DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2005-007 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on October 18, 
2005, upon receipt of the application and the applicant’s military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated June XX, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  his 
1973  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  to  an  honorable  discharge  and  by 
upgrading his rate upon discharge from seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1) to seaman 
(SN; pay grade E-3).  He argued that his general discharge as an SR was unjust because 
he was a Vietnam Era veteran who served overseas.  He alleged that he discovered this 
error in his record on September 10, 2004. 

 
The applicant also alleged his discharge form, DD 214, erroneously shows that he 
had  “time  lost.”    He  alleged  that  the  days  noted  as  lost  were  actually  “justified  as 
accountable service time.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On October 22, 1971, at the age of 18, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard 
for  four  years,  through  October  21,  1975.    Upon  enlistment,  he  was  advised  in  accor-

dance with Article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).1  On February 
11,  1972,  while  still  assigned  to  a  training  center,  the  applicant  received  non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP)  for  leaving  his  place  of  duty  for  about  fourteen  hours  without 
authority.    He  was  sentenced  to  fourteen  days  of  correctional  custody.    On  March  3, 
1972,  the  applicant  completed  training  and  was  advanced  from  SR  to  SA  (seaman 
apprentice; pay grade E-2).  His end of enlistment and pay base date were not adjusted. 

 
On  March  23,  1972,  the  applicant  surrendered  after  having  been  away  without 
leave (AWOL) since March 7, 1972.  On March 28, 1972, he was returned to the training 
center and confined to the brig.  His enlistment was extended by sixteen days because 
of the unauthorized absence and his pay base date was reset as November 8, 1971.2  On 
March 31, 1972, he was tried by summary court-martial, convicted, and sentenced to ten 
days’ restriction to base and forfeiture of $80 per month for one month.  In addition, his 
enlistment was extended by the three days of his confinement from March 28 to March 
31, 1972, and his pay base date became November 11, 1971.  

 
The applicant was assigned to a cutter based in Boston, Massachusetts, but went 
AWOL again on May 4, 1972.  He surrendered on May 13, 1972, in California, and was 
returned  to  the  cutter  on  May  19,  1972.    His  enlistment  was  extended  by  nine  days 
because of the unauthorized absence, and his pay base date became November 20, 1971.  
On May 23, 1972, he was convicted at summary court-martial, sentenced to reduction to 
pay grade E-1 (SR) and to one month’s confinement at hard labor.  On June 16, 1972, he 
was released from the brig.  His enlistment was extended by the twenty-four days of his 
confinement, and his pay base date became December 13, 1971.3 

 
On  July  25,  1972,  the  applicant  surrendered  in  Ohio  after  having  been  AWOL 
from his cutter since July 18, 1972.  He was returned to Boston on July 27, 1972, and con-
fined to the brig pending another court-martial.  He was advised that unless his conduct 
improved, he would be recommended for discharge by reason of unfitness.  His enlist-
ment was extended by seven days because of the unauthorized absence and four days 
for his confinement.  His pay base date was adjusted to December 24, 1971. 

 
On  July  31,  1972,  the  applicant  was  tried  by  summary  court-martial  on  two 
counts of going AWOL:  the first, for one day of unauthorized absence on July 11, 1972, 
and  the  second  for  unauthorized  absence  from  July  18  to  July  25,  1972.    He  was  also 
charged with willfully disobeying a lawful order of a petty officer on his cutter on July 

                                                 
1 Article 137 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 937) requires the military services to explain parts of the UCMJ, 
including the punitive articles regarding drug abuse, at the time of enlistment.   
  
2  However, sixteen days after October 22, 1971, is November 7, 1971, not November 8. 
3    However,  twenty-four  days  after  November  20,  1971,  is  December  14,  1971,  not  November  13.    This 
adjustment therefore corrected the error noted in footnote 2.  

17, 1972.  He was convicted of all charges and sentenced to confinement at hard labor 
for one month and forfeiture of $175 of pay for one month.   

