DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-068 
 
  
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    On  February  23, 
1999,  the  BCMR  received  the  application,  which  was  completed  on  February  3, 
2000, upon receipt of the applicant’s military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 28, 2000, is signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to upgrade the character of the discharge 
he received on April 12, 196x, from “under honorable conditions” to “honorable” 
and to raise his last rank held from xxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxx. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 The  applicant  stated  that  he  voluntarily  enlisted  on  November  15,  196x, 
 
and had “a good time” in the Coast Guard until a chief warrant officer (CWO) at 
his unit in xxxxxxx, asked for a part-time volunteer to work as a cook.  The appli-
cant  volunteered  “much  to  [his]  demise.”    The  CWO  gave  him  non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP)  at  captain’s  mast  many  times.    The  CWO  told  him  he  was 
“nuts”  and  sent  him  to  the  Naval  Hospital  in  xxxxxxx  for  a  psychiatric 
evaluation.  Then he was sent to the Public Health Service Hospital in xxxxx for 
three  days  for  another  evaluation,  after  which,  he  alleged,  he  was  wrongly 
discharged for unsuitability. 
 

 

 

 
The applicant stated that his problems in the Coast Guard were caused by 
the CWO, who was very corrupt and dishonest.  He stated that he told a Coast 
Guard  representative  who  visited  him  at  the  Naval  Hospital  about  the  CWO’s 
“stealing and dirty dealings,” but it did not help him.  He alleged that the CWO 
misappropriated government funds, misused government property, and ordered 
subordinates  to  do  personal  work  for  him,  such  as  rebuilding  the  engine  of  his 
xxxxx,  on  government  time.    He  alleged  that  the  CWO  constantly  abused  his 
authority  and  did  not  like  anyone  who  challenged  him.    He  alleged  that  the 
CWO  promised  members  who  did  personal  work  for  him  extra  leave,  but  then 
refused  to  grant  it  and  instead  handed  them  transfer  orders  for  sea  duty.    He 
alleged  that  the  CWO  also  charged  his  personal  groceries  to  a  Coast  Guard 
account.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  prior  to  his  discharge,  he  had  passed  a  test  for 
 
advancement to xxxxx and was awaiting a promotion to pay grade E-4 when the 
CWO singled him out and got him discharged. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  after  he  was  discharged,  he  learned  that  the 
Commander  of  the  xxxx  District  sent  a  lieutenant  commander  disguised  as  a 
seaman cook to the unit to investigate the applicant’s allegations.  He alleged that 
as a result of the investigation, the CWO was “brought up to trial and told to take 
a discharge with no pension or go to prison.” 
 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  about  three  months  after  the  trial,  he 
 
received a letter from “some Coast Guard office reinstating [his] honorable dis-
charge and apologizing for the incident.”  He alleged that he called the office and 
asked to be reenlisted but was told it was not possible.  However, he stated, “Oh 
by the way [he] lost that letter from that office some 30 [years] ago.”   
 

The applicant alleged that only recently did he find out his discharge was 
never corrected.  He also argued that, although he has known the nature of his 
discharge  since  196x,  the  Board  should  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  because 
“an injustice should have no time limit on it to be corrected.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On November 15, 196x, the applicant enlisted as an SR in the Coast Guard 
for  a  term  of  four  years.    He  underwent  basic  training  at  xxxxxxx.    Upon 
finishing  basic  training  in  February  196x,  he  was  advanced  to  xxxxxxxxx  and 
transferred to Coast Guard Station xxxx.  His commanding officer at xxx was the 
CWO.   
 

 

On  January  31,  196x,  the  CWO  assigned  the  applicant  a  mark  of  3.1  for 

On July 31, 196x, the CWO assigned the applicant a mark of 3.2 (out of 4.0) 

 
for proficiency and a mark of 4.0 for conduct. 
 
On  December  6,  196x,  the  applicant  was  taken  to  captain’s  mast  by  the 
 
CWO for violating Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by 
being disrespectful “in deportment” to a petty officer.  His NJP was to be restrict-
ed to the station for seven days and five days of extra duty. 
 
 
On December 22, 196x, the applicant was again taken to captain’s mast by 
the CWO for violating Article 91 of the UCMJ by being  disrespectful to a petty 
officer “in his use of language.”  He was reduced to “the next inferior rate,” but 
the sentence was suspended for six months. 
 
 
proficiency and 3.2 for conduct. 
 
 
On May 11, 196x, the applicant was taken to captain’s mast by the CWO 
for violating Article 108 of the UCMJ by damaging and destroying military prop-
erty “either willfully or through neglect.”  He was “[r]educed to the next inferior 
rate”—from xx to xx. 
 
 
ciency and 2.8 for conduct. 
 
 
On September 16, 196x, the applicant was advanced from xx to xx.  How-
ever, on September 29, 196x, he was taken to captain’s mast for violating Article 
91 of the UCMJ by being disrespectful to a superior petty officer and for violating 
Article 92 by willfully failing to carry out a lawful order.  He was restricted to the 
station and assigned two hours of extra duty per day for ten days.  
 
On January 22, 196x, the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at the 
 
Naval  Hospital  in  xxxxx  at  the  request  of  the  CWO.    The  applicant  told  the 
doctor  that  he  was  a  friendly  person  who  gets  “moods”  every  once  in  while 
because  he hated just sitting around and doing nothing.   He told the doctor, “I 
tell people what I think of them to their faces, not afraid of being embarrassed.  I 
have a hard time getting along with petty officers because they like to hard ass 
guys.”  The doctor found no evidence of psychosis or psychoneurosis.  He stated 
that  the  applicant  was  immature  and  impulsive  and  that  “[h]is  insight  was 
absent.”  Based on his behavior pattern, the doctor diagnosed a “passive aggres-
sive personality type, which renders him  unsuitable for further retention in the 
U.S. Coast Guard” and recommended that he be administratively discharged. 
 

 

 

On July 31, 196x, the CWO assigned the applicant a mark of 3.0 for profi-

 

 
On  January  31,  196x,  the  CWO  assigned  the  applicant  a  mark  of  3.2  for 
proficiency  and  3.8  for  conduct.    However, these  marks  were  canceled  the  next 
day, February 1, 196x, when he was taken to mast by the CWO for violating Arti-
cle  91  of  the  UCMJ  by  being  disrespectful  in  manner  and  language  towards  a 
superior petty officer.  The Court Memorandum indicates that he was reduced in 
rate from xx to xx.  In addition, the CWO assigned him a mark of 2.9 for profi-
ciency and a mark of 1.0 for conduct. 
 
 
On March 1, 196x, a Medical Board was convened by three doctors at the 
Public  Health  Service  Hospital  in  xxxxxx,  to  review  the  applicant’s  case.    They 
examined  him  and  diagnosed  a  permanent  “passive,  aggressive  personality” 
disorder  that  existed  prior  to  entry  on  active  duty.    They  found  him  unfit  for 
duty  and  unsuitable  for  service,  and  they  recommended  that  he  be  adminis-
tratively discharged due to unsuitability under Article  12-B-10(2) of the Person-
nel Manual.  The same day,  the applicant  signed a statement indicating that  he 
had  been  informed  of  the  Medical  Board’s  findings  and  recommendations  and 
did not wish to submit a statement in rebuttal.  The hospital director concurred 
in the findings and recommendations and forwarded the Medical Board’s report 
to the CWO. 
 
On March 8, 196x, the CWO forwarded the report of the Medical Board to 
 
the Commander of the xxxxx Coast Guard District, approving the findings and 
recommending that the applicant be administratively discharged.  On March 20, 
196x,  the  Commander  forwarded  the report  to  the  Commandant,  concurring  in 
the findings and recommendations. 
 

On March 30, 196x, the Commandant ordered the applicant discharged by 
reason  of  unsuitability  under  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel  Manual  then  in 
effect.    The  orders  indicate  that  the  type  of  discharge  was  to  be  whatever  the 
applicant was entitled to under the regulations. 
 
 
On April 12, 196x, the applicant was discharged under “honorable condi-
tions” in accordance with Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual.  Both his DD 
214  and  Record  of  Discharge  are  signed  by  the  CWO  as  the  officer  authorizing 
the discharge.  The Record of Discharge indicates that the applicant was issued a 
general  discharge  due  to  unsuitability  and  was  not  recommended  for  reenlist-
ment.  The last evaluation marks the applicant received were a 3.0 for proficiency 
and a 2.9 for conduct.  The CWO calculated his final average marks to be 3.07 for 
proficiency and 2.98 for conduct.1 
 

                                                 
1    The  BCMR  calculates  the  applicant’s  final  average  marks  as  3.04  for  proficiency  and  2.98  for 
conduct. 

 

 

 
The applicant’s record contains a form indicating that he ordered copies of 
his discharge papers on April 16, 196x.  It also contains a Request for Information 
from the Veterans Administration dated March 25, 197x, which indicates that the 
applicant was seeking disability compensation.  The form states that the charac-
ter of the applicant’s discharge was “honorable conditions.”  The record also con-
tains  forms  dated  February  12,  197x,  March  14,  199x,  and  August  24,  199x, 
indicating that he again sought and received copies of his discharge papers.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 28, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
 
sory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case because of its 
untimeliness and lack of merit. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant knew or should have known 
of the character of his discharge in April 196x. Therefore, he stated, the applica-
tion  “is  untimely  by  approximately  xx  years”  and  should  be  denied  under  the 
Board’s three-year statute of limitations. 
 

The Chief Counsel also argued that the applicant has failed to provide any 
evidence that his discharge due to unsuitability was either procedurally or sub-
stantively erroneous.  He argued that “[a]bsent strong evidence to the contrary, it 
is presumed that the officials involved in processing Applicant for discharge exe-
cuted their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”   Arens v. United States, 
969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1990); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  under  Article  12.B.10.e.1.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual in effect in 196x, the applicant was entitled to notification of his pending 
discharge and an opportunity to make a statement but was not entitled to a hear-
ing before an Administrative Discharge Board because he served less than eight 
years  on  active  duty.    He  alleged  that  the  record  shows  that  the  applicant 
received notification and did not object to being discharged. 
 
The Chief Counsel also stated that the record shows that the applicant was 
 
properly  examined  and  diagnosed  by  a  psychiatrist  in  accordance  with  Article 
12.B.10.d. of the Personnel Manual prior to being discharged.  He stated that the 
psychiatrist’s  report  and  the  report  of  the  Medical  Board  that  examined  the 
applicant showed that he suffered from a passive aggressive personality that was 
incompatible  with  military  service.    He  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  complied 
with all applicable regulations in 196x and that members with passive aggressive 
personalities are still administratively discharged today. 
 

 

 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant’s  final  average  marks 
qualified him for a general, rather than honorable, discharge.  He stated that the 
minimum average marks required for an honorable discharge in 196x were 2.7 in 
proficiency  and  3.0  in  conduct.    Moreover,  he  alleged  that  the  applicant’s 
multiple NJPs and two reductions in rate also warranted a general discharge.   
 

Finally, the Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant never held a rank in 
pay grade xxxxxxx.  Therefore, he stated, the request for a higher rank “is wholly 
without  foundation.”    In  addition,  he  argued,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove 
that his reduction in rate to xx was erroneous or unjust. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 31, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  August  10,  2000, 
the applicant responded.  He stated that he was telling the truth about the CWO 
and he named several other members whom, he alleged, were stationed at xxxxx 
and would verify his allegations about the CWO.2 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 

Article 12-B-5 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 196x (CG-
207) stated that members should be assigned conduct marks for each evaluation 
period as follows: 

 
4.0 

 
3.9 to 3.3 

 
3.2 to 2.5 

 
2.4 to 0 

 

Conduct good.  Conforms to military standards and regulations.  
No  courts-martial  convictions,  nonjudicial  punishments  or 
minor civil convictions. 

Conduct  satisfactory  but  occasionally  lax.    No  courts-martial 
convictions.    Not  more  than  one  nonjudicial  punishment  or 
minor civil conviction. 

Meets  minimum  standards  of  conduct,  or  not  more  than  one 
summary  court-martial  conviction,  or  not  more  than  2  minor 
offenses (NJP or civil) during the period. 

Conduct  unsatisfactory.    Repeatedly  commits  minor  military 
and/or  civil  offenses  or  convicted  by  special  or  general  court-
martial. 

                                                 
2  The BCMR informed the applicant in a letter dated August 11, 2000, that it has no authority to 
conduct  investigations  and  that  all  evidence  must  be  submitted  by  him.    No  response  was 
received from the applicant. 

 

 

Article 12-B-2(f)(2) stated that members being discharged for unsuitability 
with final average marks lower than 2.7 in proficiency or 3.0 in conduct should 
be issued a general discharge rather than an honorable discharge. 

 
Article 12-B-10 authorized administrative discharges for members by rea-
son  of  unsuitability.    The  conditions  listed  as  rendering  a  member  unsuitable 
included  inaptitude,  apathy,  defective  attitude,  and  personality  disorders  listed 
in  Chapter  5  of  the  Medical  Manual  (CG-294)  “[a]s  determined  by  medical 
authority.”    Such  members  were  entitled  to  written  notice  of  the  reason  they 
were being considered for discharge and an opportunity to make a statement on 
their own behalf.  Article 12-B-16(d).  Members being discharged for unsuitabil-
ity  due  to  the  appearance  of  a  mental  disorder  had  to  undergo  a  psychiatric 
examination and had to be evaluated by a Medical Board. 

 
The Medical Manual (CG-294) in effect in 196x governed the disposition of 
members with psychiatric disorders.  According to Article 5-C and 5-D, a mem-
ber  with  a  passive-aggressive  personality  disorder  was  eligible  for  an  adminis-
trative discharge.  
 

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  after 
the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.    The 
record indicates that  the applicant  signed and received his discharge papers on 
April 12, 196x.  In addition, the record indicates that he ordered copies of his dis-
charge papers on April 16, 196x, February 12, 197x, March 14, 199x, and August 
24, 199x, but he did not submit his application to the Board until February 1999.  
Therefore, although the applicant claimed that he did not discover that the char-
acter of his discharge was still general under honorable conditions until recently, 
the Board finds that his application was not filed until more than xx years after 
the Board’s three-year statute of limitations expired. 

 
3. 

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  do  so.    To  determine 
whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board 

 

 

4. 

must  conduct  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  the  case.    Allen  v.  Card,  799  F. 
Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  
 
The  applicant’s  record  indicates  that  after  repeated  disciplinary 
 
infractions, he was referred by his command to a psychiatrist at the Naval Hos-
pital  in  xxxxx  for  psychiatric  evaluation  on  January  22,  196x.    The  psychiatrist 
diagnosed  him  as  having  a  personality  disorder  and  recommended  that  he  be 
administratively discharged for unsuitability.  That diagnosis and recommenda-
tion  were  confirmed  by  a  Medical  Board  of  three  doctors  at  the  Public  Health 
Service Hospital in xxxxx on March 1, 196x.  That same day, the applicant signed 
a  document  acknowledging  notification  of  the  Board’s  findings  and  recom-
mendations  and  stating  that  he  did  not  wish  to  submit  a  statement  in  rebuttal.  
The Medical Board’s report and recommendation were approved and forwarded 
by the applicant’s commanding officer and the Commander of the xxxxx District.  
On  March  30,  196x,  the  Commandant  ordered  the  applicant  discharged  for 
unsuitability  with  the  type  of  discharge  to  which  he  was  entitled  under  the 
regulations.  He was discharged “under honorable conditions” on April 12, 196x. 
 
 
The applicant’s record indicates that he was taken to captain’s mast 
and awarded NJP  five times during his two  years at xxxxxx.  His  final average 
conduct  mark  was  2.98.    Therefore,  under  Article  12-B-2(f)(2)  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  then  in  effect,  he  was  not  eligible  for  an  honorable  discharge  and  was 
issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  commanding  officer,  the  CWO  at 
xxxxxx,  misappropriated  government  funds,  property,  and  personnel  for  his 
personal use.  However, he submitted no evidence in support of his allegations.  
Moreover, even if the Board were to assume his allegations were true, the CWO’s 
larceny  would  not  prove  that  the  applicant’s  conduct  marks  were  erroneous  or 
that  the  psychiatrist’s  and  other  doctors’  diagnosis  of  his  personality  disorder 
was wrong.  The applicant admitted to the psychiatrist that he had “a hard time 
getting along with petty officers” and liked to “tell people what I think of them 
to their faces.”  These statements indicate that the applicant got into trouble with 
many superior officers, not just the CWO, and that he was clearly unsuitable for 
military service. 

5. 

6. 

 
7. 

The  applicant’s  record  indicates  that  although  he  twice  was 
advanced  to  pay  grade  xxx,  first  as  an  xx  and  later  as  an  xx,  he was  also  twice 
demoted  back  to  pay  grade  xxx  due  to  his  misconduct.    The  record  further 
indicates that he was never advanced to pay grade xx and that, at the time of his 
discharge, he was in pay grade xxx. 

 

 

 

8. 

The applicant alleged that he once received a letter from an office of 
the  xxxx  Coast  Guard  District  stating  that  his  discharge  would  be  upgraded.  
However, he presented no evidence to prove this allegation and there is no evi-
dence of it in his military records. 

 
9. 

The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evi-
dence  that  his  discharge  under  “honorable  conditions”  while  in  pay  grade  xx 
was erroneous or unjust. 

 
10.  Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  both  for  its 

untimeliness and for lack of merit.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 
George Kuehnle, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 
Michael J. McMorrow 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is hereby denied.