DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-046 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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.  The Chair docketed the case on 
January  27,  2006,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  military 
records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  28,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a fireman second class (FN2) 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.  He alleged that during his years of 
service, he was punished for only one minor incident.  After he had been in the brig for 
20 minutes, he asked to see the officer in charge, who agreed to assign him to a ship that 
was about to sail from Norfolk into the North Atlantic.  The applicant alleged that he 
has been a good citizen and father since his discharge. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On March 10, 1945, at age 17, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  
Initially, the applicant was assigned to the Coast Guard Academy as a steward’s mate 
third class.  He advanced to steward’s mate second class on June 11, 1945.   
 

On June 22, 1945, the applicant reported for duty at a training station in Brook-
lyn, New York.  On June 30, 1945, he received a conduct mark of 2.5 (out of 4.0) after he 
was  taken  to  a  captain’s  mast  for  “refusal  to  take  orders  and  abusive  language.”    On 
July 1, 1945, the applicant reported for duty aboard the U.S.S. Gordon, based in Norfolk, 
Virginia.  The applicant served on this ship for 8 months and 11 days.  Because he began 
performing the duties of a fireman, his rating was switched to fireman second class.  In 
April 1946, the applicant was transferred to the U.S.S. Casper, based in San Francisco. 

 
On May 17, 1946, the applicant was discharged “under honorable conditions” for 
the convenience of the Government.  His average proficiency in rating (PIR) mark was 
2.95, and his average conduct mark (not including marks for periods of less than one 
month, which are not to be counted) was 3.75.  Except for the one conduct mark of 2.5 in 
June 1945, all of the applicant’s other conduct marks were 4.0. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On May 19, 2006, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an 
 
advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s 
request based on an attached memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC. 
 
 
CGPC  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  record  does  not  contain  any  material  errors 
and is presumptively correct.  Nevertheless, CGPC recommended that the Board waive 
the statute of limitations and upgrade the applicant’s discharge “in the interest of fair-
ness.”  CGPC stated that upgrading the applicant’s discharge would “more accurately 
reflect[] his service” since his record contains only one infraction.  CGPC noted that the 
applicant’s final average marks were “well within the threshold for an honorable dis-
charge by current standards.”  CGPC concluded that the applicant “served during the 
trying times of World War II and his record supports an honorable discharge.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Guard by stating that he had no objection to the recommendation therein.   

On June 16, 2006, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion of the Coast 

APPLICABLE LAW  

 
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 oper-
ated under its own rules.  Executive Order No. 9666, December 28, 1945.   
 
 
Under Article 4592 of the Coast Guard’s 1934 Personnel Instructions, the follow-
ing 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.    (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].”   
 
 
Today’s  standards  for  discharge  appear  in  Article  12.B.2.(f)  of  the  Personnel 
Manual (COMDTINST M100.6A).  An enlisted member may receive an honorable dis-
charge 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 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. 
 

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 section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code. 

 
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 
received  his  discharge  documents  indicating  that  his  discharge  was  characterized  as 
“under honorable conditions” in 1946.  Thus, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of 
an application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 
164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice sup-
ports a waiver of the statute of limitations, the Board "should analyze both the reasons 
for  the  delay  and  the  potential  merits  of  the  claim  based  on  a  cursory  review."    The 
court further instructed that "the longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons 
are  for  the  delay,  the  more  compelling  the  merits  would  need  to  be  to  justify  a  full 
review."  Id. at 164, 165.  A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the 
applicant was erroneously and unjustly awarded a discharge “under honorable condi-
tions”  instead  of  an  honorable  discharge.    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 military record shows that he was punished only once at 
captain’s mast, that he was never tried by court martial, that he was discharged for the 
convenience of the Government, and that his final average marks calculated in accor-
dance  with  policy  (not  including  marks  assigned  for  periods  of  less  than  one  month) 

were 2.95 for PIR and 3.75 for conduct.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has 
proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  failing  to 
issue him an honorable discharge because under regulations then in effect, Article 4592 
of  the  Coast  Guard’s  Personnel  Instructions,  the  criteria  for  receiving  an  “honorable” 
character of discharge were the following:  “(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 rat-
ing 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].”  Therefore, when he was discharged on May 17, 1946, the applicant 
clearly met the criteria for an honorable discharge.  In addition, the Board notes that the 
applicant’s service records meet the criteria for an honorable discharge under the cur-
rent regulations in Article 12.B.2.(f) of the Personnel Manual. 

 
5. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  upgrading  the  applicant’s  dis-

charge to honorable and sending him an honorable discharge certificate. 

The  application  of  former  FN2  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for 

correction of his military record is granted.   

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
His records shall be corrected to show that he received an honorable discharge 
from the Coast Guard Reserve on May 17, 1946.  The Coast Guard shall also send the 
applicant an honorable discharge certificate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 
 H. Lee Einsel, Jr. 

 
 
  

        

 
 Julia Andrews