 
On August 9, 1972, while confined to the brig and having been counseled about 
the Coast Guard’s Drug Abuse Exemption Program, the applicant admitted that he had 
smoked  marijuana  and  “popped  pills”  on  numerous  occasions  since  enlisting.    On 
August 18, 1972, he was released because the remainder of his confinement was remit-
ted by the convening authority.  His enlistment was extended for eighteen days for the 
duration of his confinement, and his pay based date became January 11, 1972. 

 
On  October  12,  1972,  having  been  AWOL  since  October  9,  1972,  and  having 
missed  his  cutter’s  movement  on  October  11,  1972,  the  applicant  surrendered  himself 
and  was  assigned  to  the  training  center.    His  enlistment  was  extended  by  three  days 
because of the unauthorized absence, and his pay base date became January 14, 1972. 

 
On  October  17,  1972,  the  applicant  returned  to  the  training  center  after  having 
been AWOL since the day before.  His enlistment was extended by one day because of 
the unauthorized absence, and his pay base date became January 15, 1972. 

 
On November 7, 1972, the applicant returned to the training center after having 
been  AWOL  since  November  3,  1972.    His  enlistment  was  extended  by  four  days 
because of the unauthorized absence, and his pay base date became January 19, 1972. 

 
On December 12, 1972, the applicant returned to the training center after having 
been AWOL since the day before.  His enlistment was extended for one day because of 
the  unauthorized  absence,  and  his  pay  based  date  became  January  20,  1972.    He  was 
placed in confinement in Boston pending a special court-martial.  The charge sheet indi-
cates that he was charged with unauthorized absences for the following periods:  Octo-
ber 9 to 12, October 16 to 17, November 3 to 7, and December 11 to 12, 1972.  He was 
also charged with missing his cutter’s departure (ship’s movement) on October 11, 1972.  
On December 18, 1972, he was tried by special court-martial, convicted, and sentenced 
to  six  months  of  confinement  at  hard  labor  and  forfeiture  of  $96  per  month  for  six 
months.    The  sentence  was  later  reduced  to  four  months’  confinement  and  forfeiture 
upon remittance by the supervisory authority. 

 
On  February  6,  1973,  while  in  confinement,  the  applicant  was  evaluated  by  a 
psychiatrist.    The  applicant  told  the  doctor  that  he  did  not  like  serving  in  the  Coast 
Guard because he wanted to travel.  The doctor reported that the applicant felt no guilt 
for  his  misconduct  and  diagnosed  him  with  an  immature  personality.    He  noted  that 
although  the  applicant  was  fit  for  duty,  his  personality  “may  preclude  satisfactory 
adjustment to military life.  If such is the case, the subject’s command may wish to con-
sider administrative separation.” 

 

On March 28, 1973, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed him that 
he was initiating his administrative discharge for unsuitability because of his immature 
personality.  The applicant was advised that he could submit a statement on his own 
behalf.  The applicant signed the CO’s notification in acknowledgement and a form let-
ter in which he certified that he had been fully counseled about his pending discharge 
and did not intend to submit a statement. 

 
On March 30, 1973, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be administra-
tively discharged for unsuitability in accordance with Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel 
Manual.  The message indicates that the applicant should receive either an honorable or 
general discharge in accordance with current regulations. 

 
On April 2, 1973, the applicant was released from the brig.  His enlistment was 
extended by 111 days because of his confinement from December 12, 1972, to April 1, 
1973, and his pay base date became May 10, 1972.  On April 3, 1973, he underwent a 
physical examination pursuant to a pending administrative discharge.   

 
On  April  4,  1973,  the  applicant—still  an  SR/E-1—received  a  general  discharge 
for  unsuitability  pursuant  to  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel  Manual  with  an  RE-4 
reenlistment code (ineligible) and 265 as a separation code (which meant unsatisfactory 
handling of personal affairs).  His DD 214 and an Administrative Remarks page in his 
record indicate that because of time lost, he had served only 10 months and 25 days of 
creditable active duty.  His time lost was noted on both documents as follows: 3/7/72 
to  3/22/72;  3/28/72  to  3/30/72;  5/2/72  to  5/12/72;  5/23/72  to  6/15/72;  7/18/72  to 
7/24/72; 7/27/72 to 7/30/72; 7/31/72 to 8/17/72; 10/9/72 to 10/12/72; 10/16/72 to 
10/17/72; 11/3/72 to 11/7/72; 12/11/72 to 12/11/72; 12/12/72 to 12/17/72; 12/18/72 
to  4/1/73.    His  final  average  evaluation  marks  were  2.85  for  proficiency  and  2.45  for 
conduct (on a scale of 4.0). 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On February 25, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the requested relief because of 
the  application’s  untimeliness  and  lack  of  merit.    However,  he  stated  that  the  Coast 
Guard’s review of the applicant’s military records revealed a small error in the calcula-
tion of lost time.  He recommended that the Board correct this error. 
 
 
 The  JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  “failed  to  show  why  it  is  in  the  interest  of 
justice to excuse the delay” in his application.  He stated that the applicant’s allegation 
that  he  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error  in  his  record  until  September  10,  2004,  “is 
simply  not  credible.”    Moreover,  he  pointed  out,  33  C.F.R.  § 52.22  provides  that  an 
application “must be filed within three years after the applicant discovered or reason-
ably should have discovered the alleged error or injustice.”  The JAG argued that the 

applicant  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  errors  when  he  received  his 
DD 214 in 1973.  The JAG pointed out that the applicant has provided no reason for his 
delay and has submitted no evidence.  Therefore, he argued, the Board should not find 
that it is in the interest of justice to excuse the application’s untimeliness. 
 
 
The  JAG  further  argued  that,  should  the  Board  waive  the  three-year  statute  of 
limitations, the requested relief should be denied because the applicant has offered no 
evidence  of  error  by  the  Coast  Guard  in  the  characterization  of  his  service  and  dis-
charge.  He argued that the applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity 
with  respect  to  his  discharge.    Moreover,  the  JAG  argued,  the  applicant’s  military 
records contain many instances of misconduct, which show that he “was properly sepa-
rated from the Coast Guard before the expiration of enlistment after a far less than satis-
factory period of service.” 
 
 
The  JAG  included  with  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the  case  pre-
pared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  he  adopted.    CGPC 
stated that the applicant was afforded due process and that it is improbable that he did 
not  understand  the  characterization  of  his  discharge  when  he  received  his  DD  214  or 
know  that  his  rate  was  SR,  rather  than  SN.    CGPC  recommended  that  the  requested 
relief be denied.  However, CGPC stated that its review of the applicant’s record indi-
cates  that  the  DD  214  erroneously  shows  that  the  applicant  lost  time  from  5/2/72  to 
5/12/72, when in fact it should state 5/4/72 to 5/12/72.  CGPC further stated that the 
two  days  should  be  added  to  the  net  and  total  service  time  recorded  on  the  DD  214, 
which should show 10 months and 27 days of service instead of 10 months and 25 days.  
The JAG stated that the Coast Guard “is willing to waive Applicant’s failure to timely 
file for purposes of correcting the two day error.” 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  March  1,  2005,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  advisory  opinion 

 
 
and invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1973  authorized  the  Com-
mandant  to  direct  the  discharge  of  an  enlisted  member  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    It 
provided  that  prior  to  recommending  a  member  for  such  a  discharge,  the  CO  was 
required to notify the member of the contemplated action and permit him to submit a 
statement on his own behalf.  According to Article 12.b.2.f.1.c. of the current Personnel 
Manual, prior to 1983, a member must have received final average marks of at least 2.7 
in proficiency and 3.0 in conduct to receive an honorable discharge.   
 

