the Coast 
Guard may become a coxswain upon proper certification.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxswain.  

demonstrated  that  he  was  advanced  to  a  higher  pay  grade  or  that  he  was 
recommended for or completed the requisite requirements for such advancement. 
 
The applicant further contends that he is entitled to the award of the Silver Star 
for  his  actions  on  March  6,  1945.    The  record  supports  that  the  applicant  was 
involved in a rescue on March 1945 which directly contributed to preventing to 
the loss of life . . .  The applicant bases his request partially on the opinion of 
[Secretary  of  the  Coast  Guard  Combat  Veterans  Association]  that  the  applicant 
should be entitled to at least the Coast Guard Silver Lifesaving Medal . . .  The 
Silver Lifesaving Medal is not an applicable medal for such action performed by 
an individual as part of their military service  . . .  In 2004, the applicant’s petition 
for recognition regarding the events of March 6, 1945 along with the applicant’s 
record were reviewed by [the] Commandant . . . and it was determined that the 
applicant’s  action  merited  the  .  .  .  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal.    The 
applicant  has  not  presented  any  new  information  regarding  the  rescue  to 
substantiate a higher level of award.  The . . . Silver Star is not consistent with the 
actions  present  in  the  applicant’s  record  and  fall  within  the  purview  of  the 
Department of Defense . . .  
 
The Coast Guard finds no error or injustice in the applicant’s rank as presented in 
his official records.  There is also no error or injustice in the final processing of 
the applicant’s award of the Coast Guard Commendation Medal for his actions on 
March 6, 1945.  The Coast Guard award authority has reviewed the applicant’s 
record and determined that based upon the merits of the case that his noteworthy 
actions  are  sufficient  to  merit  the  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal.    The 
awarding  authority  of  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  find  the  merits  of  the  case 
substantiate a higher Coast Guard award let alone merit forwarding it to the DOD 
for consideration of the Silver Star.   
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
 The Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and provided him 
an  opportunity  to  respond  to  them.    Thereafter,  the  Board  received  several  letters  from  the 
applicant and  each one  basically restated his allegations that he believes he should have been 
promoted to petty office grade and that he should have received a higher award for his March 6, 
1945 heroic act.   
 

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:  
 
 
of the United States Code.  
 

1.   The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
2.  Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, the Board has a three-year statute of limitations from 
the time an error was or should have been discovered.  That portion of this application requesting 
a Silver Star or Coast Guard Lifesaving Medal instead of the Coast Guard Commendation will be 
treated as timely.  The Coast Guard acted in 2004 after over fifty years to administratively correct 
the record and recognize the applicant’s heroic acts of March 6, 1945.  Therefore, with respect to 
that correction the statute began as of September 7, 2004.  The Board received the applicant’s 
DD  149  on  September  19,  2007,  barely  a  week  after  the  expiration  of  the  Board’s  three  year 
statute  of  limitations.    It  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  applicant’s  slight  delay  in 
bringing this claim with respect to request for a higher medal.     
 
 
3.  Even though timely, the applicant has not shown that the Coast Guard committed an 
error by not awarding him the Silver Star or the Coast Guard Lifesaving Medal instead of the 
Coast Guard Commendation Medal for his heroic act of March 1945.  The Silver Star is awarded 
by the Department of Defense to any person serving with the Navy for gallantry while engaged 
in an action against an enemy of the United States, or while in engaged in military operations 
involving conflict against an enemy of the United States; or while serving with friendly foreign 
forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force. See Chapter 1.B.3. of the 
Medals and Awards Manual.   While the applicant served during WWII when the Coast Guard 
operated as part of the Navy, there is no evidence that his rescue of a drowning Army private 
occurred in an action against an enemy or during military operations involving a conflict.   The 
military record indicates that an Army boat with personnel aboard had swamped and sunk.   The 
applicant and another crewmember heard their cries for help and rescued them.  Therefore, as 
this rescue did not occur in an action against an enemy of the United States or while engaged in 
military operations involving a conflict against an enemy, the applicant did not meet the criteria 
for the Silver Star.   Even if the applicant could prove that he met the requirements for the Silver 
Star, it was within the Commandant’s discretion to decide whether the Silver Star was warranted 
under the circumstances.  After due consideration, the Commandant approved the Coast Guard 
Commendation  Medal  and  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Commandant  abused  his 
authority in doing so.   
 
 
4.  Nor has the applicant shown that the Commandant committed an error or injustice by 
not awarding the Coast Guard Silver Lifesaving Medal to the applicant.  Chapter 4.A.1.b.. of the 
Medals and Awards Manual states, “Military personnel serving on active duty normally should 
not  be  recommended  for  the  Gold  or  Silver  Lifesaving  Medals.    However,  personnel  may  be 
recommended for a Lifesaving Medal if the act of heroism was performed while the member was 
in  a  leave  or  liberty  status.    Otherwise  a  military  award  should  be  considered.”    Since  the 
applicant  was  on  active  duty  and  performing  military  duties  at  the  time  of  the  rescue,  it  was 
appropriate for the Commandant to award the Coast Guard Commendation Medal rather than the 
Silver Lifesaving Medal.   Moreover, Coast Guard Commendation Medal recognizes and honors 
the applicant for his heroic act in March 1945.  The fact that the applicant believes he deserves a 
higher award does not prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by awarding 
the Commendation in this instance.   
 
5.  That portion of the applicant’s request for advancement to petty officer is not timely. 
 
To be timely, an application for correction of a military record must be submitted within three 
years after the applicant discovered or should have discovered the alleged error or injustice.  See 

33 CFR 52.22.   The applicant stated that he discovered the error in 1946, but he waited almost 
58  years  before  filing  an  application  with  this  Board.      He  did  not  provide  the  Board  with  a 
persuasive reason for not filing his application sooner.   
 

6.   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. 
 
 
7.        Having  performed  a  cursory  review  with  respect  to  the  merits  of  the  applicant’s 
request for advancement, the Board finds that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence 
to prove error or injustice, and therefore he is not likely to prevail.  In this regard, there is no 
evidence in the military record that the applicant was ever advanced to petty officer grade.  Nor 
has  he  presented  any  evidence  of  the  requirements  for  advancement  to  petty  officer  third  or 
second  class  and  that  he  met  those  requirements.    He  argued  that  he  performed  some  tasks 
usually assigned to petty officers.  However, even if he did perform some tasks of a petty officer, 
such does not prove that he was entitled to advancement to a petty officer in the boatswains mate 
rate.   
 
 
8.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for a Silver Star or Lifesaving Medal should be 
denied  because  he  failed  to  show  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  error  or  injustice  in 
awarding the Coast Guard Commendation Medal for his heroic act in March 1945.  In addition, 
his request for advancement to petty officer should be denied because it is untimely and lacks 
merit.     
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

The application of former XXXXXXXXX, xxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.