DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-072 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxx, SA/E-2 (former) 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Hale, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding 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  March  17, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 19, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  seaman  apprentice  (SA;  pay  grade  E-2)  who  served 
 
approximately five years in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by 
upgrading his 1964 discharge (under other than honorable conditions).  The applicant 
stated that “he was foolish young man” when he was in the Coast Guard and that he 
went AWOL (absent without leave) on several occasions in an attempt to straighten out 
infidelity issues with his former spouse.  He also stated that he has led a clean life since 
his discharge, and that he has been “checked out by the federal government and state 
government” and issued a gun permit and liquor license.  In his application for correc-
tion, he alleged that he waited to submit his request because “I was told to wait, keep a 
clean record, then ask for the BCD1 [bad conduct discharge] removed.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

                                                 
1 Pursuant to a sentence by a Special Court Martial dated May 3, 1963, the applicant was ordered to be 
discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  bad  conduct  discharge.    However,  the  applicant’s  DD  214 
indicates that the reason for his discharge was “other than desertion (Court-Martial)” and describes his 
character of service as “conditions other than honorable.” 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on May 13, 1958.  His troubles began 
shortly after reporting to recruit training, and during his five years in the Coast Guard 
he went AWOL and received non-judicial punishment (NJP)2 on ten occasions and was 
convicted  by  courts  martial  three  times.    The  applicant’s  record  of  Uniform  Code  of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) offenses and courts martial includes the following: 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

June 23, 1958 – Summary Court Martial, for violating Article 86 (AWOL) – 
sentenced to 10 days’ confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $15. 

February  24,  1960  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  7  days’ 
restriction. 

March 3, 1960 – NJP for violating Article 92 (dereliction of duty, 2 counts) 
– awarded 2 weeks of restriction. 

September  20,  1960  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  6  days’ 
restriction. 

October  18,  1960  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  134  (breach  of  the  peace)  – 
awarded 6 days’ restriction. 

March  3,  1961  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  3  days’ 
confinement on bread and water. 

May  26,  1961  –  Summary  Court  Martial,  for  violating  Article  86  – 
sentenced  to  15  days  at  hard  labor  without  confinement;  15  days’ 
restriction, and forfeiture of $30. 

October 13, 1961 – NJP for violating Articles 86 and 87 (missing movement 
of vessel) – awarded 7 days’ confinement. 

September  14,  1962  –  NJP  for  violating  Articles  134  and  86  –  awarded 
reduction (suspended) and 14 days of extra duty. 

May 3, 1963 – Special Court Martial, for violating Article 85 (desertion) of 
the  UCMJ,  for  the  period  November  23,  1962,  through  January  26,  1963.  
He  pled  guilty  to  the  lesser  charge  of  AWOL,  and  upon  conviction  was 
ordered “to be discharged from the Service with a bad conduct discharge, 

                                                 
2 Article 15 of the UCMJ provides NJP as a disciplinary measure that is more serious than administrative 
corrective measures but less serious than trial by court martial. 

to forfeit $72 per month for 6 months, and to be confined at hard labor for 
6 months.” 

August  20,  1963  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  7  days’ 
restriction. 

October  30,  1963  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  30  days’ 
restriction. 

December  5,  1963  –  NJP  for  violating  Article  86  –  awarded  8  days’ 
restriction and 8 days of extra duty. 

 
• 

 
• 

 
• 

 
On September 26, 1963, a Special Court Martial Review reviewed the applicant’s 
May  3,  1963,  conviction  and  held  that  his  conviction  and  sentence,  including  a  bad 
conduct discharge, were “found to be correct in law and fact and are affirmed.”    

 
On  October  30,  1963,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  approved  the 

recommendation that the applicant receive a BCD. 
 

On  January  30,  1964,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard 
pursuant to Article 12.B.15. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  The record indicates 
that his character of service was “conditions other than honorable.” 

 
In 1975, the applicant received a replacement discharge certificate dated May 2, 
1975, which indicated that he was discharged from the Coast Guard “by bad conduct 
discharge (under other than honorable conditions).”   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  12,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  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  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  The JAG argued that the applicant failed to submit a timely application and 
failed  to  supply  any  justification  for  the  lengthy  delay.    CGPC  stated  that  the  bad 
conduct discharge is proportionate to the nature of the applicant’s offenses and that his 
record fully supports the awarded character of service.  Finally, CGPC noted that the 
applicant’s  record  of  ten  NJPs  and  three  court-martial  convictions  in  a  five-year  span 
clearly supports his bad conduct discharge and that “any call for clemency in this case 
would be unjustified given the applicant’s abysmal record.”   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 26, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    The  BCMR  did  not  receive  a 
response. 
 

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 section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was untimely. 

 
2. 

 An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the day 
the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.    10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b).    The 
applicant  was  issued  a  DD  Form  214  on  January  30,  1964,  with  a  discharge 
characterized as  “conditions other than honorable.”  This information is clearly marked 
on  the  DD  214  and  thus  he  knew  or  should  have  known  that  he  had  received  a 
discharge  characterized  as  other  than  honorable.    Moreover,  the  applicant  received  a 
replacement  discharge  certificate  in  May  1975,  which  clearly  states  that  he  received  a 
“bad conduct discharge (under other than honorable conditions).”  Therefore, the Board 
finds that the application was  filed more than 39 years after the statute of limitations 
expired and is untimely. 

 
3. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year statute of 
limitations 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 in assessing whether the interest of justice supports 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.  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  
 

4. 

The applicant did not allege that his discharge from the Coast Guard was 
in error or unjust.  In his application for correction, he merely stated that he has led a 
clean  and  normal  life  since  his  discharge  and  simply  wants  to  clear  his  name.  
Explaining the lengthy delay in submitting his application, he alleged that “I was told to 
wait, keep a clean record, then ask for the BCD [to be] removed.”  
 

5. 

A cursory review of the record indicates the Coast Guard committed no 
error  or  injustice  in  awarding  the  applicant  a  discharge  characterized  as  other  than 
honorable.  The record indicates that during the applicant’s approximately five years of 
service  in  the  Coast  Guard,  he  received  ten  NJPs  for  a  variety  of  offenses  and  three 

court-martial convictions.  The applicant argued that his discharge should be upgraded 
because  he  has  led  a  clean  life  since  his  discharge.    On  July  8,  1976,  however,  the 
delegate of the Secretary established the following policy concerning the upgrading of 
discharges:    “[T]he  Board  should  not  upgrade  discharges  solely  on  the  basis  of  post-
service  conduct.”  The  delegate  of  the  Secretary  stated  that  the  Board  may  upgrade  a 
discharge  if  it  is  judged  to  be  unduly  severe  in  light  of  contemporary  standards.  
However,  the  applicant  has  submitted  no  evidence  to  prove  that  his  BCD  is  unduly 
severe under modern standards. 
 

6. 

 Accordingly, due to the lengthy delay and the probable lack of success on 
the merits of his claim, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the 
statute of limitations in this case.  It should be denied because it is untimely.  

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former SA XXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus