DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-083 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on May 20, 2003, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application, including her military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 22, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she received an 
honorable discharge, instead of a general discharge under honorable conditions, when 
she was separated on June 16, 1944.  The applicant also asked the Board to issue her a 
DD form 214 reflecting her service on active duty. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that she did not discover the errors in her military record 
until March 2002, when she applied to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) and 
was denied benefits.  She stated that she was denied benefits because her record did not 
reflect her active service and because she had received a general discharge under hon-
orable conditions. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  her  record  was  in  error  and  unjust  because  she  did 
 
serve on active duty during World War II and because she was discharged only because 
she became pregnant by her husband, who was also in the service, and not because of 
any misconduct on her part. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

On April 12, 1943, the applicant enlisted in the women’s part of the Coast Guard 
Reserve (SPARS).  On June 14, 1943, she began active duty and underwent training to 
become a storekeeper.   

 
On March 7, 1944, while serving on active duty as a storekeeper in the 7th Naval 

District, the applicant was married to a fellow Coast Guard reservist. 

 
On  June  13,  1944,  a  doctor  of  the  Public  Health  Service  certified  that  a  test  on 
June 10, 1944, revealed that the applicant was two months pregnant.  The doctor recom-
mended that she be discharged.  His recommendation was approved on June 15, 1944. 

 
On June 16, 1944, the applicant was discharged from the Reserve “under honor-
able conditions for the convenience of the Government,” having served one year, two 
months, and five days in the service, including one year and two days on active duty.  
Her final average marks, on a 4.0 scale, were 4.0 in conduct and 3.190 in performance in 
rating (PIR).  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On October 14, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he stated that the Coast Guard has already sent the applicant an 
honorable discharge certificate and Statement of Creditable Service.  He recommended 
that the Board deny the remainder of the applicant’s request, which was for a form DD 
214. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Coast Guard had upgraded the applicant’s dis-
charge  because  “[a]pplying  the  equity  standard  of  review  contained  in  33  CFR  § 51.7 
yields the decision that the characterization of Applicant’s discharge should be changed 
to Honorable to more accurately reflect the nature of her service to our nation during 
the trying days of World War II.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued, however, that it was inappropriate to prepare a DD 
214  for  the  applicant  because  “DD  214’s  were  not  issued  at  the  time  of  Applicant’s 
service  and  are  an  inappropriate  mechanism  for  recording  her  active  duty  time  from 
that era.”  However, he stated, the Statement of Creditable Service “will serve as a DD 
214’s functional equivalent for any veterans’ benefits to which Applicant may be enti-
tled.” 
   
 
The Chief Counsel included in his advisory opinion photocopies of the honorable 
discharge certificate and Statement of Creditable Service that were sent to the applicant 
on October 7, 2003.  However, copies of these documents are not in her military record. 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 
On October 20, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

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  discharge  of  an 
enlisted man under honorable conditions for the convenience of the government.”   

 
Article  584(4)  of  the  1940  Regulations  for  the  United  States  Coast  Guard 
provided that honorable discharges were awarded under any of five conditions:  expi-
ration  of  enlistment;  convenience  of  the  government;  hardship;  minority  (age);  and 
disability  not  the  result  of  own  misconduct.    A  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions 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.”  
Women  who  were  discharged  because  of  pregnancy  commonly  received  general 
discharges under honorable conditions up until the 1960s. 

 
On June 12, 1946, the Commandant issued ALCOAST (P) 101, which stated the 

following: 

 
Effective  immediately  [PIR]  mark  for  honorable  discharge  will  be  [2.75] 
instead of [3.0].  Make changes in PB No. 4-46 … .  This change retroactive 
to 6 April 1944.  Any individual discharged on or subsequent to 6 April 
1944  with  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  …  solely  because  [PIR] 
mark was below [3.0] but mark [2.75] or above may forward his certificate 
of  discharge  to  [Headquarters]  with  request  that  he  be  issued  an honor-
able discharge form … .  The matter will be given the widest publicity. 

 

 

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: 
 

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

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  her  record.  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.    The  applicant 
knew or should have known of the character of her discharge when she was discharged 
in 1944.  Therefore, her application was untimely. 

1. 
§ 1552.  
 

 

3. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year stat-
ute 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 cur-
sory  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).  The applicant explained that prior to March 
2002, she did not know the impact of her discharge under honorable conditions and her 
lack of a DD 214 on her eligibility for veterans’ benefits.  A cursory review of the merits 
of  this  case  indicates  that  the  applicant received a general discharge under honorable 
conditions only because she was pregnant at the time of her discharge.  Therefore, the 
Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this 
case. 

 

 
4. 

 
7. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  her  discharge  from  general 
under  honorable  conditions  to  honorable.    The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s 
conduct and PIR marks met the standards for an honorable discharge and that, but for 
her pregnancy, she would have received an honorable discharge.  As there is nothing 
about pregnancy that would make a woman’s military service “not sufficiently deserv-
ing or meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge,” in accordance with the standard 
applied to members under Article 584(4) of the 1940 regulations, the Board finds that 
the applicant’s general discharge under honorable conditions constitutes a clear, signifi-
cant injustice in her record. 

  
5. 

 
 
The applicant asked that her new honorable discharge be documented on 
a form DD 214.  However, DD 214s were not issued until several years after the appli-
cant was discharged.  Therefore, it would be anomalous to include one in her military 
record. 
 

6. 

 The Chief Counsel stated that no further relief need be granted because 
the Coast Guard has already sent the applicant an honorable discharge certificate and a 
Statement of Creditable Service documenting her active duty service.  He provided the 
Board with photocopies of those documents.  However, the applicant’s military record 
as received by the Board from the Chief Counsel has not yet been corrected.  No copy of 
the honorable discharge certificate or the Statement of Creditable Service appears in her 
record.  Instead, a photocopy of her old certificate reflecting her discharge under honor-
able conditions, which she submitted to the Board, has been placed in her record. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  correcting  the  applicant’s  mili-
tary record to include her Statement of Creditable Service and her honorable discharge 
certificate  and  by  removing  the  photocopy  of  the  old  certificate.    Although  discharge 
certificates are not normally included in a military record, in this case there is no other 
appropriate document in the military record to reflect the character of the applicant’s 
discharge. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former SK3c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, SPARS, 

for correction of her military record is granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
The copy of her certificate of general discharge under honorable conditions shall 

be removed from her record. 

 
A copy of her new honorable discharge certificate shall be added to her record. 
 
A copy of the Statement of Creditable Service shall be added to her record. 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer