DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-032 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 

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 docketed on January 
29, 2002, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated August 15, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit who enlisted on August 18, 1952, and was 
discharged six weeks later, on October 1, 1952, asked the Board to upgrade the character 
of his discharge from “general under honorable conditions” to honorable.  
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  during  boot  camp,  he  got  headaches  daily  and  was 
sent to a hospital for eye tests.  As a result of the tests, a Board of Medical Survey rec-
ommended that he be discharged, and he was.  He further alleged that during his six 
weeks in the Coast Guard, he “obeyed every command or request, was never on report, 
and performed the duties assigned with full cooperation.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he recently discovered a letter, which had been sent to 
his “original home” in 1956, stating that he might be eligible for an upgraded discharge.  
He alleged that in 1956, he was no longer living at the address to which it was sent. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 18, 1952, and was sent to 
boot camp.  A Report of Medical Survey dated September 12, 1952, indicates that, after 
complaining of headaches, dizziness, tearing, “red vision,” and blurring of vision dur-
ing training, he was tested and found unfit for duty because of amblyopia ex anopsia in 
his left eye.1  The Board of Medical Survey recommended that he be discharged.  Also 
on  September  12,  1952,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  acknowledging  that  his 
amblyopia ex anopsia pre-existed his enlistment and was not incurred in or aggravated 
by his service and waiving his right to a hearing before a Physical Evaluation Board. 
 
 
On September 17, 1952, the findings and recommendations in the Report of Med-
ical Survey were approved.  On October 23, 1952, the Commandant ordered the appli-
cant’s discharge.  On September 30, 1952, he received a conduct mark of 4.0 (out of 4.0) 
and a proficiency in rating (PIR) mark of RUT, which meant “recruit undergoing train-
ing.”  However, the next day, October 1, 1952, he received a general discharge under 
honorable  conditions  with  a  conduct  mark  of  4.0  and  a  PIR  of  just  2.0.    There  are  no 
other negative entries in his record. 
 
 
On October 17, 1956, the Chief of the Enlisted Personnel Division sent a letter to 
the applicant’s mother’s address stating that a “review of your record at Coast Guard 
Headquarters indicates that you may be entitled to an honorable discharge in lieu of the 
general discharge issued to you. … It is therefore requested that you forward your gen-
eral discharge to the Commandant (PE-3) for review.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 14, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board waive the statute of limitations and grant the applicant’s request.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s discharge was improperly charac-
terized.  He stated that the applicant’s military record contains no evidence of any mis-
conduct.  Moreover, he argued, under the provisions of the Personnel Manuals issued 
in  1940  and  1955,2  the  applicant  met  the  criteria  for  an  honorable  discharge.    Under 
Articles  10-C-6.A.(1)3  and  12-B-214  of  the  latter  manual,  he  explained,  the  applicant’s 

                                                 
1  Amblyopia  ex  anopsia  is  “impairment  of  vision  without  detectable  organic  lesion  of  the  eye”  that 
“results  from  disuse.”    DORLAND’S  ILLUSTRATED  MEDICAL  DICTIONARY,  29th  Edition  (2000).  During  his 
pre-enlistment physical examination in March 1952, the applicant was found to have 20/25 vision in his 
right eye and 20/40 in his left.  The medical board found his vision to be 20/40 and 20/200, respectively. 
2 The Chief Counsel stated that he did not have the Personnel Manual in effect in 1952. 
3 Article 10-C-6.A.(1) of the 1955 Personnel Manual provided that a proficiency rating was “required for 
all personnel except (a) recruits undergoing training (RUT) … .  In such cases the reason for the omission 
of the PIR shall be noted in the PIR column, using appropriate abbreviations.” 
4  Article 12-B-21 of the 1955 Personnel Manual provided that “[i]n the case of enlisted personnel trans-
ferred for separation, no marks will be assigned by the activity effecting separation, except as the result of 

