DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1997-142 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  It was commenced upon the BCMR’s 
receipt of the applicant’s application on June 17, 1997. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 19, 1998, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The applicant was a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard Reserve during 
 
World War II.  He asked the Board for “eye and dental care.”  The Board inter-
preted this as a request to correct his record to show service-connection for cer-
tain optical and dental problems so that he might receive increased benefits from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
In his application to the Board, the applicant alleged that he had had teeth 
extracted and other dental work while serving on active duty between 194x and 
194x.  In support of his application, the applicant submitted five letters.   
 

The first letter, dated April 1951, is from the chief of the dental service for 
the Veterans Administration.  He informed the applicant that service-connection 
had been granted for problems with his number 2 and number 15 teeth.   
 

The second letter, dated November 24, 1954, is from a Veterans Admini-
stration adjudication officer, who informed the applicant that he must supply the 
exact date of the dental treatment he claimed to have received from the U.S. Pub-
lic Health Hospital in xxxxxxxxxxx, in order for the adjudication officer to search 
the hospital’s records.   

 
The  third  letter  is  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  adjudication  officer, 
dated December 29, 1954.  The applicant stated that he could not remember the 
exact dates of his treatment.  He recalled between eight and ten visits while he 
was stationed in xxxxxxxx from April 1942 to March 1945.  He was sure that he 
never went to the hospital in xxxxxxxxx.  The applicant suggested that the Veter-
ans Administration check his Coast Guard records.   

 
In the fourth letter, dated March 8, 1955, the adjudication officer informed 
the applicant that no additional medical records could be found by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. 
 
In  the  fifth  letter,  dated  May  28,  1993,  the  applicant  wrote  to  the  Com-
mandant that he had never been informed by his recruiting officer or his com-
manding officer that he was entitled to health care or eye care.  He asked that 
service-connection be granted for his eye care. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  date  of  discovery  of  this  error  was 
“unknown.”    As  an  explanation  for  the  delay  of  his  application,  he  stated, 
“I believe there was a fire that destroyed military records years ago.” 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on April 8, 194x, and 
was immediately ordered to active duty.  The report of his enlistment physical 
shows  that  he  was  then  missing  five  teeth,  his  gums  were  “normal,”  and  his  
vision was 20/20 in the right eye and 20/15 in the left. 

 
On March 1, 1945, the applicant underwent a physical examination prior 
to going on sea duty.  The record shows five teeth missing and 20/25 vision in 
both eyes. 

 
On  March  22,  1945,  the  applicant  underwent  an  eye  exam.    The  doctor 
found “hyperopic astigmatism”1 and “incipient presbyopia.”2  His  uncorrected 
                                                 
1  “Hyperopic astigmatism” is an unequal curvature of the refractive surfaces of the eye which 
complicates farsightedness.  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 25TH ED. (1974). 
2   “Presbyopia” means farsightedness due to aging.  Id. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS 

vision was 20/25 in both eyes.  With corrective lenses, his vision was 20/15 in 
both eyes.  The doctor noted that the applicant could not read without corrective 
lenses. 
 
The  applicant  had  a  dental  examination  on  May  22,  1945.    On  May  28, 
1945, his teeth were x-rayed, and he received alloy fillings in his number 2D and 
15R teeth.  On November 9, 1945, the applicant had another dental examination.  
The dentist reported no further problems or treatments.   

 
The applicant’s tonsils were removed on November 14, 194x, just prior to 
his discharge.  His medical records indicate that he had suffered three incidents 
of tonsillitis while on active duty. 

 
On November 28, 194x, the applicant underwent a physical examination 
prior to separation.  The report of the examination indicates that he was missing 
five teeth, his gums were “normal,” and his vision was 20/30 in the right eye, 
20/20 in the left eye, and 20/20 in both eyes with corrective lenses.  The doctor 
determined he was fit for duty and qualified for separation. 

 
The applicant received an honorable discharge at the end of his enlistment 
on November 30, 194x.  On that day, he signed a statement, which included the 
following language: 

United States Public Health Service: 

 
MEDICAL TREATMENT AND HOSPITALIZATION: 
(a) 
If Medical Relief is needed at time of discharge, it will be furnished by the 
U.S. Public Health Service providing application is made in person, with-
in three days subsequent to discharge. 
(b) 
You  are  entitled  to  medical  treatment  through  Veterans  Administration 
for any service incurred or aggravated disability.  You may also receive 
treatment through this source for other disabilities if you are financially 
unable to pay for such needs and will sign a statement to that effect. 
 

Veterans Administration Facility: 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 2, 1998, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board deny the applicant’s request for untimeliness or for failure of proof.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “request  is  untimely  by 
about  50  years.”    The  Chief  Counsel  cited  the  applicant’s  correspondence  with 
the  Veterans  Administration  in  the  1950s  and  his  letter  to  the Commandant  in 
1993  as  evidence  that  more  than  three  years  have  passed  since  the  applicant 
learned of the limitations of his dental and optical benefits.  Moreover, the appli-

cant did not provide any justification for the delay of his application.  Therefore, 
the Chief Counsel argued, the Board should conduct only a cursory review of the 
record to determine whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the 
Board’s  three-year  statute  of  limitations.    Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158,  164 
(D.D.C. 1992).   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  further  stated  that  the  applicant  presented  “no  evi-
dence of error or injustice affecting his record.”  Regarding the applicant’s sug-
gestion  that  some  of  his  records  may  have  been  destroyed  by  fire,  the  Chief 
Counsel stated that there is no evidence of this.  Finally, the Chief Counsel stated, 
the applicant’s “eligibility for post service eye care and dental care is properly a 
matter for determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. 
 

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  of 
when the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The 
record shows that, on March 8, 1955, a Veterans Administration adjudicator in-
formed the applicant that no medical records could be found that would entitle 
the applicant to the increased benefits he had sought.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that the applicant filed his application more than 40 years after he first learned of 
the nonexistence or loss of any medical records he believes should be in his file.  
Thus, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year 
statute of limitations if it is in the interest of justice.  To determine whether it is in 
the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should con-
duct a cursory review of the merits of the case. Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 
164 (D.D.C. 1992).   

The applicant alleged that he is entitled to, but is not receiving, cer-
tain unspecified dental and eye care benefits from the successor to the Veterans 
Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He claimed that his dental 
and  visual  problems  arose  while  he  was  on  active  duty  from  April  8,  194x 
through November 30, 194x.  He believes some of his medical records have been 
lost.  The applicant also alleged that he was never instructed about his entitle-
ment to veterans’ medical benefits. 

 
On  November  28,  194x,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  that  
informed  him  of  his  entitlement  to  medical  benefits  for  service-connected  dis-
abilities.    The  applicant’s  file  contains  medical  records  detailing  vaccinations, 
several bouts of tonsillitis, a tonsillectomy, several dental appointments, an opti-
cal  examination  and  prescription,  and  three  complete  physical  examinations.  
There is no indication that any records have been lost.  In addition, the records 
show that no tooth extractions were performed while the applicant was on active 
duty.  Moreover, the applicant offered no explanation for the more than 40-year 
delay  between  the  time  he  discovered  that  medical  records  he  believes  should 
exist are not in his file and the time of his application.  
 

6. 

7. 

Without evidence that the Coast Guard has committed an error or 

 
injustice, the Board will not waive the statute of limitations. 
 
If  the  applicant  believes  that  his  records  as  they  now  exist  entitle 
 
him to increased dental and eye care benefits, his remedy lies with the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs. 
 

 
 

8. 

Therefore, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
George Kuehnle, Jr. 
 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 
 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

USCGR, is hereby denied.