DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-117 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

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 May 2, 2008, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the 
decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated February XX, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant, a former fireman who was discharged on July 31, 1953, asked the Board to 
upgrade  the  character  of  his  discharge  from  General  to  Honorable.    The  applicant  made  no 
specific allegations of error or injustice and did not explain why he waited more than 50 years to 
dispute the character of his discharge through this Board.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on November 1, 1949.  During his enlistment, 
he was taken to captain’s mast fourteen times for various offenses—primarily being absent with-
out leave (AWOL) or absent over leave (AOL).  In addition, he was convicted by a special court 
martial  for  a  29-day  unauthorized  absence  and  then  by  a  summary  court  martial  for  a  3-day 
unauthorized absence. 
 
Although the applicant requested reenlistment, the Commandant did not authorize it and 
 
instead  authorized  a  General  Discharge  because  of  the  applicant’s  unsatisfactory  record  of 
service.  Upon his discharge on July 31, 1953, the applicant’s final average conduct mark was 
3.12 and his final average proficiency in rating mark was 2.52. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 12, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommend-
ed that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG adopted the findings and analysis pro-
vided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   
 

CGPC stated that the application is untimely.  In addition, the applicant provided no rea-
son for his delay  and made no allegations of error or accomplishments that would support an 
upgrade of his discharge.  CGPC also noted that the applicant’s record “reveals a significant pat-
tern of misconduct.  CGPC stated that under current standards, the applicant might have received 
a General or an Honorable discharge, but that it cannot recommend relief given the applicant’s 
numerous offenses and the lack of any evidence of the applicant’s post-discharge conduct. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 14, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Under Chapter 12-B-4 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect in 1953, members 
could receive an Honorable discharge if (a) they were never convicted by a general court-martial 
and  were  convicted  not  more  than  once  by  a  special  court-martial  and  (b)  their  final  average 
marks were at least 2.75 for proficiency in rating and 3.25 for conduct.  Members could receive a 
General discharge if they had been convicted only once by a general court-martial or more than 
once by a special court-martial or if their marks did not meet the requirements for an honorable 
discharge.   
 
 
Under  Article  12.B.18.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  today,  Commander,  CGPC, 
may authorize an Honorable, General, or Other than Honorable (OTH) administrative discharge 
for a member due to misconduct.  Article 12.B.2.f.1.c. states that to receive an Honorable dis-
charge, a member whose service pre-dated the change in the evaluation system dated June 30, 
1983—when the Coast Guard switched from a 4.0 marking scale to a 7.0 marking scale—“must 
have made a minimum final average of 2.7 in proficiency in rating and 3.0 in 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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in his record.1  The applicant received the General discharge, which 
he seeks to have upgraded, in 1953.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 

1. 
 
2. 

 

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 

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 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.”2 

The applicant provided no explanation or justification for his more than 50-year 

 
4. 

 
delay in applying to this Board. 
 

5. 

 The  Board’s  review  of  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  request  has  no 
potential for success on the merits.  His military record reveals a very long string of petty and 
not-so-petty offenses.  With convictions by both special and summary courts martial and final 
average marks of 3.12 for conduct and 2.52 for proficiency, the applicant did not meet the mini-
mum requirements for an Honorable discharge under Chapter 12-B-4 of the Personnel Manual in 
effect in 1953.  Nor do his marks meet the requirements for an Honorable discharge under Arti-
cle 12.B.2.f.1.c. of the current Personnel Manual.  The long list of offenses committed by the 
applicant shows that for most of his enlistment he was a significant administrative and discipli-
nary burden to the Coast Guard rather than an asset.3  The Board is not persuaded that his Gen-
eral discharge was disproportionately severe at the time it was granted or in light of today’s stan-
dards. 4   
 

6. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  should  not  waive  the  statute  of  limitations,  and  the 

application should be denied for untimeliness and lack of merit. 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

                                                 
2 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995). 
3 This case is similar to BCMR Docket No. 2006-072, in which the Board granted no clemency on a Bad Conduct 
discharge because during that applicant’s 5 years of active duty, he was taken to mast 10 times for a variety of petty 
offenses and was convicted of being AWOL 3 times by courts martial.   
4 Memorandum from the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation to the BCMR (July 7, 1976) (stating 
that the Board should not upgrade a veteran’s discharge unless, in light of today’s standards, it was “disproportion-
ately severe”). 

The application of  former  FN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 Darren S. Wall