PIR mark should have been RUT or, if a final mark was required, 3.5.  If his PIR had 
been  RUT  or  3.5,  he  would  have  met  the  criteria  for  an  honorable  discharge  under 
Article 12-B-9.g.1.5 of the Personnel Manual because he had never been court-martialed 
and his disability was not due to his own misconduct.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel noted that the applicant’s discharge papers refer to “Pers. Cir. 
51-51,” which may have contained regulations regarding such discharges, but the pub-
lication could not be found.  He stated that, even assuming that publication did author-
ize a general discharge for a member in the applicant’s circumstances, the character of 
his discharge would still be an injustice, if not an error.  Under today’s regulations, the 
applicant would have received either an “uncharacterized” or an honorable discharge.  
Moreover,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated,  the  1956  letter  sent  to  the  applicant,  a  copy  of 
which is in his military record, strongly suggests that the Coast Guard believed a mis-
take had been made with respect to the applicant’s character of discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 18, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  June  24,  2002,  the  applicant 
responded, stating that he agreed with the Coast Guard’s recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 8-C-9 of the Personnel Manual issued in January 1952 provided that “[i]n 
instances  where,  because  of  the  brief  period  of  active  duty  service  involved,  no  PIR 
marks have been assigned as in cases of discharge by reason of disability or minority 
shortly after enlistment, it will be assumed that the man received at least 2.75 in PIR for 
the purpose of calculating his final average.“  

 
Paragraph 9(e)(1) of Personnel Circular 19-48, which was issued in May 1948 and 
was  not  cancelled  until  October  1953,  provided  that  “[a]n  individual  discharged  as  a 
result of disability whether or not incident to service, provided not own misconduct, shall 
be given an honorable discharge certificate (Form CG-2510) if, during his current enlist-
ment or any extensions thereof, he has not been convicted by a General Court or more 
than once by a Summary Court and his minimum final average marks are [at least] 2.75 
in proficiency in rating and 3.25 in conduct.” 

                                                                                                                                                             
disciplinary  action.”    It  also  provided  that,  if  final  marks  were  required  and  the  record  contained  no 
derogatory marks, a final mark of 3.5 would be assigned. 
5 Article 12-B-9.g.1. of the 1955 Personnel Manual provided that “[a]n individual discharged as a result of 
disability, whether or not incident to service, provided not own misconduct, shall be given an honorable 
discharge certificate (DD Form 256 CG) if, during his current enlistment or any extensions thereof, he has 
not been convicted by a General Courts-Martial or more than once by a Special Courts-Martial and his 
minimum final average marks are 2.75 in proficiency in rating (PIR) and 3.25 in conduct.” 

 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552. 
 
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  applicant 
signed and received his discharge documents indicating that his discharge was charac-
terized  as  “under  honorable  conditions”  in 1952.    Therefore,  he  knew  or  should  have 
known of the alleged error in his record in 1952.  His application was untimely. 

 
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 should conduct a cursory 
review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons for the delay.  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.    Moreover,  the  applicant 
apparently  never  received  the  letter  sent  to  his  mother’s  address  four  years  after  his 
discharge.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
statute of limitations in this case. 
 
 
Under Article 8-C-9 of the Personnel Manual in effect when the applicant 
was discharged on October 1, 1952, he should have been assigned a proficiency rating 
of  at  least  2.75  because  he  was  being  discharged  from  boot  camp  as  result  of  a  pre-
existing  disability.    Therefore,  the  Coast  Guard  erred  by  assigning  him  a  proficiency 
rating of 2.0. 

4. 

 
5. 

Under  Paragraph  9(e)(1)  of  Personnel  Circular  19-48,  the  applicant  was 
entitled to an honorable discharge because he was being discharged for a disability not 
caused by his own misconduct, he had not been convicted by any military court, and 
his minimum final average marks should have been 4.0 in conduct and, under Article  
8-C-9 of the Personnel Manual, at least 2.75 in proficiency.  Therefore, the Coast Guard 
erred by awarding him a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

 
6. 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx USCG, for correction 

of his military record is granted.   

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  received  an  honorable  discharge 
from  the  Coast  Guard  on  October  1,  1952.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  send  him  proper 
documentation of this correction, and a copy of this final decision shall be placed in his 
record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Christopher A. Cook  

 
Kathryn Sinniger  

        

 

 
Karen L. Petronis