DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-032 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 November 24, 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  July  31,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his  under  honorable  conditions  discharge 
(commonly  referred  to  as  a  general  discharge)  to  an  honorable  discharge.  He  enlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard on October 22, 1942, and was discharged on October 16, 1945.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that his discharge should be changed “due to the fact that the court-
martial  should  not  have  taken  place”  and  he  “should  not  have  AWOL  [absent  without  leave] 
time.” The applicant stated that he was not absent from the ship but was in his bunk unable to 
move due to injuries incurred in action with the enemy.  In this regard, the applicant stated the 
following: 
 

On the morning of January 30, 1945, I was sleeping on the main deck near the bow.  My ship, the 
USS Cavalier was hit by enemy action and the ship was hit with so much force that I was thrown 
about fifteen feet and hit the line spool.  Not only did I suffer an injury to my upper body, I also 
suffered  severe  headaches  for  several  years.    I  was  discharged  from  the  military.    My  military 
records concerning a court-marital that I was tried for on the date of February 15, 1945, states that 
I  was  AWOL  for  twenty-three  hours  and  thirty  minutes  on  February  7,  1945.    I  personally 
remember  not  being  able  to  get  out  of  my  bunk  at  general  quarters  and  for  weeks,  I  felt 
disoriented.    As  of  today,  I  still  have  problems,  with  chest  pains  due  to  the  enemy  attack  that 
occurred  on  January  30,  1945.    I  never  received  the  Purple  Heart  for  being  injured  during  this 
particular wartime.  However, I was convicted of being AWOL for those twenty-three hours and 
thirty minutes.  Please note that the USS Cavalier was at sea during this time.  I believed not only 
did  I  suffer  upper  body  injury,    .  .  .    I  also  suffered  a  concussion  to  the  head  area  causing 
headaches  and  disorientation  .  .  .  I  humbly  submit  that  I  was  wrongly  convicted  of  this  crime 
because I was not in the right frame of mind to defend myself at the time of the trial.   

 
 
 
The applicant stated that he did not discover the alleged error until September 23, 2005.  
He stated that he believes that he was not AWOL “due to the fact that the ship was hit by enemy 
action and I was not able to do the things that I needed to do at the [time].”  He stated that he was 
on the ship, but he was unable to let anyone know where he was.   
 

 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

On October 22, 1942, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard. 

 

On December 16, 1943, the applicant was convicted at deck court1 of a two-hour AWOL. 

On  October  13,  1944,  the  applicant  was  convicted  at  deck  court  of  being  absent  from 

 
 
 
 
 
 
camp without permission and for violating curfew regulations. 
 
 
and thirty minute AWOL.   
 
 
lawful order of a superior officer. 
 
 
conduct. 
 

The  applicant’s  military  record  also  contains  the  following  examples  of  meritorious 

On February 15, 1945, the applicant was convicted at deck court of a twenty-three hour 

On  March  30,  1945,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  captain’s  mast  for  disobeying  the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  On June 5, 1944, the applicant was authorized to wear the Asiatic-Pacific Area Ribbon. 

•  From June 16-26, 1944, the applicant participated in the initial invasion of the Island of 

Saipan, in the Marianas and the subsequent occupation thereof. 

•  From July 24 – 28, 1944, the applicant participated in the initial invasion of the Island of 

Tinian, in the Marianas and the subsequent occupation thereof.   

•  On  September  1,  1944,  the  applicant  was  authorized  to  wear  the  Amphibious  Force 

Insignia, which terminated upon his detachment from the Amphibious Forces. 

•  From October 20-23, 1944 the applicant participated in the initial invasion and liberation 

of the Island of Beyte, Philippine Islands.   

•  On November 18, 1944, the applicant participated in the landing of reinforcement troops, 

Leyte, Philippine Islands. 

•  From  January  9-10,  1945,  the  applicant  participated  in  the  initial  assault  on  Luzon, 

Philippine Islands at Lingayen Gulf. 

                                                 
1  Deck Courts were courts-martial established to try minor offenses.  See Articles for the Government of the United 
States Navy, 1930.  They are similar to what is known today as summary courts-martial.   

•  On  January  29,  1945,  the  applicant  participated  in  the  assault  on  Luzon,  Philippine 

Islands at San Antonio, Zambales Province. 

•  On March 15, 1945, the applicant was authorized to wear one bronze star on the Asiatic-

Pacific Area Campaign Ribbon for participation in the Marianas operation.   

•  On  April  11,  1945,  the  applicant  was  authorized  to  wear  the  Philippine  Liberation 
Campaign Ribbon with two bronze stars having participated in operations in Philippine 
Area, including a torpedo strike by the enemy against the applicant’s vessel in the South 
China Sea off Luzon, Philippine Islands on January 30, 1945.   

 
 
An entry in the applicant’s Coast Guard medical records states that on January 30, 1945, 
he received  an abrasion to the right wrist and  forearm  and a contusion to the right  chest as a 
result of enemy action, for which he was treated in sick bay by a medical officer.   
 
 
The applicant’s final performance mark averages while in the Coast Guard Reserve were 
2.5 in proficiency, 3.2 in seamanship, 3.4 in mechanical ability, 2.2 in ability as leader of men, 
and 3.5 in conduct.   
 
 
On  September  16,  1947,  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  met  to  consider  the 
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under honorable conditions.  The DRB noted 
an average proficiency mark of 2.50 and an average conduct mark of 3.15.2  The DRB also noted 
the  applicant’s  accomplishments  and  awards,  as  well  as  his  disciplinary  record.    The  DRB 
determined  that  the  applicant’s  final  average  marks  were  below  the  minimum  required  for  an 
honorable discharge  at the time of his  discharge.   It  also determined that the applicant’s final 
average marks in proficiency and conduct were below those required for an honorable discharge 
at the time it rendered its decision.   At that time, according to the DRB, to be eligible for an 
honorable discharge, the applicant needed to have a minimum 2.75 in proficiency and a 3.25 in 
conduct.  The DRB reached the following conclusion: 
 

[T]he petitioner’s first year of service was good and that he was attached to floating units during 
almost two years of his wartime service.  The Board also notes, however, the numerous offenses 
of  which  [the  applicant]  was  convicted,  and  it  considers  that  the  punishment  awarded  and  the 
marks assigned were sufficiently justified.   
 
[The  DRB]  concludes  that  the  Discharge  Under  Honorable  Conditions  for  Convenience  of  the 
Government    .  .  .  was  just,  proper,  and  equitable  under  applicable  standards  of  Naval  law  and 
discipline.   

 

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Advocate General (JAG) recommending that no relief be granted to the applicant.  

On  April  12,  2007,  the  Board  received  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  from  the  Judge 

                                                 
2    There  is  a  slight  discrepancy  between  the  DRB’s  and  the  Board’s  calculation  of  the  applicant’s  average 
proficiency and conduct marks.  However, the Board’s and the Coast Guard’s calculations are in agreement.   

 
 
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 fifty year delay in filing an application with the 
Board.  Despite the applicant’s contention that he did not discover the alleged error until 2005, 
the JAG argued that the applicant should have been aware of it at the time of his discharge in 
1945 and most certainly should have been aware of it in 1947 when he filed an application for an 
upgrade of his discharge with the DRB.  The JAG asserted that based upon a cursory review of 
the  merits  it  is  not  likely  that  the  applicant  will  prevail  on  his  claim  for  an  upgrade  of  his 
discharge.  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  should  the  Board  excuse  the  applicant’s  untimely  filing  of  his 
application and conduct a full review of the merits, 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 record shows that the 
applicant  was  properly  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  applicant  did  not  prove 
otherwise.     
 
 
The JAG stated that he adopted the analysis provided by the Commander, Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC), which was attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  In 
recommending denial, CGPC offered the following: 
 

I  find  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  and  character  of  service  awarded  were  in  accordance  with 
Coast Guard policy.  The applicant alleges in his statement to the BCMR that his February 1945 
Deck Court sentence was unjust as he was “disoriented” from the injuries he sustained during the 
torpedo  attack  on  January  30,  1945.    The  applicant  has  not  provided  any  documentation,  other 
than his own assertion, to support that he suffered from “a concussion to the head area causing 
headaches  and  disorientation”  which  led  to  his  being  AWOL  on  February  7,  1945.    The 
applicant’s medical record reveals that on January 30, 1944, he suffered from abrasions to his right 
wrist  and  forearm  and  a  contusion  to  his  chest    .  .  .  Subsequent  to  these  injuries,  there  is  no 
reference to follow on care or evidence of further injury or trauma as the applicant alleges.   
 
The applicant’s record fully  supports the character of  service he  was awarded.  The applicant’s 
case was reviewed by the DRB and found to be “just, proper and equitable” . . .  The Applicant’s 
record indicates that he received punishment at three deck Courts and one Captain’s Mast . . .  In 
addition to the applicant’s repeated misconduct, his enlisted evaluations did not support the award 
of an honorable discharge.  Applying today’s standards, his evaluations do not meet the minimum 
standards for an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was proper and the character of 
service is not disproportionate to his conduct and performance during his enlistment. 
  
 
The applicant’s average  proficiency mark was 2.57 and his average conduct mark was 
3.50.    According  to  CGPC,  Article  12.B.2.f.  of  the  current  Personnel  Manual  specifies  a 
minimum  evaluation  average  mark  of  2.7  in  proficiency  and  3.0  in  conduct  prior  to  June  30, 
1983 to qualify for an honorable discharge.   
 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE COAST GUARD VIEWS 

 
 
On April 17, 2007, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and  granted  him  30  days  to  submit  a  response.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a  reply  from  the 
applicant.    
 

Saipan, in the Marianas and the subsequent occupation thereof. 

•  From July 24 – 28, 1944, the applicant participated in the initial invasion of the Island of 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions 

1.  The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10  of  the 

 
 
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law. 
 
 
United States Code.   
 
2.  To be timely, an application for correction must be filed within three years of the date 
 
the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was,  or  should  have  been,  discovered.    See  10  U.S.C.  §  1552; 
33 CFR  §  52.22.    This  application  was  submitted  to  the  Board  over  fifty  years  after  the 
applicant’s  discharge  and  the  decision  by  the  DRB  denying  his  request  for  an  upgrade  of  his 
under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant stated that he did not discover the alleged 
error  until  September  2005.    However,  he  was  aware  of  the  alleged  error  as  early  as  1947 
because  he  applied  to  the  DRB  for  an  upgrade  of  his  discharge  at  that  time.  Therefore,  his 
application was not timely. 
 

3. Although the application is untimely, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may 
waive the three-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  applicant’s  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 did not explain why he did not apply sooner for the requested 
correction, a cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that his WWII service 
was particularly meritorious and probably supports an honorable discharge.  Therefore, 
although the application is more than fifty years late, the Board finds that it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse its untimeliness and consider it on the merits.   
 
 
4.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  is  an 
injustice and should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  Despite the applicant’s one overall 
below average performance mark in proficiency and his minor disciplinary infractions, the Board 
finds  that  his  excellent,  meritorious  service  during  WWII  far  outweighs  these  two  negative 
aspects  of  his  service.    In  this  regard,  the  applicant’s  military  record  shows  the  following 
meritorious service, conduct, and accomplishments: 
 

•  On June 5, 1944, the applicant was authorized to wear the Asiatic-Pacific Area Ribbon. 
•  From June 16-26, 1944, the applicant participated in the initial invasion of the Island of 

Tinian, in the Marianas and the subsequent occupation thereof.   

•  On  September  1,  1944,  the  applicant  was  authorized  to  wear  the  Amphibious  Force 

Insignia, which terminated upon his detachment from the Amphibious Forces. 

•  From October 20-23, 1944 the applicant participated in the initial invasion and liberation 

of the Island of Beyte, Philippine Islands.   

•  On November 18, 1944, the applicant participated in the landing of reinforcement troops, 

•  From  January  9-10,  1945,  the  applicant  participated  in  the  initial  assault  on  Luzon, 

Leyte, Philippine Islands. 

Philippine Islands at Lingayen Gulf. 

•  On  January  29,  1945,  the  applicant  participated  in  the  assault  on  Luzon,  Philippine 

Islands at San Antonio, Zambales Province. 

•  On March 15, 1945, the applicant was authorized to wear one bronze star on the Asiatic-

Pacific Area Campaign Ribbon for participation in the Marianas operation.   

•  On  April  11,  1945,  the  applicant  was  authorized  to  wear  the  Philippine  Liberation 
Campaign Ribbon with two bronze stars having participated in operations in Philippine 
Area, including a torpedo strike by the enemy against the applicant’s vessel in the South 
China Sea off Luzon, Philippine Islands on January 30, 1945.   

 
 
5.   Moreover, Article 12.B.2. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he Service will not 
necessarily deny a member an honorable discharge solely for a specific number of court-martial 
convictions  or  actions  under  Article  15  [captain’s  masts],  UCMJ  during  his  or  her  current 
enlistment or obligated service.”    The previous Secretary’s Delegate noted in Docket No.322-91 
that “upgrades from bad conduct discharges have been customarily granted by the Board where 
absences were involved.  See BCMR 89-78, BCMR 154-85; BCMR 8-80; BCMR 24-81; and 
BCMR 240-85.”  In BCMR 8-87, the Board upgraded an applicant’s bad conduct discharge to a 
general discharge despite the fact that he had been tried and convicted of disobeying a lawful 
order.    More  recently  in  BCMR  2006-139  and  BCMR  2005-105,  the  Coast  Guard 
recommended upgrading the discharges for those applicants despite their convictions 
for short absence offenses.   In light of the above, the Board finds that the applicant’s three 
deck  court  convictions  for  short  AWOLs  and  his  one  NJP  for  disobeying  an  order  do  not  so 
blemish or diminish the quality of his service as to bar him from an honorable discharge. 
 
 
6.  More problematic is the fact, as noted by the Coast Guard, that the applicant does not 
have the necessary overall average performance mark in proficiency for an honorable discharge.  
However, Article 12.B.2.f. of the Personnel Manual realized that this situation might occur and 
made exceptions to this rule.  Subsection 12.B.2.f.1.f.(1) allows an honorable discharge in place 
of  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  if  the  member  earned  certain  awards, 
including the bronze star medal.  The applicant apparently meets this requirement having earned 
the Philippine Liberation Campaign Ribbon with two Bronze Stars and the Asiatic-Pacific Area 
Campaign Ribbon with one bronze star.  
 
 
7.  In addition, subsection 12.B.2.f.1.f.(5) states that if warranted, the Commandant may 
direct the issuance of an honorable discharge in lieu of a general discharge.  The Board having 
reviewed the applicant’s record finds that his excellent, meritorious service during WWII permits 
an upgrade his discharge to an honorable one under this provision of the Personnel Manual.       
 

 
8.  The applicant stated that he never received the Purple Heart for injuries he sustained 
during  the  January  30,  1945  enemy  attack  of  his  ship.    However,  he  did  not  ask  to  have  his 
record corrected to show that he earned this Award.  It appears to the Board that under Article 
2.A.6. of the Medals and Awards Manual,3 the applicant is eligible for the Purple Heart having 
been wounded as a result of enemy action for which he received medical treatment.  A note in 
the applicant’s medical records states that on January 30, 1945, he received an abrasion to the 
right wrist and forearm and a contusion to the right chest as a result of enemy action, for which 
he was treated in sick bay by a medical officer.  The Board finds probable merit with respect to 
the  Purple  Heart  issue  and  will  direct  the  Coast  Guard  to  review  the  applicant’s  record  to 
determine  if  he  is  eligible  for  the  Purple  Heart,  and  if  he  meets  the  requirements  for  such  an 
award the Coast Guard should make the necessary corrections to his record.   
 
 
9.   The Board is not in possession of the complete set of regulations that were in effect 
when  the  applicant  was  discharged  in  1945  and  therefore  has  applied  the  current  regulations.  
Precedent exists for the application  of current standards in considering whether to upgrade an 
earlier  discharge.      The  previous  Secretary’s  Delegate  stated  “the  Board  should  upgrade  a 
discharge if it is convinced that in light of today’s standards the discharge was disproportionately 
severe  vis-à-vis  the  conduct  in  response  to  which  it  was  imposed.”    See  General  Counsel’s 
Memorandum of July 2, 1976.    
 
 
9.  To summarize, the Board finds that as a matter of equity and justice the applicant’s 
discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  In this regard, the Board notes that he served for 
two  years  and  three  months  and  was  not  separated  due  to  any  misconduct;  that  he  actively 
participated in a number of invasions; that he earned a number of awards and ribbons for his 
service; and that he suffered an injury during an enemy attack.  Further, the Board is persuaded 
that under today’s standards, based on the entirety of his record, the applicant would have been 
awarded an honorable discharge.   
 
 
 
 
 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted the relief directed below.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

                                                 
3   This provision states in pertinent part that the Purple Heart is awarded by the Commandant to any member of the 
Coast Guard or any member of the Armed Force under the jurisdiction of the Department or to any civilian national 
of the United States, who while serving under competent authority in any capacity with the Coast Guard has been or 
may hereafter be wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.   

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Bruce D. Burkley 

 

   
 

 
 
The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXX,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record  is  granted.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  received  an 
honorable  discharge.    In  addition,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  review  the  applicant’s  record  to 
determine  if  he  is  entitled  to  the  Purple  Heart.    If  the  Coast  Guard  determines  he  meets  the 
requirements for a Purple Heart, the Coast Guard shall award him the Purple Heart and correct 
his record to show that he earned the Purple Heart during his service in the Coast Guard Reserve.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
J. Carter Robertson 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer