DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-010 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  October  23,  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  May  21,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  seaman  first  class  (S1c)  who  was  discharged  from  active  duty  in  the 
Coast Guard Reserve on June 8, 1946, asked the Board to upgrade the character of his discharge 
from “Under Honorable Conditions” to Honorable.  He alleged that the character of his discharge 
“was unjust because it was based on one isolated incident in 1 year [and] 11 days [of] service 
with no other adverse action and also based upon the point system for an early separation, caus-
ing no chance during my 3-year enlistment to earn an Honorable Discharge.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error in his record in July 2008 and argued 
that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his application because the error was 
discovered more than 62 years after it occurred and should be corrected. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 
On February 28, 1945, at the age of 17, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve 
for a term of three years and began serving on active duty as an apprentice seaman (AS).  He was 
assigned to a shore unit, advanced to seaman second class (S2c) on June 16, 1945, and sent for 
training as a radioman in Atlantic City, New Jersey.  However, on July 30, 1945, the applicant 
was disenrolled from radioman school and reassigned to a base near his hometown so that he 
could marry and attend the birth of a daughter in August 1945. 

 

From  November  21,  1945,  to  January  7,  1946,  the  applicant  served  aboard  the  USS 
CAMBRIA, which was transporting servicemembers back to the United States from across the 
Pacific Ocean because the war had ended. 

 
On January 10, 1946, the Commandant issued Personnel Bulletin No. 4-46, which pro-
vided that a member who had been enlisted and discharged for the convenience of the Govern-
ment after April 6, 1944, would receive an Honorable discharge if he was “never convicted by a 
General Court Marital or more than once by a Summary Court Martial” and had a final average 
PIR mark of at least 3.0 and a final average conduct mark of at least 3.25.1  The bulletin did not 
mention captains’ masts or deck courts.  Previously, members discharged for the convenience of 
the government could receive an Honorable discharge with a final average PIR mark of “not less 
than 2.75” and a final average conduct mark of at least 3.0 if they were “[n]ever 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.”2  

 
On February 20, 1946, the applicant advanced to S1c.  From April 5 to May 28, 1946, he 
served  aboard  the  USS  WAKEFIELD,  which  was  transporting  servicemembers  home  from 
Guam.  On May 29, 1946, the applicant was transferred to a discharge-processing center.  His 
“Termination of Service” form shows that he was discharged “Under Honorable Conditions” for 
the convenience of the Government on June 8, 1946.  The authority cited for his discharge was 
noted as “PB 94-45 as amend. by AL 57-46.”  

 
During his 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days of service, the applicant was never absent with-
out leave, and he was taken to mast only once, about a month before his discharge.  A chart of 
his evaluation marks in block 6 of his “Service Record” shows the following: 

 

          

Conduct 

                   

Date 

28 FEB 1945 
31 MAR 1945 
23 MAY 1945 
30 JUL 1945 
03 AUG 1945 
30 SEP 1945 
31 DEC 1945 
07 JAN 1946 
31 MAR 1946 
04 APR 1946 
28 MAY 1946 
(5-3-46 Capt. Mast – Failure to turn to and in bunk during working 

Proficiency in Rating 
(PIR) Mark 
Less than one month 
3.0 
3.0 
Under Instruction 
3.0 
3.0 
2.7 
Less than one month 
2.7 
Less than one month 
2.5 

Rate 
AS 
AS 
AS 
S2c 
S2c 
S2c 
S2c 
S2c 
S1c 
S1c 
S1c 

Mark 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 

[none] 

4.0 
4.0 
2.5 

hours.  Awarded: 12 hours EPD.) 

                                                 
1 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, PERSONNEL BULLETIN NO. 4-46 (Jan. 10, 1946). 
2 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, PERSONNEL INSTRUCTIONS, Art. 4592 (1934). 

02 JUN 1946 

S1c 

Less than one month 

2.5 

 

 
According to his “Termination of Service,” the applicant’s final average proficiency in 

rating (PIR) mark was 2.78, and his final average conduct mark was 3.72.3   

 
On  June  12,  1946,  four  days  after  the  applicant’s  discharge,  the  Commandant  issued 
ALCOAST (P) 101,4 which cancelled the new, higher PIR mark requirement for an Honorable 
discharge in Personnel Bulletin No. 4-46.  The ALCOAST stated the following: 

 
Effective  immediately  [PIR]  mark  for  Honorable  discharge  will  be  two  point  seven  five  [2.75] 
instead of three point zero [3.0].  Make changes in PB No. 4-46 … .  This change retroactive to 6 
April 1944.  Any individual  discharged on or subsequent  to 6 April 1944 with discharge under 
honorable conditions … solely because [PIR] mark was below three point zero [3.0] but mark two 
point seven five [2.75] or above may forward his certificate of discharge to [Headquarters] with 
request that he be issued an Honorable discharge form … .  The matter will be given the widest 
publicity. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  10,  2008,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis in a memorandum on the case 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC noted that the application was submitted untimely and argued that it “should be 
denied based upon untimeliness and lack of merit” since the applicant provided no justification 
for delaying his application for more than 60 years. 
 
 
Regarding the merits of the case, CGPC stated that the applicant’s military records “does 
not reveal any significant infractions or nonconformance to military standards.  CGPC stated that 
the applicant’s final average marks were 2.84 for PIR and 3.73 for conduct, but did not cite an 
                                                 
3 However, according to the rules for calculating final average marks in effect in 1946, the applicant’s final average 
PIR mark was 2.81 and his final average conduct mark was 3.77.  Personnel Bulletin 72-45, issued on July 25, 1945, 
stated that final average marks should be calculated as follows: 

3.  (a)  Efficiency marks assigned during the first year of active duty of enlisted personnel who are 
serving in an extension of an original enlistment … and who have completed three years’ active 
duty shall be disregarded. 
     (b)    Marks  assigned  during  entire  enlistment  period  shall  be  computed  when  the  person 
concerned  has  not  completed  three  years’  active  duty  or  is  serving  in  other  than  an  original 
enlistment or extension thereof. 
4.  [Personnel attached to discharge centers and awaiting discharge receive only conduct marks.] 
5.  Final average marks need only be entered under “Proficiency in Rating” and “Conduct” and 
shall  be  determined  by  multiplying  each  mark  by  the  number  of  months  covered  by  the  mark, 
adding the resulting figures and dividing the total by the total number of months in the periods for 
which marks have been assigned.  When a mark covers less than a full month, the computation 
shall  be  on  a  fractional  month  basis;  periods  of  less  than  15  days  shall  be  considered as  half  a 
month, and periods of 15 days or over shall be considered as a full month. 
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, PERSONNEL BULLETIN NO. 72-45 (July 25, 1945). 
4 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, OFFICIAL DISPATCH, ALCOAST NO. (P) 101 (June 12, 1945). 
 

authority or explain these calculations.  CGPC concluded that “[b]ased upon current standards, 
these evaluation averages meet the minimum to qualify for an Honorable discharge.”  However, 
CGPC stated that the discharge “Under Honorable Conditions” is presumptively correct and that 
“there does not appear to be any error with the applicant’s record.”  Because the applicant would 
likely have received an Honorable discharge if separated under current standards, CGPC stated 
that the Coast Guard would not object to upgrading his discharge if the applicant “was to sub-
stantiate to the BCMR that his post-discharge conduct and activities are not inconsistent with the 
standards applied to an Honorable discharge.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

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

On  February  19,  2009,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article 583 of the 1940 Regulations for the United States Coast Guard states that “[t]he 
Commandant, without recourse to a board, may direct the discharge of an enlisted man Under 
Honorable Conditions for the convenience of the government.”   

 
Article 584(4) of the 1940 Regulations provided that Honorable discharges were awarded 
under any of five conditions:  expiration of enlistment; convenience of the government; hardship; 
minority  (age);  and  disability  not  the  result  of  own  misconduct.    A  general  discharge  “Under 
Honorable Conditions” could be awarded “for the same [five] reasons as an Honorable discharge 
and issued to individuals whose conduct and performance of duty have been satisfactory but not 
sufficiently deserving or meritorious to warrant an Honorable discharge.” 
 
 
Today’s  standards  for  discharge  appear  in  Article  12.B.2.(f)  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
(COMDTINST M100.6A), which states that an enlisted member discharged prior to 1983 was 
eligible for an Honorable discharge if his or her service was 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 was 
at least 2.7 (out of 4.0) for performance of duty and at least 3.0 for conduct. 
 

PRIOR BCMR CASE 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 2002-036, the applicant had received a discharge “Under Honor-
able  Conditions”  for  the  convenience  of  the  Government  after  serving  on  active  duty  in  the 
Reserve from January 24, 1945, to May 29, 1946.  During his service, the applicant had been 
punished once at “deck court” for being absent without leave for several hours on October 18, 
1945.  He received PIR and conduct marks of 1.5 for this infraction, but of his other conduct 
marks were 4.0.  His “Termination of Service” indicated that his final average marks were 2.85 
for PIR and 3.79 for conduct.  In the advisory opinion, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard 
recommended that the Board grant relief in light of the single disciplinary infraction in the appli-
cant’s record.  The Board found that the applicant’s discharge “Under Honorable Conditions” on 

May 29, 1946, was both erroneous and unjust because he had retroactively qualified for an Hon-
orable discharge under ALCOAST (P) 101.  The Board upgraded his discharge to Honorable. 
 

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 section 1552 of title 

10 of the United States Code. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  Although the applicant alleged that he discovered his dis-
charge “Under Honorable Conditions” in July 2008, the Board finds that he knew or should have 
known the character of his discharge in June 1946, when he did not receive an Honorable dis-
charge button.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 

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.”5  Although the applicant long delayed seeking 
the correction of his character of discharge, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to 
excuse the untimeliness of the application because a cursory review of the record has revealed 
that he qualified for an Honorable discharge. 

The  applicant’s  “Termination  of  Service”  form  shows  that  he  was  discharged 
“Under  Honorable Conditions” for the convenience of the Government  on June 8, 1946.  His 
“Service  Record”  form  shows  that  he  was  punished  only  once  at  captain’s  mast  during  his 
enlistment and that he was never tried by court martial.  Up until April 6, 1944, a member appar-
ently qualified for an Honorable discharge if, like the applicant, he was discharged for the con-
venience of the Government; he had “[n]ever 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”; 
and his final average marks were at least 2.75 for PIR and 3.0 for conduct.6  However, the marks 
criteria for an Honorable discharge were raised for several months, as Personnel Bulletin 4-46, 
issued  on  January  10,  1946,  shows  that  a  final  average  PIR  mark  of  at  least  3.0  and  a  final 
average conduct mark of at least 3.25 were required.7  The applicant was discharged during this 

                                                 
5 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995). 
6  UNITED  STATES  COAST  GUARD,  PERSONNEL  INSTRUCTIONS,  Art.  4592  (1934);  UNITED  STATES  COAST  GUARD, 
REGULATIONS, Art. 584 (1940); UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, PERSONNEL BULLETIN NO. 4-46 (Jan. 10, 1946). 
7 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, PERSONNEL BULLETIN NO. 4-46 (Jan. 10, 1946). 

period, on June 8, 1946, and his records show that the only way in which he did not qualify for 
an Honorable discharge was that his final average PIR mark was below 3.0. 

On June 12, 1946, just four days after the applicant’s discharge “Under Honorable 
Conditions,” the Commandant issued ALCOAST (P) 101, which returned the marks criteria for 
an Honorable discharge to their prior levels of at least 2.75 for PIR and at least 3.0 for conduct.8  
Moreover, under ALCOAST (P) 101, the change was made effective retroactively back to April 
6, 1944; the retroactive change was to “be given the widest publicity”; and members discharged 
“Under Honorable Conditions” since that date were invited to submit their discharge papers to 
Coast  Guard  Headquarters  so  that  their  discharges  could  be  upgraded.    Therefore,  the  Board 
finds that, pursuant to ALCOAST (P) 101, the applicant qualified for an Honorable discharge in 
1946 because his final average PIR mark was above 2.75.  It is a significant injustice that he has 
suffered a less than fully Honorable discharge for almost 63 years. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
 
 

CGPC argued that the applicant’s discharge should only be upgraded if he “was to 
substantiate to the BCMR that his post-discharge conduct and activities are not inconsistent with 
the standards applied to an Honorable discharge.”  However, the record shows that the applicant 
actually qualified for an Honorable discharge in June 1946.  Therefore, his post-discharge con-
duct should not affect his entitlement to relief. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  correcting  the  character  of  the  appli-

cant’s discharge to “Honorable” and by sending him an Honorable discharge certificate. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
8 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, OFFICIAL DISPATCH, ALCOAST NO. (P) 101 (June 12, 1945). 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

The application of former S1c xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 
military record is granted.  His Coast Guard military record shall be corrected to show that he 
received an Honorable discharge from active duty in the Coast Guard Reserve on June 8, 1946.  
The Coast Guard shall also send him an Honorable discharge certificate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 
 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal