DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-127 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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.  The case was docket-
ed on June 7, 1999, upon the Board’s receipt of the applicant’s completed appli-
cation. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  10,  2000,  is  signed  by  the three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve 
during World War II, asked the Board to upgrade the character of his discharge 
from “under honorable conditions” to honorable.   

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  have  received  an  honorable  dis-
charge,  but  his  discharge  was  characterized  as  “under  honorable  conditions” 
without cause.  He alleged that he served as the xxxxx on two ice breakers in the 
North  Atlantic  during  World  War  II,  was  awarded  a  battle  star  for  being  in 
combat, and was never disciplined. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  upon  his  discharge  in  194x,  he  filed  his  dis-
 
charge form at his home county courthouse without noticing the negative char-
acter  of  his  discharge.    However,  recently,  while  going  through  his  papers,  he 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
 
The applicant was inducted into the Coast Guard Reserve on October 11, 
194x, and began serving on active duty on October 18, 194x.  His term of enlist-
ment was “for the duration of the war and six months after the national emer-
gency ceases to exist.”   
 

The  applicant’s  Notice  of  Separation  (form  NAVCG-553)  shows  that  he 
served on the Coast Guard cutters xxxxxx and xxxxxx during his time in service.  
It also shows that he was entitled to wear the “American Theater, European (1 
star)” and Victory Ribbons.  
 
 
On December 23, 194x, the applicant’s commanding officer reported that 
he failed to return to the cutter xxxxx at the end of ten days’ leave of absence and 
was  declared  absent  without  leave.    The  applicant  returned  to  the  cutter  on 
December 25, 194x, at 8:40 a.m.  As a result, he went to captain’s mast on Decem-
ber 27, 194x, and his enlistment was extended for two days. 
 

noticed that his Certificate of Discharge says “under honorable conditions” even 
though he was issued an honorable service lapel button and honorable discharge 
emblems. 
 

The  applicant’s  Service  Record  indicates  that  he  was  awarded  perfect 
marks for conduct (4.0) on 20 out of the 21 performance evaluations he received 
while in the service.  He received one conduct mark of 2.0 for the three-month 
period ending December 31, 194x, which included the time he was absent with-
out leave.  The applicant’s Termination of Service form (NAVCG 2500-C) indi-
cates that his average proficiency mark was 2.86 and his average conduct mark 
was 3.8.  However, the Board’s calculations indicate that his average proficiency 
mark was 2.9 and his average conduct mark was 3.9. 

 
 
On May 14, 194x, the applicant was discharged, having served two years, 
six months, and four days on active duty.  His Termination of Service form indi-
cates that he was issued an honorable service button but not an honorable dis-
charge  button.    Initially,  someone  typed  “HD”  for  honorable  discharge  on  the 
Termination of Service form.  However, this was struck out and substituted with 
“DUHC” for discharge under honorable conditions.  The reason cited for his dis-
charge  is  “COG,”  which  means  the  convenience  of  the  government,  and  the 
authority cited was Article 583 of the Coast Guard’s regulations and “PB 94-45”.  
The form is signed by the applicant.  The applicant’s Notice of Separation and a 
Certificate of Discharge also indicate that he was discharged “under honorable 
conditions.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 28, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s 
request.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Board should waive the statute of limi-
tations in this case because the applicant’s discharge was improperly character-
ized.  He alleged that under the 194x Personnel Manual, the applicant’s record 
“satisfied  the  requirements  for  an  honorable  discharge.”    The  Chief  Counsel 
further  alleged  that  “even  if  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  was  proper 
under  the  personnel  regulations  in  194x,  such  characterization  is  an  injustice.  
The record shows no indication of other than honorable service by the Applicant 
… .”  The Chief Counsel further stated that the applicant’s record meets the crite-
ria  for  an  honorable  discharge  under  all  subsequent  versions  of  the  Personnel 
Manual. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that a discharge “under honorable conditions” 
was not actually authorized at the time the applicant was discharged.  Such dis-
charges were characterized as “general” discharges.  The discharge “under hon-
orable conditions,” he stated, was not authorized until later. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 2, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On November 15, 
1999, the applicant responded.  He stated that he agreed with the Coast Guard’s 
recommendation. 

APPLICABLE LAW  

 

 

On July 8, 1976, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation 

established the following policy concerning the upgrading of discharges: 
 

[T]he  Board  should  not upgrade  discharges  solely  on  the  basis  of  post-
service conduct. …  This emphatically does not mean that the justness of 
a  discharge  must  be  judged  by  the  criteria  prevalent  at  the  time  it  was 
rendered.    The  Board  is  entirely  free  to  take  into  account  changes  in 
community mores, civilian as well as military, since the time of discharge 
was rendered, and upgrade a discharge if it is judged to be unduly severe 
in light of contemporary standards. …  

 
During World War II, the Coast Guard functioned under the auspices of 
the Navy, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3.  However, the applicant was discharged 
from  the  Coast  Guard  in  194x,  after  it  had  reverted  to  the  Department  of  the 
Treasury and operated under its own rules.  Executive Order No. 9666, Decem-
ber 28, 1945.   
 
