DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-132 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale D. 
 

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 2, 2004, upon the Board’s receipt of the applicant’s completed appli-
cation and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  10,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a seaman second class (SN2) who served 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.   
 
 
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  only  had  “one  incident”  during  his  service 
and that all of his other service was “a credit to the Coast Guard.”  
 
 
The applicant stated that the Veterans Service Officer at his local Veterans 
Service  Office  recently  pointed  out  to  the  applicant  that  he  was  discharged 
“under honorable conditions” but he feels that his discharge should be upgraded 
to honorable in keeping with current Coast Guard regulations.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
 
The  applicant  was  inducted  into  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  on  December 
10, 1942, and began serving on active duty on March 29, 1943.  His term of enlist-
ment was 3 years.  
 

The applicant’s service record shows that he served on the Coast Guard 
cutters Southwind, Manhasset, Evergreen, and Northland, in addition to serving at 
several land-based Coast Guard stations.  His record also indicates that he was 
awarded  and  entitled  to  wear  the  American  Area  Ribbon,  the  World  War  II 
Victory  Ribbon,  and  the  American  and  European-African-Middle  Eastern  Area 
Campaign Ribbon.  
 
 
resulted in various levels of discipline: 
 

The applicant’s service record notes several instances of misconduct that 

In  May  1944,  the  applicant  was  arrested  by  the  shore  patrol  for 
intoxication  and  was  given  20  hours  of  extra  police  duty  at  the  deck  court  or 
captain’s mast1 conducted on June 2, 1944.   
 
In  July  1944,  while  assigned  to  the  Coast  Guard  cutter  Southwind,  the 
 
applicant was apprehended by naval authorities and declared a “straggler” after 
he  was  absent  over  leave  (AOL)  for  3  days.    However,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
applicant’s record which indicates that he was disciplined for this incident. 
 

From September 25 - 27, 1944, while assigned to the cutter Southwind, the 
applicant  missed  the  sailing  of  his  ship  when  he  was  AOL  for  2  days.    On 
October 20, 1944, he was convicted by summary court-martial and was ordered 
to pay $20 per month for 4 months.   

 
On December 13, 1944, the applicant was charged with being AOL for 6 
hours, 55 minutes, and was sentenced by deck court to be confined for 10 days, 
to pay $10 per month for 2 months, and to perform 20 hours of extra police duty.  
The period of confinement was later remitted.   

 
On June 12, 1945, while assigned to the cutter Manhasset, the applicant was 
taken to deck court and given 7 days confinement for being “drunk in a public 
place and breaking arrest.”   
                                                 
1 In the 1940s, a “deck court” was held for such misdemeanors as are today handled by captain’s 
mast.    In  the  Coast  Guard,  a  nonjudicial  punishment  (NJP)  proceeding  under  Article  15  of  the 
Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  is  referred  to  as  "captain's  mast"  or  simply  "mast."  The  legal 
protection afforded an individual subject to NJP proceedings is more complete than is the case 
for nonpunitive measures, but, by design, is less extensive than for courts-martial 

 
On January 17, 1946, the applicant pled guilty at a deck court hearing to 
charges  of  (1)  willfully,  and  with  disrespectful  tone,  disobeying  a  lawful  order 
issued by a Chief Petty Officer (CPO); and (2) illegally appropriating and using a 
government  vehicle.      He  was  ordered  to  pay  the  sum  of  $18  per  month  for  2 
months and to perform 40 hours of extra police duties. 
 

The  applicant’s  service  record  indicates  that  he  was  awarded  perfect 
marks for conduct (4.0) on 18 out of the 26 performance evaluations he received 
while in the service.  He received one conduct mark of 0.0 for the three-month 
period ending September 27, 1944, which included the time he was absent over 
leave from the Southwind.  The applicant’s Termination of Service form (NAVCG 
2500-C)  indicates  that  his  average  proficiency  mark  was  2.48  and  his  average 
conduct mark was 3.23.   

 
 
On  March  21,  1946,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast Guard 
Reserve,  having  served  3  years,  3  months,  and  7  days  on  active  duty.    His 
Termination  of  Service  form  indicates  that  he  was  issued  an  honorable  service 
button and an honorable service emblem but not an honorable discharge button.  
The  reason  cited  for  his  discharge  is  “expiration  of  enlistment.”    The  form  is 
signed by the applicant.  The applicant’s Notice of Separation and Certificate of 
Discharge also indicate that he was discharged “under honorable conditions.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  8,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast 
Guard  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board 
grant the applicant’s request.  
 
 
CGPC stated that the Board should waive the statute of limitations in this 
case  in  the  best  interest  of  justice.    He  stated  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the 
applicant’s  record,  which  would  affect  the  applicant’s  characterization  upon 
discharge.  Specifically, CGPC noted that the applicant’s final average marks as 
listed  in  his  service  record  are  2.48  for  Proficiency  and  3.23  for  Conduct.  
However,  CGPC  recalculated  the  applicant’s  marks  and  determined  that  he 
should  have  received  final  average  marks  of  2.57  for  Proficiency  and  3.46  for 
Conduct.    CGPC  noted  that  the  regulations  governing  the  minimum  final 
averages  for  honorable  discharges  were  changed  in  1983.    Accordingly,  under 
Article 12.B.2.f.d. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, after June 30, 1983, the 
member must have a minimum characteristic average of 2.5 in each factor over 
the period of enlistment to receive an honorable discharge. 
 

 
Moreover,  CGPC  noted  that  under  33  C.F.R.  Chapter  1  §  51.7,  Equity 
Standard of Review, it would be fair and in the best interest of the government to 
upgrade  the  applicant’s  discharge  from  “under  honorable  conditions”  to 
“honorable.”    CGPC  stated  that  given  the  applicant’s  conduct  and  proficiency 
marks, the discrepancy, and the applicant’s service history, it is unlikely that the 
applicant would have received a general discharge under current policy.  CGPC 
also took into consideration the applicant’s current age and the period of time in 
which the applicant served. 
 
 
Finally,  CGPC  noted  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  should  be  upgraded 
pursuant to Article 12.B.2.f.f. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, which states 
 

in any case in which a general discharge or discharge under other 
than  honorable  conditions  is  warranted,  the  [Coast  Guard]  may 
award  the  member  an  honorable  or  general  discharge,  as 
appropriate, under certain conditions. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 14, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views 
of the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.   The applicant 
responded  on  September  20,  2004,  and  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  1946,  after  it  had  reverted  to  the  Department  of  the 
Treasury and operated under its own rules.  Executive Order No. 9666, Decem-
ber 28, 1945.   
 

Under Article 4592 of the Coast Guard’s 1934 Personnel Instructions and 
ALCOAST  (P)  101,  issued  on  June  12,  1946,  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 enlistment as extended, not less than 2.75 
in  proficiency  in  rating  and  3  in  conduct;  and    (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  characterizations  of  “good,” 
“indifferent,” “undesirable,” “dishonorable,” or “bad conduct.”  

 
Article 584(4) of the 1940 regulations provided that honorable discharges 
were  awarded  under  any  of  five  conditions: 
  expiration  of  enlistment; 
convenience of the government; hardship; minority (age); and disability not the 
result of own misconduct.  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.” 
 
 
Today’s standards for discharge appear in Article 12.B.2.f.1.b. of the Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST  M100.6A).    An  enlisted  member  may 
receive an honorable discharge if his or her service is characterized by “[p]roper 
military behavior and proficient performance of duty with due consideration for 
the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude”; and through 
June  30,  1983,  the  member’s  final  average  evaluation  mark  must  have  been  at 
least 2.7 [out of 4.0] for performance of duty and at least 3.0 for 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 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 3 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  1946,  but  alleged 
that he did not notice the character of his discharge until March 2004.  However, 
the Board finds that the applicant knew or should have known the character of 

his  discharge  in  1946,  when  he  signed  his  Termination  of  Service  and  received 
his Certificate of Discharge.  Thus, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552,  the  Board  may  waive  the  3-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  consider  the  reason  for  the  delay  and  conduct  a  cursory  review  of  the 
merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  Although 
the applicant has not explained his delay, a cursory review of the merits of this 
case  indicates  that  CGPC  has  determined  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. 

 
4. 

The applicant’s service record does not support his allegation that 
his  service  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  during  and after World War II met the 
criteria  for  receiving  an  honorable  discharge.    He  was  discharged  upon  his 
expiration  of  enlistment,  and  his  proficiency  in  rating  mark  was  2.57  and  his 
conduct mark was 3.46.2  Pursuant to the regulations in effect at the time of the 
applicant’s discharge, he was required to have earned a minimum final average 
of 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in conduct.  In this case, the applicant received a 2.57 
for proficiency and a 3.46 for conduct.  Moreover, he was convicted by deck court 
4  times  and  by  summary  court  martial  once.    Therefore,  the  applicant  did  not 
meet the criteria to obtain an honorable discharge.   

 
5. 

Discharges  characterized  as  “under  honorable  conditions”  were 
authorized under Article 583 of the 1940 Regulations for the United States Coast 
Guard upon the expiration of a member’s enlistment, and the applicant’s record 
supports  his  receipt  of  this  less  than  fully  honorable  characterization  of 
discharge.    However,  the  Coast  Guard  revised  the  regulations  governing  the 
relationship between final conduct and proficiency marks and discharge in 1983.  
Accordingly,  CGPC  noted  that  the  applicant  would  have  received  an  honorable 
discharge under the 1983 change to the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, because 
under that revision the member must have a minimum characteristic average of 
2.5 in each factor over the period of enlistment.  In this case, the applicant had a 
2.57 in proficiency and a 3.46 in conduct.   
 

6. 

The  delegate  of  the  Secretary  has  held  that,  in  considering  the 
character  of  a  discharge,  the  Board  may  “take  into  account  changes  in 
community mores, civilians as well as military, since the time the discharge was 
rendered, and upgrade a discharge if it is judged to be unduly severe in light of 

                                                 
2 These numbers reflect the proficiency and conduct marks as recalculated by CGPC. 

contemporary standards.”3  Therefore, and in light of the fact that the applicant’s 
marks meet the criteria for an honorable discharge under current standards, the 
Board  concludes  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  upgrade  the  applicant’s 
discharge. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 
 

 

 

                                                 
3 Policy concerning the upgrading of discharges, from The General Counsel of the Department of 
Transportation, July 8, 1976 

ORDER 

 

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

ond class, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR, is hereby granted.   

 
His records shall be corrected to show that he received an honorable dis-

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

      
 

 
James G. Parks 

charge from the Coast Guard Reserve on March 21, 1946.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                    Darren S. Wall 
 
 

       

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer