DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2012-107 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  

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  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on March 28, 2012, and subsequently prepared 
the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 15, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The applicant’s DD 214 shows that he retired from the Coast Guard as a chief electronics 
technician  (ETC),  pay  grade  E-7.    He  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  DD  214  to  show  that  he 
retired as a chief warrant officer – W2 (CWO2).  
 

 The applicant had been a CWO2, but his appointment to that grade was terminated upon 
the recommendation of a special board’s finding that he was “not fully qualified and not serving 
satisfactorily in grade.” The Vice-Commandant approved the special board’s recommendation on 
March 12, 1991.  On May 31, 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard due to 
the termination of his chief warrant officer (CWO) appointment.  On June 1, 1991, he reenlisted 
in the Coast Guard as an ETC, his permanent enlisted pay grade.  He retired from active duty on 
January 30, 1994, while serving in the enlisted ranks. 

 
 The  applicant  appealed  the  termination  of  his  CWO  appointment  to  the  Personnel 
Records  Review  Board  in  1991  and  to  the  BCMR  also  in  1991.    The  PRRB  denied  the 
applicant’s request.  The BCMR also denied the applicant’s request for restoration of his rank on 
September 25, 1992.   

 
In his current application, the applicant alleged that immediately after his retirement, he 
sent  a  letter  to  Coast  Guard  Headquarters  disputing  the  pay  grade  listed  on  his  DD  214.  On 
February  28,  1994,  he  received  a  response  from  Coast  Guard  personnel  stating  that  “[i]n 

 

 

accordance  with  [Article  12-C-15  .  .  .  of  the  Personnel  Manual],  it  was  determined  that  your 
service  as  a  CWO2  (ELC)  was  satisfactory.    Therefore,  your  rate  upon  retirement  is  CWO2 
(ELC).”   

 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on February 28, 1994.  He stated 
that although his retired pay was corrected at the time he received the letter, it is in the interest of 
justice to correct his DD 214 to show his correct pay grade and rank for his family and himself.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 8, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum 
submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
PSC stated that the application should be denied because it is untimely.  PSC also stated 
 
that  the  applicant  petitioned the Board to restore his  rank in  an earlier application, BCMR No. 
405-91,  and  the  Board  denied  the  application.    PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  has  presented  no 
new evidence to cast doubt on the decision of the Board in that case.  PSC argued that the Coast 
Guard is presumptively correct and the applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 23, 2012 the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion.  
He  agreed  that  his  application  was  not  filed  in  a  timely  fashion.    He  stated  that  he  had  no 
objection to the findings in the advisory opinion. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

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

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  
 
 
2  The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  the  alleged 
error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      The  applicant  admitted  that  he  discovered  the  alleged 
error on February 28, 1994 but did not file his application with the Board until March 12, 2012. 
His application is untimely.   
 
 
3.  The applicant argued on his application that it is in the interest of justice to waive the 
untimeliness because his DD 214 should accurately reflect his rank and pay grade for the sake of 
himself and his family.  However, this reasoning does not explain to the Board why the applicant 
did not file his application within three years after he discovered the alleged error in 1994.  
 

 

 

4.  Although the application is untimely, the Board must still perform  at least a cursory 
 
review  of  the  merits  to  determine  whether  it  is  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations.    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. 

 
5.  A cursory examination of the merits indicates that the applicant is not likely to prevail.  
The  Commandant’s  determination  that  CWO2  was  the  highest  grade  satisfactorily  held  by  the 
applicant upon his retirement1 does not mean that the enlisted rate and pay grade on his DD 214 
is  incorrect.    Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D.  (Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge 
from  Active  Duty,  DD  Form  214)  states  that  the  commissioned  grade  may  be  shown  on  a  DD 
214  for  an  officer  who  is  reverting  to  enlisted  status  if  the  reversion  and  the  separation  due  to 
retirement  are  effective  on  the  same  date.    In  this  case,  the  applicant’s  CWO  appointment  was 
terminated by his discharge from active duty on May 31, 1991 and he received a DD 214 at that 
time that showed his rank and pay grade as CWO2.  The applicant reenlisted on June 1, 1991 and 
his retirement occurred approximately three years later.  He was separated due to retirement on 
January 30, 1994.  Therefore, under the regulation governing the DD 214, upon his retirement, 
the applicant was not entitled to a DD 214 that showed CWO2 as his rank and pay grade because 
his reversion to enlisted status and his retirement became effective on different dates.   
 

6.        Additionally,  paragraph  4.a.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D  states  that  the  DD  Form 
214 is a concise record of a period of service with the Armed Forces at the time of the member’s 
separation,  discharge  or  change  in  military  status.    At  the  time  of  his  separation  due  to 
retirement, the applicant was an ETC, pay grade E-7.    His retired pay is calculated based upon 
that  of  a  CWO2  because  the  Commandant  determined  that  was  the  highest  grade  he  held 
satisfactorily while serving on active duty.  The DD 214 had no bearing on the applicant’s retired 
pay calculation.   
.   
 

 
7.  The application should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   
 

 

 

 
 
  

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
1 Article 12-C-15e. of the Personnel Manual then in effect stated that “Any enlisted member who is retired 
. . .  shall be retired from active service with the highest grade or rate held while on active duty in which 
as  determined  by  the  Commandant,  performance  of  duty  was  satisfactory,  but  not  lower  than  his/her 
permanent grade or rate, with retired pay of the grade or rate with which retired.” 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX),  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Jennifer A. Mehaffey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.