DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-188 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to 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 September 29, 
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  May  31,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

 
 

 

 

 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  upgrading  his  1967 
general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.  He also requested that 
evidence of a special court-martial conviction for assault be removed from his record.    

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that his general discharge is unjust because it resulted from racial 
discrimination and because he was sexually assaulted while on active duty and his commanding 
officer (CO) failed to do anything about it.  
 
 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  his  court-martial  conviction  for  assault  should  be 
removed from his record because it too resulted from racial discrimination and was based on lies 
from members of the Coast Guard who  were prejudiced  against him.   He further alleged that 
these members demonstrated their dislike for him by putting feces on his bunk.  The applicant 
stated  that  because  of  the  unfair  treatment  he  received  due  to  his  race  and  the  alleged  sexual 
assault, he has been diagnosed with and suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He 
also stated that the untimeliness of his application should be excused because of the PTSD.   In 
support  of  his  allegations,  he  submitted  a  January  13,  2006,  psychiatric  report  from  the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  The psychiatric report stated that the applicant told the 

examiner that he had been sexually assaulted in 1966 and that the command failed to take any 
action after the applicant reported it.   
 
 
The DVA psychiatric report also states that subsequent to the sexual assault, the applicant 
was hospitalized for ten days in a metropolitan (Baltimore) hospital and that since that time he 
has  required  psychosocial  support  for  major  depression  in  addition  to  medications.    Under 
“History of Present Illness” the psychiatrist wrote: 
 

The  veteran  worked  for  the  most  part  as  a  ticket  agent  for  a  bus  company 
(Trailways).    He  stopped  working  in  1988  because  of  “mental  stress”.    The 
veteran expressed gratitude to Dr. [K], who in 1988 established the diagnosis of 
post traumatic stress disorder secondary to sexual assault.  This veteran has been 
afflicted  all  along  with  signs  and  symptoms  of  PTSD,  mostly  characterized  by 
intrusive  recollections  of  events  on  a  daily  basis,  nightmares  more  than  three 
times  per  week  in  frequency,  difficulty  concentrating  and  completing  tasks, 
persistent  symptoms  of  increased  arousal,  irritability,  as  well  as  post-military 
stressors  in  the  area  of  avoidance  of  the  stimuli  associated  with  trauma  and 
numbing  general  responsiveness.    This  veteran  continues  to  avoid  situations  or 
people which arouse recollection, and he cannot watch movies that depict sexual 
assaults or sexual content type of material.   

 
With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  mental  status  examination,  the  DVA  psychiatrist  wrote  the 
following: 
 

This is an alert male looking in accordance to his chronological age.  His behavior 
remains in general appropriate to the structure and the manner of this interview 
and  situation.    This  veteran  was  casually  dressed,  appropriately  groomed, 
maintaining good personal hygiene.  His posture was normal but movements were 
slow.  The veteran was using a wheelchair because of the severity of pain across 
the  lower  extremities  .  .  .  On  several  occasions,  the  veteran  was  tearful.    No 
hallucinations or delusions were present.  No obsessive or ritualistic behavior was 
detected.  Mood was reported by the veteran as anxious and depressed, assessed 
by this interviewer as moderately anxious and depressed.  He denied suicidal or 
homicidal  ideations,  intentions  or  plans.    Emotional  expression  or  affect  was 
generally  constricted throughout the interview but congruent to thought  content 
and  mood.    Thought  processes  were  logical,  coherent  and  goal  oriented.  
Cognitive  functions  -  the  veteran  was  fully  oriented  to  person,  place,  time  and 
purpose.  There are no deficiencies of cognition or memory but concentration and 
attention are moderately impaired.  Insight and judgment are well preserved.   

 
 
The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from PTSD and major depression 
linked to PTSD and current physical difficulties.  The psychiatrist stated that after reviewing the 
applicant’s  file,  the  electronic  medical  records,  and  medical  literature,  “it  is  reasonable  to 
conclude that the veteran’s allegations of manifesting PTSD linked to the service are more likely 
than not.”   
 

SUMMARY OF THE COAST GUARD RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 7, 1965.   

 
 
 
 
On  October  20,  1966,  the  applicant  signed  an  administrative  remarks  (page  7)  entry 
acknowledging that the Coast Guard was considering discharging him by reason of unsuitability 
due to his lack of aptitude, his inability to manage his financial affairs, his inability to refrain 
from  dishonorable  relations  with  women,  and  his  possible  character  and  behavioral  disorders.  
The applicant agreed to be examined by a psychiatrist.   
 
 
On October 25, 1966, the applicant was evaluated by the chief of psychiatric services at a 
United States Public Health Service (USPHS) hospital.   The USPHS psychiatrist’s impression 
was  that  of  an  angry  young  man  who  had  some  undesirable  character  traits  but  who  was  not 
mentally  disturbed.   The  USPHS  psychiatrist  further  stated  “the  sum  total  of  the  [applicant’s] 
personality assessments does not entitle the examiner to call [the applicant] mentally disturbed so 
that we could give him a medical diagnosis . . .   In fact he does not seem to be distressed enough 
to warrant any kind of medication.”   The report noted that the applicant was not sleeping well 
due  to  nightmares  of  being  placed  in  front  of  a  firing  squad  and  indicated  that  occasional 
medication for sleeping could be prescribed.     
 

the  applicant  was  also  evaluated  by  a  civilian  neuropsychiatrist. 

On  October  28,  1966,  the  applicant  was  punished  with  twenty  days  of  correctional 
custody  at  a  captain’s  mast  for  two  violations  of Article  92  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice  (UCMJ)  by  failing  to  maintain  a  contact  number  and  for  unauthorized  use  of  a 
government vehicle.  He was also punished for speeding, a violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. 
 
From December 28, 1966 to January 11, 1967, the applicant was hospitalized with low 
 
back pain that he claimed was incurred while lifting weights.  The applicant was evaluated by an 
orthopedist  and  diagnosed  with  mild  low  back  pain  and  possible  malingering.  While 
hospitalized, 
  The 
neuropsychiatric report commented that the applicant stated that “[he] can’t work all of his life” 
and  that  he  needed  a  job  that  required  no  bending  or  kneeling.    The  report  further  noted  the 
applicant’s  comments  that  he  was  filled  with  hate,  that  he  believed  that  he  had  been  unfairly 
treated by his command, and that he still suffered with back pain.  The neuropsychiatrist’s agreed 
with  the  previous  psychiatric  report  and  offered  his  impression  that  the  applicant  was  in  a 
paranoid state at that time, but that he was not sure that it could be called a psychosis. He also 
stated  that  the  applicant’s  back  pains  were  psychophysiological.    Subsequent  to  the  two 
consultations, the applicant was discharged from the hospital fit for duty.   
 
  
 
On January 10, 1967, the USPHS psychiatrist prepared a report on the applicant at the 
request of his defense counsel who was assigned to represent the applicant against charges of 
assault and communicating a threat.  The USPHS psychiatrist wrote the following in pertinent 
part: 
 

[The applicant] has been seen by two different psychiatrists over the past several 
months, myself and Dr. [L], an outside non-military psychiatrist.  I have seen this 
man on two different occasions and the most recent one was January 9, 1967,  I 

have felt all along that while this man has had a great deal of difficulty in living 
and following the rules of social order, that he is primarily not suffering from a 
mental disease.  In other words, he is responsible for his actions and does not have 
significant psychological difficulties to disable him in any way.  Also I felt that he 
could stand trial for any disciplinary action that was needed.  Dr. [L], on the other 
hand, felt that this man suffered from a paranoid state or what    might be called a 
paranoid  personality[1]  according  to  the  American  Psychiatric  Association 
Manual.  Because of our differences of opinion, we did have a conference in an 
effort  to  resolve  our  differences  of  opinion.    Because  I  have  known  the  patient 
over a longer period of  time and am directly responsible for military personnel 
here as a Public Health Service officer, I feel the report leaving from the hospital 
to the Coast Guard should be as follows: 
 
That  the  [applicant],  while  suffering  from  some  traits  of  a  personality  disorder 
does not show significant psychopathology to warrant a psychiatric diagnosis or 
disease.  Also, that he is responsible for his actions and that he should be allowed 
to stand trial for any disciplinary action pending against him.   

   

 

On  January  12,  1967,  the  applicant  was  readmitted  to  the  hospital  for  treatment  and 
evaluation of maxillary facial infected inclusion cyst.  The applicant was discharged on February 
8, 1967 in a fit for duty status.   
 

On February 20, 1967, the applicant was convicted under Article 128 of the UCMJ at a 
special court-martial of two specifications of assault against two different service members by 
striking  at  them  with  a  cardboard  cutting  device.    He  was  sentenced  to  three  months  of 
confinement at hard labor and reduced to pay grade E-1.2  During his confinement, the applicant 
received  a  psychiatric  evaluation  on  March  23,  1967,  that  determined  that  he  did  not  have  a 
mental disease and that cleared him psychiatrically for any appropriate administrative action. 
 
 
On April  25,  1967,  the  commanding  officer  informed  the  applicant  that  the  command 
intended  to  recommend  to  the  Commandant  that  the  applicant  be  administratively  discharged 
from the Coast Guard under Article 12-B-10 of the Personnel Manual due to inaptitude apathy, 
defective attitude, inability to expend effort constructively, and financial irresponsibility.   
 
 
On April 25, 1967, the applicant signed a statement in which he acknowledged that he 
had been informed of the proposed discharge, that he had been counseled regarding the matter, 
that he did not wish to submit a statement on his behalf, and that he was in complete accord with 
the proposed action.   
 

                                                 
1      Paranoid  personality  disorder  is  not  a  mental  disease,  defect,  or  disability.    See  Diagnostic  and 
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition,  p. 685 and Coast Guard Medical Manual.  
2      During  the  applicant’s  confinement  at  Fort  Meade,  he  wrote  to  his  CO  and  senators  on  numerous 
occasions  seeking  a  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    In  none  of  his  correspondence  did  the  applicant 
state that he had been the victim of a sexual assault.     

 
On April 25, 1967, the CO recommended that the Commandant discharge the applicant 
for  unsuitability,  due  to  inaptitude,  apathy,  defective  attitude,  inability  to  expend  effort 
constructively,  and  financial  irresponsibility.    The  CO  provided  the  following  narrative  with 
respect to the applicant: 
 

[The applicant] was assigned to this station after boot camp, reporting 24 August 
1965.    He  performed  well,  though  slow,  until August  1966.    His  slowness  was 
attributed to a slight degree of immaturity, his superiors believing this would pass 
with time.  Since then he has been a continual liability to the command due to his 
inaptitude,  in  combination  with  apathy.    He  can  be  trusted  to  perform  only  the 
most  menial  and  simple  tasks  and  then  must  be  afforded  constant  supervision.  
Minor incidents involving infractions of regulations were overlooked in an effort 
to straighten him out and no official records were kept.   
 
He has been a constant problem because of his relationships with other people, 
both  civilian  and  military.    He  is  always  involved  with  women,  married  and 
single, to the extent that his life has been threatened on occasion.  He is presently 
serving  a  sentence  of  confinement  arising  from  an  altercation  over  an  enlisted 
man’s wife.  He has large financial obligations which he is unable to discharge 
and it is apparent that these obligations will continue to increase.  His chances for 
advancement  are  nil          .  .  .    Counseling  has  proved  to  be  of  no  value  as  [the 
applicant] seems to be incapable of managing his life in an orderly manner and 
seems little interested in his assigned duties or his relationship with the service. 

 
 
The CO noted that the applicant had an average mark of 2.8 in proficiency and 3.08 in 
conduct, but that he expected that the applicant would receive marks of 1.0 in both proficiency 
and conduct once his special court-martial conviction had become final.     
 
 
On  April  28,  1967,  the  Commander,  Fifth  Coast  Guard  District  recommended  to  the 
Commandant  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  due  to  misconduct  by  reason  of  frequent 
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities and by reason of an established 
pattern  of  dishonorable  failure  to  pay  just  debts,  rather  than  by  reason  of  unsuitability.    The 
Commander recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and that he 
surrender his uniform upon separation. 
 
 
On May 5, 1967, the Commandant directed the applicant to be discharged from the Coast 
Guard  with  a  general  discharge  due  to  unsuitability  under  Article  12-B-10  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.   
 

On May 19, 1967, the applicant signed an administrative remarks entry  stating that he 
agreed  with  the  findings  that  he  was  physically  qualified  for  release  from  active  duty.    The 
applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on May 19, 1967. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  February  20,  2007,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Office  of  the 
Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG).    He  recommended  that  the  applicant's  request  for  relief  be 
denied because it was untimely and for lack of proof of error or injustice.  
 
  
The JAG argued that the applicant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence 
why it is in the interest of justice to excuse his thirty-six year delay in filing an application with 
the Board within three years of his discharge from the Coast Guard.  The JAG stated that the 
applicant’s explanation that he did not file his application sooner because he suffers from PTSD 
is not good cause for failing to file his application within the time required.  He further argued 
that based upon a cursory review of the merits it is not likely that the applicant will prevail on his 
claim.  See Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 166 (D.D.C. 1992) (In determining whether it is in 
the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should “consider the reason 
for the delay and the plaintiff’s potential for success on the merits, based on a cursory review.”)  
In this regard the JAG argued that a review of the record reveals that the applicant was properly 
separated from the Coast Guard.   
  

The JAG stated that the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence to support his 
claim that he suffered from PTSD while in the Coast Guard.  The JAG further stated that the 
2006 DVA evaluation report diagnosing the applicant’s PTSD is not signed and does not contain 
any other information that allows the Coast Guard to determine its origin.   The JAG also stated 
that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant was the victim of a sexual assault while 
in the Coast Guard.  Nor is there any evidence in the applicant’s record that permits the Coast 
Guard  to  conclude  that  the  applicant’s  court-martial  conviction  was  based  on  racial 
discrimination.   

 
The  JAG  stated  that  should  the  Board  excuse  the  applicant’s  untimely  filing  of  his 
application, the Board should still deny relief.  In this regard, the JAG stated that absent strong 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  it  is  presumed  that  Coast  Guard  officials  carried  out  their  duties 
lawfully, correctly, and in good faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F. 2d 1034, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 
1990).   According to the JAG, the applicant offers no evidence that the Coast Guard committed 
any error or injustice.  Further, the record shows that the applicant was properly discharged from 
the  Coast  Guard  after  his  conviction  at  court-martial  and  other  incidents  that  resulted  in 
disciplinary action.     
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 23, 2007, the BCMR received the applicant's reply to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  He disagreed with the advisory opinion.   The applicant stated that things were going 
pretty well for him in the Coast Guard until he began a relationship with a white woman.  Then, 
according to the applicant, he was called the N word, human waste was placed in his bunk, and 
dead fish was put under his pillow.  He stated that he reported each incident to his command but 
nothing was done.   
 

The applicant wrote that in 1965 on Thanksgiving evening when his girlfriend brought 
him back to the base, a pistol was put to his head and he was sexually assaulted by four men; he 
provided names of three of the four.  The applicant stated that he reported the assault to the duty 
officer, but rather than assisting him, the duty officer called the applicant the N word and told 
him to get away from him.  The applicant stated that he also reported the assault to the CO but he 
did not do anything about it.   

 
The applicant states that he was subsequently hospitalized due to trauma and placed on 
medication.  He stated that he told his doctors about the assault and that it was written in his 
medical record.  He stated when he attempted to obtain his hospital records several years after 
his discharge he learned that the records had disappeared from Johns Hopkins Hospital where 
they had been stored.   

 
The applicant stated that after he was released from the hospital he returned to his unit 
where he continued to suffer abuse.  The applicant stated that on return from an assignment to 
Thomas Point lighthouse he was pushed overboard and discovered two dead bodies.  He stated 
that upon discovery of the dead bodies he began crying for help and apparently he was assisted 
by some men who were fishing nearby.  The applicant stated that he and the other crewmembers 
went  into  shock.    He  stated  that  he  was  hospitalized  for  approximately  six  weeks  at  a  Public 
Health Service hospital.3  

 
With respect to the court-martial charges, the applicant stated that he overheard the two 
individuals that he was convicted of assaulting planning another sexual assault against him.  As a 
result, he stated that he put a box cutter in his hand to protect himself.  He denied that that he 
assaulted them.   

 
The applicant stated that he was tried and sentenced to 90 days confinement at the Fort 
Meade stockade, where he was sexually assaulted again.  The applicant stated that he has been 
living with the traumatic events for forty-two years and that his life has been severely affected.  
In this regard, he stated that he relives the traumatic events every day; that he is required to take 
medication  for  the  remainder  of  his  life;  that  he  is  under  severe  stress;  and  that  he  is  not 
employable.    
  

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: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

                                                 
3      In  response  to  a  1999  DVA  request  for  information  about  this  assignment,  the  Coast  Guard  wrote 
”examination  of  personnel  jacket  does  not  mention  any  specific  incident  involving  dead  bodies  in  the 
Chesapeake Bay or that [the applicant] was involved in any kind of “special” duty or mission.” 

 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.      To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  should 
have discovered the alleged error or injustice.  See 33 CFR 52.22.   The applicant stated that he 
discovered the alleged error on May 19, 1967, the date of his discharge from the Coast Guard.  
Therefore, the application was submitted approximately thirty-three years beyond the statute of 
limitations.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  untimeliness  should  be  excused  because  he  suffers 
from PTSD and is under treatment by the DVA.  However, a fairly recent diagnosis of PTSD 
does not explain why the applicant could not have filed an application sooner.   Moreover, there 
is  no  medical  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant’s  PTSD  or  any  other  mental  illness 
interfered with his ability to comply with the 10 U.S.C. § 1552 or the Board rules at 33 C.F.R., 
part 52.   
 

3.    Although  the  applicant’s  explanation  for  not  filing  his  applicant  sooner  is  not 
persuasive,  the  Board  must  still  perform  at  least  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  to  determine 
whether it is the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.  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 stated 
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. 
 

4.    Based  on  a  review  of  the  merits  as  discussed  below,  the  applicant  is  not  likely  to 
prevail on his claim, and therefore, the Board is not obligated to waive the statute of limitations 
in this case.  Although, the applicant argued that his  general discharge should be upgraded to 
honorable because it resulted from racial discrimination, he has submitted insufficient evidence 
to  prove  that  he  was  treated  unjustly  and/or  that  racial  discrimination  was  the  reason  for  his 
discharge,  rather  than  his  own  disciplinary  and  performance  record.      The  applicant’s  non-
judicial  punishment,  special  court-martial  conviction  for  an  assault  on  two  other  service 
members, and the CO’s  statement that he had been an administrative burden to the command 
formed a sufficient basis on which to award the applicant a general discharge. 

 
5.  The applicant also argued that his discharge should be upgraded because he was the 
victim of a sexual assault, which he allegedly reported but was ignored by the command.  There 
is no evidence in the record to support the applicant’s claim that he was ever sexually assaulted 
while in the Coast Guard.    Therefore, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
prove that he was sexually assaulted while on active duty.  

 
6.    The  applicant  has  presented  no  evidence,  except  for  his  own  statement,  that  his 
referral to special court-martial for assault was racially motivated or that it was based upon lies.   
In this regard, he stated that he obtained the box cutters that he used in the assault for which he 
was convicted at court-martial for his own protection because he had overheard the victims of his 
assault allegedly planning a sexual assault on him (the individuals allegedly planning this sexual 
assault were different from those who allegedly sexually assaulted the applicant the first time).  
However there is no evidence in the record that the applicant was in fear of bodily harm and 
needed cardboard box cutters for self protection.   Accordingly, insufficient evidence has been 
presented to prove any error or injustice with respect to his special court-martial conviction.   

  
7.  The applicant currently suffers from PTSD that the applicant attributes to the alleged 
sexual assault and the alleged discovery of dead bodies while on assignment near a lighthouse.   
However there is no evidence in the Coast Guard record that the applicant suffered from PTSD 
while in the Coast Guard.  The psychiatric examinations performed while the applicant was on 
active duty are much more reliable than the 2006 DVA mental examination performed more than 
thirty years after the applicant’s discharge from the Coast Guard.    The Coast Guard psychiatric 
evaluations revealed that the applicant did not suffer from any mental disease or defect, although 
he may have had some undesirable personality traits, even the one neuropsychiatrist who stated 
at the time of examination that the applicant was then in a paranoid state, commented that he 
could  not  call  it  a  psychosis.      In  addition,  the  March  1967  psychiatric  evaluation  that  the 
applicant received while in confinement found the applicant to be free of a mental disease and 
could be processed for an administrative separation.   The Board notes that on March 19, 1967, 
the applicant agreed that he was medically fit for separation from the Coast Guard.  

 
8.  The applicant’s suggestion that his PTSD resulted from an alleged sexual assault that 
occurred  while  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  alleged  discovery  of  dead  bodies  while  out  on  an 
assignment to a lighthouse are not supported by the record.   As noted above, there is no evidence 
of  a  sexual  assault  in  the  record,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  applicant  was  on  an 
assignment that led to the discovery of dead bodies.  The evidence of record does not support the 
applicant’s suggestion that he was hospitalized as a result of the alleged sexual assault or that he 
was  hospitalized  after  discovering  dead  bodies  near  a  light  house.   According  to  the  military 
record, the applicant was hospitalized once for complaints of low back pain incurred while lifting 
weights  and  once  for  a  facial  infected  inclusion  cyst.   Therefore,  the  applicant  has  submitted 
insufficient evidence to prove that he suffered from PTSD while on active duty or at the time of 
his discharge. 
 

 
 

9.  The applicant received all due process to which he was entitled under the Coast Guard 
Personnel  Manual.    He  was  notified  of  the  discharge  and  provided  an  opportunity  to  make  a 
statement, which he declined.     
 

10.      Accordingly,  due  to  the  length  of  the  delay  and  the  applicant’s  lack  of  probable 
success on the merits of his claim, the Board finds that the application should be denied because 
it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.