 
Article  583  of  the  1940  Regulations  for  the  United  States  Coast  Guard 
states that “[t]he Commandant, without recourse to a board, may direct the dis-
charge of an enlisted man under honorable conditions for the convenience of the 
government.”   
 

Under Article 4592 of the Coast Guard’s 1934 Personnel Instructions, the 
following were the criteria for receiving an “honorable” character of discharge:  
“(1) Discharge at expiration of enlistment, or for extended enlistment, or for the 
convenience of the government.  (2) Average of marks for enlistment, or enlist-
ment as extended, not less than 2.75 in proficiency in rating and 3 in conduct.  (3) 
Never convicted by general Coast Guard court or more than once by a summary 
Coast Guard court, or more than twice by a Coast Guard deck court [captain’s 
mast].”  Members who did not meet these standards could receive service char-
acterizations  of  “good,”  “indifferent,”  “undesirable,”  “dishonorable,”  or  “bad 
conduct.” 
 
 
After  World  War II, the  Coast  Guard’s  regulations  regarding  discharges 
were revised to reflect those of the other Armed Forces.  A new Personnel Man-
ual  was  issued  in  1949  in  which  the  criteria  for  an  honorable  discharge  were 
essentially unchanged.  However, a general discharge could be awarded “for the 
same [five] reasons as an honorable discharge and issued to individuals whose 
conduct  and  performance  of  duty  have  been  satisfactory  but  not  sufficiently 
deserving or meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.”  Undesirable dis-
charges could be awarded for unfitness (shirkers, alcoholics, repeat petty offend-
ers, bad debts, etc.) or for misconduct, which included “[t]rial and conviction by 
a civil court when he has been sentenced to confinement in a jail or penitentiary 
for any period, regardless of the fact that such sentence may have been suspend-
ed or that he may have been placed on probation.”  Dishonorable and bad con-
duct discharges were awarded pursuant to a court-martial only.   
 
 
Today’s standards for discharge appear in Article 12.B.2.(f) of the Person-
nel Manual (COMDTINST M100.6A).  An enlisted member may receive an hon-
orable discharge if his or her service is characterized by “[p]roper military behav-
ior and proficient performance of duty with due consideration for the member’s 
age,  length  of  service,  grade,  and  general  aptitude”;  and  if  the  member’s  final 
average evaluation mark is at least 2.7 [out of 4.0] for performance of duty and at 
least 3.0 for conduct.  A member may receive a general discharge if he has been 

involved  with  illegal  drugs  or  if  his  evaluation  marks  for  job  performance  or 
conduct have not met the standards for an honorable discharge.  A member may 
receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions (OTH) for misconduct 
or security concerns or upon the approval of the recommendation of an adminis-
trative discharge board or in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A bad conduct dis-
charge is the equivalent of an OTH discharge but is directed by an approved sen-
tence of a court-martial.  A member may receive a dishonorable discharge only 
by an approved sentence of a court-martial. 
 

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 sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

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 
applicant signed and  received his discharge documents indicating that his  dis-
charge was characterized as “under honorable conditions” in 194x, but alleged 
that he did not notice the character of service until March 1999.  However, the 
Board finds that the applicant knew or should have known the character of his 
discharge in 194x, when he signed his Termination of Service and received his 
Certificate of Discharge.  Thus, his application was untimely. 

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 
should conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. 
Supp.  158,  164  (D.D.C.  1992).    A  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  this  case 
indicates that the applicant’s character of discharge was unjust.  Therefore, the 
Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in 
this case. 

The applicant’s Service Record supports his allegation that his serv-
ice in the Coast Guard Reserve during and after World War  II met the criteria for 
receiving an honorable discharge.  He was discharged for the convenience of the 
government, his proficiency and conduct marks were above the prescribed mini-
mums, and he was taken to captain’s mast only once, for being absent without 
leave from midnight on December 23, 194x, until the morning of December 25, 
194x.   

Although  discharges  characterized  as  “under  honorable  condi-
tions” were authorized under Article 583 of the 1940 Regulations for the United 
States Coast Guard for the convenience of the government, the applicant’s record 
does not support his receipt of this less than fully honorable characterization of 
discharge.    Therefore,  the  Board  concludes  that  it  is  unjust  for  the  applicant’s 
discharge forms to reflect that he was discharged “under honorable conditions.” 

 
5. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

The application for correction of the military record of former seaman sec-

ond class,  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR, is hereby granted.   

ORDER 

 

      
 

 
His records shall be corrected to show that he received an honorable dis-
charge from the Coast Guard Reserve on May 14, 194x.  The Coast Guard shall 
send the applicant a corrected copy of his Certificate of Discharge and his dis-
charge form. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                                                    Charles Medalen 
 
 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

       

 

 
Barbara Betsock