DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-044 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

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  application  upon  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s completed application on November 11, 2008, and subsequently prepared the final 
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  April  22,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  upgrading  his  discharge  to 
honorable  and  the  reason  for  his  discharge  to  convenience  of  the  government,  with  the 
appropriate reenlistment and separation codes.   

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 31, 1978, and was discharged under 
other than honorable conditions (OTH) on April 30, 1981, for the good of the Service in lieu of 
trial by court-martial.  He was assigned an RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment code and a 
KFS (discharge for the good of the Service) separation code. The applicant offered six reasons or 
bases for granting his request.   

 
 
1.  The applicant alleged that he suffered from psychological/emotional stress that was 
exacerbated by an extreme family hardship.  He also alleged that he suffered from mental duress, 
confusion,  and  disordered  and  immature  thinking.    In  support  of  this  allegation,  the  applicant 
submitted several entries from his medical record.   
 
 
An  October  26,  1979  medical  entry  states  that  the  applicant  wanted  out  of  the  Coast 
Guard  and  had  researched  many  possibilities  for  achieving  this  goal,  including  unauthorized 
absence, allergies, psychological reasons, and dual citizenship.  The medical note does not state 
that the applicant had a specific medical complaint.  It notes that the applicant was concerned 
about his mother and sister and that he was trying to take care of them because his father refused 

or  was  unable  to  do  so.    The  physician  suggested  a  possible  reassignment  and  the  applicant 
indicated that he would look into that.   
 
 
A  January  30,  1980  psychiatric  evaluation  by  a  Harvard  psychiatrist  found  that  the 
applicant  suffered  from  no  major  mental  disorders.    In  this  regard,  the  psychiatrist  stated  the 
following in his report: 
 

[The  applicant]  currently  does  not  have  a  serious  depression,  nor  is  he  acutely 
suicidal or homicidal.  I found no evidence of an illness of psychotic proportion 
either.    I  do  however  find  [the  applicant]  to  be  extremely  upset  about  his 
experience in the Coast Guard and very anxious and conflicted over his inability 
to support his mother during the current family hardship.  [The applicant] seems 
to  have  functioned  in  support  of  his  mother  for  many  years,  beginning  in  his 
adolescence, to fill in for his alcoholic father who was  emotionally  absent as  a 
father and who only added financial hardship to an already beleaguered family . . .   
 
Of interest at this time also is [the applicant’s] differing perception of the Coast 
Guard  versus  the  Army.    He  feels  that  the  Coast  Guard  “does  not  care  about 
anyone;”  whereas,  he  feels  that  the  Army  takes  care  of  their  own.    I  think  this 
differing  perception  has  some[thing]  to  do  with  the  fact  that  [the  applicant’s] 
payroll has been problematic on at least three occasions; but probably more to do 
with  the  fact  that  [the  applicant’s]  family  was  undergoing  such  severe  stress 
throughout the period of his enlistment. . . 
 
The severe disruption in the family leaves [the applicant] feeling extremely angry, 
very disappointed, and yet a strong feeling that he must do something about it . . . 
It is my feeling that [the applicant] would have been able to adjust to the Coast 
Guard had it not been for the current disruption within the family.    
 
I have suggested that [the applicant] seek psychiatric consultation on an ongoing, 
long term basis to deal with his feelings toward his family.  It seems to me that his 
adaption  to  a  life  independent  of  his  family  will  be  in  constant  jeopardy  and 
dependent  upon  the  stable  functioning  of  his  unpredictable  family  unless  he 
involves himself in psychotherapy.   

 
 
A  medical  note  dated  June  9,  1980  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  been  evaluated  on 
October  4,  1979  and  no  evidence  of  any  gross  psychiatric  pathology  was  found.    He  was 
evaluated again on May 28, 1980, and he was found fit for full duty.  The applicant was seen 
again on June 9, 1980 to determine his suitability for retention in the Coast Guard.  A psychiatric 
social worker wrote the following in that regard: 
 

In  reality,  the  patient  was  seeking  assistance  in  obtaining  a  discharge  since  his 
efforts to obtain a hardship discharge have been unsuccessful.  This patient holds 
British  and  American  citizenship.    During  the  interview,  he  basically  indicated 
that: (1) he does not wish a 12-B-16 discharge. (2) He is in process of pursuing an 
appeal of a decision disapproving his request for a hardship discharge . . . (3) If on 

appeal, a hardship discharge is not granted, he plans to return to England, AWOL 
and remain a deserter. . . 
 
Although a psychiatrist from Harvard Medical School saw this patient on 1/80, 
and recommended that this patient seek long-term treatment to help him deal with 
his feeling towards his family, this individual is not motivated to follow through.  
It  was  the  impression  that  this  patient  is  only  motivated  for  help  that  will 
contribute toward him obtaining a hardship discharge.    

 
 
2.    The  applicant  contended  that  he  was  not  able  to  adapt/adjust  socially  or 
psychologically  to  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  submitted  entries  from  his  medical  and 
performance  data  record  in  support  of  this  allegation.    He  noted  that  the  Commandant,  in 
denying his request for a hardship discharge on May 14, 1980, requested that the applicant be 
evaluated by a psychiatrist because he appeared to be a candidate for an unsuitability discharge.  
The applicant requested the evaluation and on May 28, 1980, he was evaluated and was found to 
be fit for full duty.   
 
 
On  February  19,  1981,  the  applicant  underwent  another  psychological  evaluation  that 
found  him  to  have  no  ratable  disabilities  under  Veterans  Administration  (VA)  guidelines.    In 
fact, the psychologist found that the applicant was fit for duty and/or any administrative action 
the command deemed appropriate.   The psychologist’s impression was that the applicant would 
continue to be a disciplinary problem for the Coast Guard because of his determination to leave 
the Coast Guard under any conditions.  The report stated that if the applicant were retained in the 
Coast Guard, he would continue his unauthorized absences.   
 
3.  The applicant offered his honorable discharge from the Army as the third reason he 
 
should have his Coast Guard OTH discharge upgraded.  He submitted letters and certificates of 
appreciation earned while in the Army and he noted his Vietnam veteran status.  He also noted 
his  National  Defense  Service  Medal,  Armed  Forces  Expeditionary  Medal,  and  Army  Good 
Conduct Medal.   
 
 
4.  The fourth reason offered by the applicant for relief is that he should have been given 
a medical discharge for asthma, which he claimed was never adequately evaluated due to a lack 
of  diagnostic  equipment  and  specialist  at  the  pertinent  public  health  facility.  Medical  reports 
show that the applicant reported to the clinic on December 4, 1978, claiming to be asthmatic and 
requesting a discharge medical evaluation.  On December 8, 1978, a military doctor stated that 
there was inadequate medical evidence to support a medical discharge due to asthma.  He noted 
that  the  applicant’s  last  allergy  shot  was  1966.    Subsequent,  medical  notes  show  that  the 
applicant  reported  to  the  clinic  complaining  of  asthma  attacks  at  various  times  in  1979.    On 
October 4, 1979, an allergist evaluated the applicant, but there is no indication that he was found 
to be unfit for active duty.  The applicant submitted a post-service 1988 letter from a physician 
stating  that  the  applicant  was  considered  to  be  asthmatic.      The  applicant  also  submitted  two 
medical reports showing that he was treated for asthma as a minor. 
 
 
5.  The applicant’s fifth allegation of error is that the Commandant unfairly denied his 
request  for  a  hardship  discharge.    On  March  11,  1980,  the  applicant  requested  a  hardship 

discharge  to  provide  physical  and  financial  support  for  his  mother.1    On  April  7,  1980,  the 
Commander, Atlantic Area forwarded the applicant’s hardship request recommending approval.  
On  May  14,  1980,  the  Commandant  denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  hardship  discharge 
because it did not meet the requirements outlined in the Personnel Manual, but the Commandant 
requested that the applicant be evaluated by a psychiatrist because he appeared to be a candidate 
for an unsuitability discharge.2  On June 13, 1980, the applicant requested that the Commandant 
review his hardship request again.  On June 17, 1980, the Commander, Atlantic Area forwarded 
the  applicant’s  request  for  a  re-review  of  his  hardship  discharge  request.    However,  the 
Commander  informed  the  Commandant  that  subsequent  to  the  applicant’s  initial  hardship 
request, his mother was approved as his dependent and he was eligible for family quarters and 
BAQ. According to the commander, the applicant declined the offer and indicated that it would 
be too disruptive for the family to move his mother into military housing located on Governor’s 
Island and that the move would cause more problems than it would solve.   On July 15, 1980, the 
Commandant  again  disapproved  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  hardship  discharge.    The 
Commandant stated the following:  “It appears that the government has provided a solution to 
your  problem  in  that  your  mother  has  been  designated  a  dependent  and  you  do  qualify  for 
housing on Governors  Island.  Your  request is  not so unique, as there  are many Coast Guard 
families enduring hardship and family separation.  Therefore, your request for hardship discharge 
is again disapproved.”   
 
 
6.    The  applicant’s  sixth  allegation  of  error  is  that  since  his  discharge  from  the  Coast 
Guard, he has been a model citizen.  He stated that he has no criminal convictions or arrests.  He 
also  stated  that  he  is  a  property  owner  and  a  productive  member  of  society.    He  submitted 
various letters, certificates of accomplishments, and photographs supporting this contention.   
 

                                                 
1  In  requesting  a  hardship  discharge,  the  applicant  stated  that  his  present  situation  “involves  a  continued  and 
prolonged hardship involving [his] 57 year old mother, and that the situation itself remains unnecessarily aggravated 
and unresolved since [his] enlistment in the Coast Guard on 31 July 1978.”  The applicant described his mother’s 
situation as follows: 
 

• 

In August 1979, as a result of my brother reaching 18 years of age . . . the Massachusetts Department of 
Welfare  terminated  my  mother’s  Aid  for  Dependent  Children  (AFDC)  payments,  and  the  associated 
Medicaid assistance she was previously entitled to. 

 

 

•  During  the  same  period,  my  father  who  is  chronically  alcoholic  and  living  apart  from  my  mother 
determined  that  his family responsibility ended on  my brother’s 18th birthday, and therefore stopped his 
weekly  $25.00  child  support  contribution  to  my  mother,  amounting  to  a  realized  income  loss  of 
approximately $100.00 per month. 

•  From  27  July  1979  through  4  September  1979,  my  mother  was  medically  diagnosed  as  suffering  from 
Trichanteric Bursitis of the right leg.  Secondary complications involve a ruptured spinal disk.  While six 
week  of  bed  rest,  medications  and  doctor  visits  provided  relief,  her  condition  is  very  susceptible  to 
aggravation  and  only  light  duties  can  be  performed.    Medical  coverage  was  provided  by  Medicaid  and 
general relief.   

 
2   The applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist on May 28, 1980, and found to be fit for full duty. 

 

 
The applicant’s Coast Guard record indicates that on October 1, 1979, he was assigned to 
Commander,  Atlantic  Area,  at  Governor’s  Island,  New  York.      He  became  an  unauthorized 
absentee  on  November  18,  1979.    Two  days  earlier,  on  November  16,  1979,  the  applicant 
telephoned a community mental health clinic in Massachusetts seeking an appointment.  He was 
seen  several  hours  later  and  indicated  that  he  was  despondent  because  of  job  duties,  living 
conditions,  and  isolation.    The  letter  from  the  chief  social  worker  at  the  clinic  stated  that  the 
applicant alleged that he had suicidal thoughts, such as jumping off a bridge.   The letter  also 
stated that the applicant said that his enlistment was an impulsive and unfortunate decision.  The 
social  worker  stated  that  she  wrote  the  letter  at  the  applicant’s  request  and  that  it  in  no  way 
constituted a formal diagnosis.   The applicant was declared a deserter on December 18, 1979.  
He surrendered to his command on February 4, 1980.  On February 28, 1980, he was punished at 
captain’s mast for the 78-day unauthorized absence.    
 
 
After the denial of his hardship discharge request on May 14, 1980, the applicant began 
another  period  of  unauthorized  absence  on  August  4,  1980.    He  was  declared  a  deserter  on 
September  3,  1980.    The  record  indicates  that  while  an  unauthorized  absentee,  he  married  a 
British  citizen.      The  applicant  surrendered  to  the  Belvedere  Police  Station  in  Kent,  United 
Kingdom, on January 23, 1981.  He was returned to Coast Guard custody on February 3, 1981, 
where  he  was  restricted  to  the  limits  of  Governor’s  Island.    On  March  3,  1981,  court-martial 
charges  were  preferred  against  the  applicant  for  desertion,  a  violation  of  Article  85  of  the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).   
 
 
On March 12, 1981, the applicant requested an OTH for the good of the Service in lieu of 
trial  by  court-martial  under  Article  12-B-21  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  stated  that  he  had 
consulted with a lawyer about his request and that he was completely satisfied with the counsel 
he had received.  The applicant acknowledged the following: 
 

 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on September 15, 2008, and that 
it is in the interest of justice to consider the merits of his application because he was only able to 
obtain his Coast Guard record within the last year, with the help of a United States senator.   He 
stated  that  the  other  times  he  requested  his  Coast  Guard  record  he  was  sent  his  Army  record 
instead.  
 

OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS IN THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

3.  I understand if this request is approved I will receive a discharge under other 
than honorable conditions.  I understand that such a discharge may deprive me of 
virtually all veterans’ benefits based upon my current period of active service and 
that I may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations 
wherein the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the 
character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.   
 
4.  I understand that once this request is submitted it may only be withdrawn with 
the consent of the Commandant. 
 

 

5.  I understand that I may submit a sworn or unsworn statement in my behalf.  
My sworn statement is submitted herewith as enclosure (2).  
 
6.  This request is voluntarily submitted free from any duress or promises of any 
kind.  I have asked my counsel, who has fully explained to me the implications of 
my request, to witness my signature. 
 
7.    I  have  retained  a  copy  of  this  request  for  a  discharge  under  other  than 
honorable conditions for the good of the Service in lieu of trail by court-martial . . 
.     
 
On March 31, 1981, the applicant’s CO recommended that the applicant’s request for an 
OTH discharge be approved.  The CO stated that shortly after the Commandant disapproved the 
applicant’s request for a hardship discharge, the applicant deserted the Coast Guard.  However, 
instead of going to Boston, where he claimed he was needed by his family, the applicant went to 
England.  The CO stated that upon the applicant’s return from UA he was evaluated by a Mental 
Health  Services  Branch  in  February  1981,  where  he  was  found  fit  for  duty.  The  CO  further 
stated: 
 

[The applicant] has demonstrated that he owes little allegiance to the Coast Guard 
and  has  no  intention  of  completing  his  obligation  to  the  Coast  Guard.    He  has 
attempted  to  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  by  a  number  of  subterfuges.  
When those attempts failed he went AWOL.  The Coast Guard has made every 
reasonable attempt to solve his family hardships.  His mother’s dependency and 
eligibility were established and BAQ payments were authorized.  This was some 
financial  relief,  but  since  the  solution  did  not  include  a  discharge  he  went  to 
England.    Instead  of  his  family  hardship  in  Boston,  he  now  complains  of  new 
family hardships in England.  It is our opinion that he will persist in his attempts 
to desert if he is not discharged from the Coast Guard.     

 
 
The  commander  also  noted  that  in  December  1978,  the  applicant  sought  a  medical 
discharge  due  to  asthma.    Upon  examination,  he  was  found  not  to  have  a  medical  disability 
warranting discharge from the service.  He was also examined by an allergist on October 5, 1979 
and was again not recommended for discharge.   
 
 
The applicant submitted a two and one-half page statement regarding his request for an 
OTH discharge.  He listed all of his complaints against the Coast Guard and stated that since his 
enlistment  he  has  encountered  numerous  difficulties  and  ordeals  including,  but  not  limited  to 
family hardship, medical and psychological problems, supervisory harassment, pay related crisis 
and financial setbacks.  He stated that it was mutually advantageous to the Coast Guard, himself 
and his family for an expeditious discharge.   
 
 
On April 8, 1981, the Commandant approved the applicant’s OTH discharge and directed 
his discharge within 30 days from the date of the message.  The applicant was discharged on 
April 30, 1981.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  29,  2009,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge  Advocate 
General (JAG), of the Coast Guard recommending that the applicant’s request be denied.  The 
JAG stated that the application was untimely because it was not filed within three years after the 
applicant discovered or should have discovered the alleged error or injustice.  In this regard, the 
JAG stated that the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 30, 1981 and has 
been well aware of his discharge status since that time.  Although untimeliness may be excused 
in the interest of justice, the applicant provided no rationale for his approximately 28-year delay.   
 

The JAG also adopted the facts and analysis provided by Commander, Personnel Service 
Center  (PSC)  as  a  part  of  its  advisory  opinion.    PSC  addressed  each  of  the  applicant’s 
contentions as follows:     

1.  The applicant alleged that he suffered psychological/emotional Stress exacerbated by extreme 
family hardship.  PSC responded as follows: 
 

 

Prior to requesting a hardship separation [the applicant] deserted the Coast Guard 
from 18 November 1979 to 4 February 1980.  Upon surrendering himself back to 
the  Coast  Guard  his  command  took  family  concerns  under  consideration  at  his 
mast  .  .  .    The  command  awarded  him  a  suspended  reduction  in  grade  and 
suspended restriction.  The command then assisted [the applicant] in his request to 
Commandant (G-PE) for a hardship discharge.  Commandant (G-PE) denied this 
request  as  the  Coast  Guard  had  approved  his  mother  for  dependent  status  and 
family housing on Governor’s Island.  After [the applicant’s] second request for a 
hardship discharge was denied he deserted again.  It is noted that he did not desert 
to  support  his  family  but  abandoned  them  and  fled  to  England.    His  length  of 
desertion was from 4 August 1980 to 4 February 1981.  One could conclude from 
this that his previous argument of family hardship as a reason for discharge was a 
ruse that he was using to leave his contractual obligation to the Coast Guard.   

 
2.  The applicant alleged that he was unable to adapt and adjust socially and psychologically to 
the Coast Guard.  PSC responded as follows: 
 

 [The applicant] was evaluated by mental health experts on several occasions.  All 
of  these  pronounced  him  fit  for  full  duty  with  the  ability  to  know  right  from 
wrong . . .  In addition his history of adjusting well to 3 years of active duty with 
the Army would indicate that he had the ability to adapt to the Coast Guard.   

 
3.  The applicant pointed to his prior honorable discharge from the Army.  PSC responded as 
follows: 
 

This is a poor argument as the characterization that he received from the Army is 
an  evaluation  of  his  active  duty  service  during  that  time  period.    The 
characterization he received from the Coast Guard is an evaluation of his service 

This is not true.  [The applicant] was evaluated and treated for bronchial asthma.  
His asthma was never found to be severe enough to receive a disability . . .  It is 
noted that on his entry physical examination he checked the block indicating that 
he never had asthma.  He also submitted a note dated 14 June 1978 to the recruiter 
indicating that he infrequently had mild symptoms of hay fever which was treated 
with non-prescriptive medication . . . On 4 December 1978 while at RM A School  
. . .  [the applicant] makes his first complaint concerning asthma.  On his first visit 
he states he would like a medical evaluation for discharge.  Had the [applicant] 
had asthma which caused him to be unfit for retention he would most likely have 
received a fraudulent discharge.  

 
5.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  unfairly  denied  a  hardship  discharge  by  Commandant, 
Coast Guard.  PSC responded as follows: 
 

[The  applicant’s]  request  was  denied  because  Commandant  .  .  .  stated  that  his 
request did not meet the criteria for a hardship discharge . . .  His family was not 
undergoing  a  hardship  more  severe  than  normal  hardships  encountered  by 
dependents  or  families  of  other  Coast  Guard  members.    There  was  a  means  to 
alleviate the situation.  The Coast Guard made every reasonable attempt to solve 
his family hardships.  His mother’s dependency and eligibility were established 
and BAQ payments were authorized . . .  This was some financial relief but since 
it did not include a discharge he abandoned his family in Boston and deserted to 
England . . .   

during the time period he spent with the Coast Guard.  These are not related to 
one another.   

 
4.  The applicant alleged that he should have been given a medical discharge for asthma but was 
never adequately evaluated.  PSC responded as follows: 
 

 
6.  The applicant alleged that since his discharge from the Coast Guard, he has led a full and 
productive life with positive achievements.  PSC responded as follows:   
 

I applaud [the applicant] on his success since his discharge in 1981.  That said the 
discharge he received in 1981 was a reflection of his active service with the Coast 
Guard at that time.  His success after that does not change the fact that he deserted 
the  Coast  Guard  twice  from  1978  to  1981  and  on  the  second  desertion  fled  to 
England.   

 
 
PSC stated that the applicant demonstrated that he owed little allegiance to the United 
States and had no intention of completing his obligation to the Coast Guard.  He attempted to be 
discharged from the Coast Guard by a number of subterfuges and when those failed he deserted.  
Therefore PSC recommended that the applicant request should be denied.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

 
Article 12-B-21 of the Personnel Manual then in effect stated that an enlisted member 
may request a discharge under other than honorable conditions for the good of the Service in lieu 
of  action  under  the  UCMJ  if  punishment  for  alleged  misconduct  could  result  in  a  punitive 
discharge.  A request for a discharge under other than honorable conditions for the good of the 
Service  may  be  submitted  by  the  member  at  any  time  after  court-martial  charges  have  been 
preferred  against  him  or  her.    This  provision  further  states  that  a  lawyer  will  provided  to  a 
member who desires to submit a request for a discharge under other than honorable conditions 
for the good of the Service.   
 

Article 12-B-13(a)&(b) state that the Commandant may authorize or direct the discharge 
or  transfer  to  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  of  enlisted  personnel  by  reason  of  dependency  or 
hardship.    According to the regulation, each request is carefully and sympathetically considered 
and decided on its individual merits.  

 
Article 12-B-13(c)(3) states that the Commandant may direct discharge or release from 
active duty when it is considered that an undue or genuine dependency or hardship is not of a 
temporary nature, and that the conditions have arisen or been aggravated to an excessive degree 
since entry into the Service and the member has made every reasonable effort to alleviate the 
hardship by means of application for basic allowance for  quarters and  voluntary contributions 
which have proven inadequate.   

 
Article 12-B-13(c)(3)b. of the Personnel Manual offered the following as a example of a 

meritorious case with supporting evidence: 

APPLICANT'S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 24, 2009, a copy of the Coast Guard’s views was sent to the applicant for any 
response that he wanted to make.  The applicant requested and was granted three separate 60-day 
extensions  to  respond  to  the  advisory  opinion.    The  BCMR  did  not  receive  a  response  to  the 
advisory opinion from the applicant. 

 
The  member’s  family  is  undergoing  hardship  more  severe  than  the  normal 
hardships encountered by dependents or families of members of the Coast Guard; 
that this hardship is not of a temporary nature and the release of the member will 
result  in  the  elimination  of,  or  will  materially  alleviate,  the  condition,  and  that 
there  are  no  means  of  alleviation  readily  available  other  than  by  release  from 
active duty.   

 
 
Article  12-B-13(c)(4)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  undue  hardship  does  not 
necessarily exist solely because of altered present or expected income or because the member is 
separated  from  the  family  or  must  suffer  the  inconvenience  normally  incident  to  a  seagoing 
military service.   
 

1.    The  Board  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of title  10  United 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions and military record, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  
 
 
2.  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 discovered, the 
alleged  error  or  injustice.    The  BCMR  received  the  applicant’s  application  on  November  10, 
2008,  approximately  27  years  after  1981  discharge  and  issuance  of  DD  214.    Therefore,  the 
application was not timely.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

3.  However, the Board may still consider the application on the merits, if it finds 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 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.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 
1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 
4.    The  applicant  argued  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  consider  his  application 
because  he  only  recently  obtained  his  Coast  Guard  military  record  with  the  help  of  a  United 
States  senator.    While  it  may  have  been  difficult  for  the  applicant  to  obtain  his  Coast  Guard 
record, it should not have taken 27 years for him to do so.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded 
to waive the statute of limitation on the basis that it was difficult for the applicant to obtain his 
military record.   
 
 
5.    Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  based  on  a  cursory 
review of the merits.  That review reveals that the applicant has failed to establish an error or 
injustice on the part of the Coast Guard with respect to his 1981 OTH discharge.  The applicant 
chose an OTH discharge instead of facing a court-martial for desertion. He knowingly made this 
request with the assistance of counsel.  The commandant approved the applicant’s request for an 
OTH discharge on April 8, 1981. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Coast Guard 
committed any error with regard to processing his OTH discharge. 
  
 
6.  With respect to the applicant’s contention that while in the Coast Guard he suffered 
from emotional stress and mental duress that was exacerbated by his family’s hardship because 
of  his  mother’s  illness  and  financial  situation,  the  Board  notes  that  there  was  some  family 
pressure on the applicant, but his psychological evaluations found that he was fit for duty.  In 
addition, although the Commandant denied the applicant’s request for a hardship discharge the 
Coast Guard attempted to assist the applicant with his situation by approving his mother as his 
dependent making him eligible for BAQ and by offering the applicant and his mother housing on 
Governor’s Island.  The applicant refused this offer because it did not include a discharge.  The 

Board finds that any stress the applicant suffered related to his family situation could have been 
alleviated if he had not refused the Coast Guard’s offer of housing for him and his mother.  The 
Board finds no error or injustice in the Coast Guard not discharging the applicant due to alleged 
psychological/emotional stress or mental duress.   
 
 
7.    In  contrast  to  the  applicant’s  argument  that  he  was  not  able  to  adjust  socially  or 
psychologically to the Coast Guard, the Board finds that the applicant received a psychological 
evaluation for this purpose at the request of the Commandant.  That evaluation revealed that the 
applicant was fit for full duty, but would continue to be a disciplinary problem unless he was let 
out of the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the applicant has offered insufficient evidence to show that 
he was unable to adjust to the Coast Guard.   No error or injustice exists in this regard.   
 
 
8.    The  applicant’s  contention  that  he  should  have  been  discharged  due  to  asthma  is 
without merit.   The applicant was evaluated for this condition while on active duty and was not 
found unfit for duty as a result of it.  The evidence that he currently suffers from asthma and that 
he suffered from asthma as a child does not mean that the condition caused him to be unfit for 
military  duty.  Article  2.C.2.a.  of  the  Physical  Disability  Evaluations  Systems  (PDES)  Manual 
states  that  the  sole  standard  in  making  determinations  of  physical  disability  as  a  basis  for 
retirement or separation shall be unfitness to perform the duties of one's office, grade, rank, rate, 
or rating.  Article 2.A.50. of the PDES defines unfit for continued duty as the status of a member 
who  is  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating  because  of  a  physical 
disability.  Article 2.C.2.f.i. makes it clear that a member may have physical impairments but 
such  impairments  may  not  necessarily  render  the  member  unfit  for  military  duty.    Moreover, 
even if the Coast Guard had erroneously concluded that the applicant was fit for duty, it would 
not  have  excused  the  applicant’s  desertion  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  applicant  has  not 
established that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice by not discharging him due to 
asthma. 
 
 
9.  The applicant’s contention that he was unfairly denied a hardship discharge is his own 
opinion.    The  Personnel  Manual  gives  the  Commandant  the  authority  to  decide  hardship 
discharge requests.  In this case, the Commandant determined that the applicant’s situation did 
not meet the requirements for hardship as it was not so different from circumstances faced by 
many other Coast Guard members.  Again, as stated above, the Coast Guard offered the applicant 
assistance with his family hardship, which he refused.  Being denied a hardship discharge does 
not excuse the applicant’s desertion which led to his request for an OTH discharge instead of 
trial by court-martial.  The legitimacy of the applicant’s hardship request is diminished by the 
fact that when he deserted the Coast Guard in 1980, he did not go to Massachusetts to assist his 
mother, but instead he went to England.   The applicant has not established any error or injustice 
with regard to the denial of his request for a hardship discharge.    
 
 
within the findings are conclusions are not dispositive of the issues raised in this case.   
 

10.    The  Board  has  considered  all  of  the  applicant’s  contentions.  Those  not  discussed 

11. Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove an  error or injustice  and his request 

should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.     

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

ORDER 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
  

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

                     

 

    

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
   
 Adrian Sevier