COMDTINST 1900.4A provided that a member’s net active service should be cal-
culated on his DD 214 by entering “the years, months, and days of service creditable for 
basic pay purposes.”  In addition, it provides that the rate listed shall be the rate held at 
the time of 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 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(b).  The  applicant 
received his discharge in 1973.  Although he stated that he discovered the alleged errors 
in  his  record  in  2004,  the  Board  agrees  with  the  JAG  that  the  applicant  reasonably 
should have discovered the alleged errors when he received his DD 214 in 1973.  There-
fore, under 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

The  applicant  did  not  explain  why  he  waited  more  than  thirty  years  to 

 
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.  Before denying an application 
based on the statute of limitations, the Board must consider the reasons for the delay 
and conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.  Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 
F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
 
 
apply to the Board for the requested correction. 
 
The Board’s review of the case reveals a complete lack of merit.  Although 
 
the applicant was technically a member of the Coast Guard for the 531 days between 
October 22, 1971, and April 4, 1973, he was either AWOL or confined to the brig for at 
least  201  of  those  531  days  and  therefore  served  less  than  a  year  of  creditable  time.  
During  his  short  time  in  the  service,  he  had  nine  unauthorized  absences,  and  he  was 
court-martialed four times.  His repeated misconduct earned him a reduction in rate to 
SR/E-1 and final average marks of 2.85 for proficiency and 2.45 for conduct.  Therefore, 
in accordance with applicable regulations, at the time of his discharge, he was an SR/E-
1 and he did not merit an honorable discharge.  His DD 214 is correct in showing that 
he received a general discharge “under honorable conditions” as an SR/E-1. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  had  no  “time  lost”  during  his  enlistment.  
However,  his  record  is  replete  with  evidence  of  at  least  201  days  of  time  lost  due  to 

6. 

periods  of  unauthorized  absence  and  confinement.4    After  reviewing  the  applicant’s 
record,  CGPC  noted  that  one  of  the  dates  in  the  list  of  periods  of  time  lost—May  2, 
1972—should  actually  be  May  4,  1972,  since  that  is  the  date  he  went  AWOL.    CGPC 
advised that this typographical error should be corrected and that the two days should 
be added to the applicant’s net service, so that his DD 214 would be corrected to show 
10 months and 27 days of active service rather than 10 months and 25 days.  The JAG 
stated that he would not object to waiving the three-year statute of limitations solely for 
the purpose of making this small correction.   
 
 
The Board agrees that the record indicates that the applicant went AWOL 
on May 4 rather than May 2, 1972.  The Board’s review of the record, however, indicates 
that upon the applicant’s discharge on April 4, 1973, his pay base date had been adjust-
ed  to May  10,  1972.  Accordingly,  he  might  have  been  deemed  to  have  completed  10 
months of service as of March 9, 1973, and 26 additional days of service by April 4, 1973, 
for  a  total  of  10  months  and  26  days  of  net  service.5    However,  under  33  C.F.R. 
§ 52.24(b), the applicant’s military records are presumptively correct, and the Board is 
not  persuaded  that  either  CGPC’s  or  its  own  calculations  made  thirty  years  after  the 
applicant’s discharge are necessarily more accurate than those made by the applicant’s 
command.  Although the JAG might not object to a waiver of the statute of limitations 
for the correction of these small alleged errors, the Board is not persuaded that it is in 
the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  applicant’s  delay.    Under  10  U.S.C.  § 1552(a),  the 
Board is not required to correct every small error found in a military record, much less 
any possible small error believed to be found more than thirty years after an applicant’s 
discharge.  Therefore, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the 
applicant’s delay or to make any corrections to his record. 
 
 

Accordingly, relief should be denied. 

7. 

8. 

 

                                                 
4    The  201  days  do  not  include  the  applicant’s  unauthorized  absence  and  correctional  custody  during 
training  in  February  1972  since  his  pay  base  date  and  end  of  enlistment  were  not  adjusted  for  those 
periods of “lost time.” 
5  The fact that 1972 was a leap year could explain why the subtraction of two days of “lost time” from the 
applicant’s DD 214 would increase his net total of service by only one day. 

The application of _____________________, for correction of his military record is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 Darren S. Wall