DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2009-083 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on February 6, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c).  

 
This  final  decision,  dated  October  22,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by upgrading his 1976 Gen-
eral discharge under honorable conditions to an Honorable discharge.  He alleged that he was 
discharged because of racism.  He submitted no evidence to support his allegation.  He admitted 
that he knew the character of his discharge in 1976 but did not explain why he did not apply to 
the Board sooner or why the Board should excuse the untimeliness of his application. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On February 25, 1974, at the age of 17, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four 
years.    Following  boot  camp,  the  applicant  attended  radarman  “A”  School  and  graduated  on 
October 18, 1974, as a seaman (SN/E-3) with the RD designator (SNRD). 

 
On November 2, 1974, the applicant reported aboard the CGC GLACIER, an icebreaker.  
He advanced from SNRD/E-3 to third class radarman (RD3/E-4) on March 1, 1975.  On June 19, 
1975,  the  Executive  Officer  of  the  GLACIER  notified  the  applicant  that  after  three  months’ 
observation of the applicant’s performance, he had been found incompetent.  Therefore, in accor-
dance with Article 5-C-38 of the Personnel Manual, he would be observed for ten days, during 
which time he had to demonstrate that he was qualified to retain his rate and designator.  If he 
did not, he would be reduced in rate and the command would recommend removal of his desig-
nator. 

 
On July 1, 1975, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) at a captain’s mast 
for failing to obey a lawful order “to clean in Ops Head” on June 27, 1975.  He was awarded a 
reduction in rate, which was suspended for four months. 

 
On July 6, 1975, the applicant was reduced in rate to SNRD due to incompetence pursu-
ant to Article 5-C-38 of the Personnel Manual.  The Executive Officer noted that after the appli-
cant was warned that he was at risk of being reduced in rate due to incompetence as an inport 
watchstander, which was his primary duty as an RD3, he was observed for ten days.  His per-
formance was not acceptable, and the senior watch officer had judged him incompetent. 

 
On  September  9,  1975,  the  commanding  officer  (CO)  of  the  GLACIER  recommended 
that the applicant’s RD designator be removed for incompetence.  He stated that the applicant 
had been counseled on several occasions by his supervisor, by the division officer, and by the 
department head “in an attempt to discover an underlying reason for his poor performance.”  He 
noted that after the applicant was reduced from RD3 to SNRD on July  6, 1976, the applicant 
“made no attempt to regain RD3 and refuses to become involved in CIC team training.  His peers 
consider him a hindrance to operations in CIC, and his work group supervisor prefers being one 
man short to having [the applicant] on the watch list.  Since being reduced in rate, [the appli-
cant’s] performance has deteriorated to such an extent that he was removed from the CIC watch-
standing rotation on 20 August 1975.  At the present time, he is considered qualified to perform 
cleanup and maintenance work only.”  The CO attributed the applicant’s poor performance to a 
lack of motivation and lack of pride in his work.  In addition, he noted that the applicant had not 
shown any interest in earning a different rating designator.  The CO noted that it might be advis-
able to transfer the applicant to another unit “for a second opinion of his performance, although it 
is felt that this would merely prolong the inevitable.” 

 
On  October  22,  1975,  the  Commandant  authorized  the  removal  of  the  applicant’s  RD 
designator  due  to  incompetence.    On  November  1,  1975,  the  applicant’s  RD  designator  was 
removed.  On November 14, 1975, he was transferred to the CGC BURTON ISLAND as an SN. 

   
On January 12, 1976, the CO of the BURTON ISLAND took the applicant to mast for 
failing to obey a lawful order on the mess deck and for using contemptful and disrespectful lan-
guage to a superior petty officer who was performing his duty as Master at Arms on January 8, 
1976.  He was awarded NJP of restriction to the cutter for 14 days and forfeiture of $75. 

 
On March 1, 1976, the applicant was taken to mast for missing morning muster twice and 
for willfully disobeying an order on February 22, 1976.  He was awarded NJP of reduction in 
rate to seaman apprentice (SA/E-2), forfeiture of $150, and restriction to the cutter for 21 days. 

 
Also  on  March  1,  1976,  the  Executive  Officer  of  the  BURTON  ISLAND  advised  the 
applicant in writing that he was being considered for an administrative discharge due to unfitness 
under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual.  The notification states that if the applicant was 
convicted or awarded NJP one more time, the command would initiate his discharge. 

 

Guard Base Terminal Island in California. 

 
On  June  3,  1976,  the  District  Commander  sent  the  Commandant  the  following  report 

about the applicant’s complaint of racial discrimination: 

On April 12, 1976, the applicant was taken to mast for having left his place of duty with-
out authority and for having absented himself from the unit without authority for several hours.  
He was awarded NJP of a forfeiture of $150 and restriction to the cutter for 21 days. 

 
On May 27, 1976, the applicant was taken to mast for having skipped morning muster 

twice.  He was awarded a forfeiture of $100 per month for two months. 

 
Also in May 1976, the District’s Civil Rights Officer conducted an investigation after the 
applicant  sent  letters  to  his  congressional  representatives  complaining  of  racial  discrimination 
aboard the BURTON ISLAND.  On May 28, 1976, the Civil Rights Officer informed the appli-
cant by letter that his investigation had found no evidence substantiating the applicant’s claims.  
He noted that he had interviewed six other minority personnel aboard the BURTON ISLAND, 
who did not support the applicant’s allegations of racial discrimination “of either a general nature 
or against you specifically.”  He informed the applicant of his right to file a formal complaint to 
the Commandant or the Director of Civil Rights of the Department of Transportation.   

 
On  June  1,  1976,  the  applicant  was  transferred  from  the  BURTON  ISLAND  to  Coast 

 
1.  This report details the results of an investigation of [the applicant’s] complaint of racial dis-
crimination aboard the CGC BURTON ISLAND WAGB-283.  The investigation was undertaken 
as directed by references a and b  which  forwarded requests  for information  from the offices of 
Congressman John H. Rousselot 26th District CA, and Senator John V. Tunney, CA. 
 
2.  [The applicant] was interviewed by the District Civil Rights Officer on Monday 24 May 1976.  
He  was unavailable prior to that time because his presence  was required at a UCMJ  Article 32 
hearing for charges of possession of cocaine and conspiracy to purchase narcotics.  In the course 
of this interview, [the applicant] stated that  he believed  he  was singled out and unfairly treated 
because  of  his  race.    He  further  alleged  general  racial  discrimination  against  black  and  Puerto 
Rican personnel aboard BURTON ISLAND. 
 
3.    An  informal  investigation  of  these  complaints  was  undertaken  aboard  the  CGC  BURTON 
ISLAND under the provisions of reference c to determine if racial discrimination did occur.  The 
information for this determination was gathered from [the applicant’s] Service Record and private 
interviews with other minority personnel aboard BURTON ISLAND as well as discussions with 
the Commanding Officer, Executive Officer and Civil Rights Representative.  On the basis of the 
information  thus  gathered,  it  is  concluded  that  there  is  no  indication  of  racial  discrimination 
aboard BURTON ISLAND and that [the applicant] was not subject to racial discrimination.  [The 
applicant]  has  been  the  subject  of  an  above  average  number  of  administrative  actions  and  non-
judicial punishments but the cause appears to be his inability to accept the normal requirements of 
a military organization and a tendency to blame his problems on racial bias rather than his own 
actions. 
 
4.  The facts on which these conclusions are based are: 
     a.  [The applicant] reported aboard CGC GLACIER as an SNRD in November 1974.  He was 
advanced to RD3 in March 1975.  In June 1975, he was awarded NJP of a suspended reduction in 
grade to SNRD for failure to obey a lawful order.  In July 1975 he was reduced in grade to SNRD 

for incompetence in rate.  In September 1975 his designator was removed for further deterioration 
in performance. 
 
     b.  In November 1975, [the applicant] was transferred from CGC GLACIER to CGC BURTON 
ISLAND in order to provide a new environment in view of his difficulties aboard GLACIER. 
 
     c.  While serving aboard BURTON ISLAND, [the applicant] was awarded the following Non 
Judicial Punishments: 
  

(1)  12 Jan 1976.  Restriction of 14 days and $75.00 forfeiture of pay for disobedience of a 

lawful order and disrespect to a superior petty officer. 

(2)  01 March 1976.  Reduction in rate to SA, forfeiture of $150.00 and restriction for 21 days 
(suspended for 3 months) for two counts of missing muster and two counts of disobedi-
ence of a lawful order. 

(3)  01  March  1976.    Counseled  regarding  possible  administrative  discharge  by  reason  of 

unfitness. 

place of duty. 

(4)  07 April 1976.  Suspension of previous restriction vacated for unauthorized absence from 

(5)  07  April  1976.    Charged  with  violation  of  Article  92  CG  Regulation  for  using  a  con-
trolled  substance  –  cocaine.    Charged  with  violation  of  a  lawful  general  regulation  by 
possessing hashish, a controlled substance.  Violation of Article 81 conspiring to commit 
an offense under the UCMJ in violation of a general regulation by possessing cocaine, a 
controlled  substance.    These  charges  are  currently  the  subject  of  a  UCMJ  Article  32 
hearing to determine what if any court-martial action will be taken. 

(6)  12 April 1976.  Awarded $150.00 forfeiture of pay for one month and 21 days’ restriction 

(suspended for three months) for absence from place of duty without authority. 

(7)  27 May 1976.  Awarded NJP on two counts of missing muster.  Forfeiture of $100.00 per 

month for two months. 

 
5.  The events of  07 April 1976 which [the applicant] alludes to as the “final straw” are somewhat 
misrepresented in his letter.  [The applicant] did not return to the vessel of his own volition.  At 
about 1030 that morning, the duty officer aboard BURTON ISLAND was notified by the Long 
Beach Naval Security Office that [the applicant] was in custody.  He was taken into custody for 
possession of narcotics by the Naval Station Security Patrol.  This incident led to the charges pre-
viously noted which are still being investigated. 
 
6.  Private interviews were held between the Civil Rights Officer and minority personnel to deter-
mine  if  they  had  experienced  or  were  aware  of  racial  discrimination  aboard  the  BURTON 
ISLAND.  None of the personnel indicated awareness of any discrimination nor did they express 
any  complaint  with  treatment  they  received  on  the  BURTON  ISLAND.    Each  individual  was 
asked if he had any knowledge of racial discrimination toward [the applicant].  No situations were 
cited  indicating  racial  prejudice.    One  man  did  state  that  [the  applicant]  seemed  “to  get  people 
down on him more than other people.” 
 
7.  In view of a stated hostility by [the applicant], it appears probable that his continued presence 
aboard  BURTON  ISLAND  would  create  unacceptable  problems  for  the  unit.    In  view  of  this 
situation and the serious nature of the narcotics violations under investigation, [the applicant] has 
been transferred to Base Terminal Island. 
 
8.  [The applicant] has been  advised of  the results of this  investigation and counseled as to his 
right to file a formal complaint of discrimination in accordance with reference c.  A copy of the 
letter so advising him is enclosed. 
 
On June 10, 1976, the applicant was absent from his place of duty without authorization.  
He returned to Base Terminal Island the next day, but absented himself again from June 17 to 18, 

Island until August 2, 1976.   

 
On September 20, 1976, the applicant was convicted at summary court-martial of being 
AWOL three times in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ and of failing to obey a lawful general 
regulation two times in violation of Article 92.  He was sentenced to confinement for 15 days at 
hard labor, forfeiture of $150 in pay, and reduction to seaman recruit (SR/E-1). 

 
On September 21, 1976, the CO of Base Terminal Island notified the applicant that he 
was  recommending  that  the  applicant  receive  a  General  discharge  for  the  convenience  of  the 
Government because of his below average marks since July 1975, his frequent involvement with 
military authorities, and the “unacceptable administrative burden [the applicant’s infractions had] 
on the command and your two previous units.”  The CO also notified him that he had a right to 
consult  a  lawyer  and  to  submit  a  statement  on  his  own  behalf.    In  response,  the  applicant 
acknowledged the notification, acknowledged having consulted a lawyer, objected to being dis-
charged, and submitted the following statement on his own behalf: 

for a few hours on June 27, and from June 28 to 29.  At mast on June 30, 1976, he was awarded 
NJP of 14 days of restriction to base with extra duty. 

 
On July 30, 1976, the applicant went AWOL again.  He did not return to Base Terminal 

 
1.  I am submitting this statement in that I desire to finish my enlistment with the Coast Guard 
rather than to be discharged from the Coast Guard at this time.  My service record discloses that 
my marks before my transfer to the Coast Guard Cutter BURTON ISLAND were suitable.  I had 
few,  if  any,  problems  at  the  Coast  Guard  Training  Center  or  aboard  the  Coast  Guard  Cutter 
GLACIER.  On the BURTON ISLAND I was a victim of personal prejudice on the part of many 
individuals aboard that vessel.  A reputation seemed to follow me as a result of this and followed 
me to Base Terminal Island upon my transfer to that unit. 
 
2.  Concerning my frequent disciplinary infractions, most of these were minor and were directly 
related to the harassment I did receive aboard the BURTON ISLAND and Terminal Island.  My 
service record discloses only one Captain’s Mast occurring aboard the GLACIER. 
 
3.  It is my feeling that were I to be transferred to a unit on the East Coast where there is a more 
adequate representation of  minorities, I  will be able to finish out  my enlistment  without further 
disciplinary or administrative problems.  My record discloses that absent preconceived notions on 
the part of my command, I would be able to function adequately in the Coast Guard. 
 
4.  At a recent General  Court-Martial, I  was  found not guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine.  
There was just no evidence whereby I could be convicted of that offense.  It is quite apparent that 
one of the reasons for my discharge has also been the command’s feelings that I did commit the 
offense even though I was found not guilty of any such offense.  Many of my Captain’s Masts 
occurred pending action on the charges against me when individuals were prejudiced against me 
because of these pending charges and I found it difficult to concentrate on any work because of 
these pending charges. 
 
5.  I feel that, given a fresh start, without existing prejudice individuals have against me, I can be 
an asset to the Coast Guard for the remainder of my enlistment.  I would further ask that should 
you feel that I should indeed be discharged from the Coast Guard, that my discharge be an Honor-
able one rather than a General discharge.  The reasons for such a request are stated above,  my 
recent  low  marks  being  the  result  of  racial  prejudice  against  me  and  prejudice  against  me  as  a 
result of charges of which I was ultimately found not guilty.  I should certainly not be penalized 
with a General discharge for an offense for which I was found not guilty. 

 
On September 22, 1976, the  applicant’s CO recommended that the  applicant receive  a 
General discharge for the convenience of the government because his “history of repeated minor 
disciplinary infractions … present[ed] an administrative burden to the command.”  He summa-
rized the applicant’s performance and disciplinary history and noted that the applicant had been 
“tried and acquitted by a General Court Martial on 10 September 1976 for conspiracy to possess 
cocaine.”  The CO stated that the applicant had been afforded legal counsel with respect to his 
pending discharge and that “it appears to be in the best interest of the Coast Guard to expedi-
tiously discharge him under Article 12-B-6 rather than wait for another offense and recommend 
him in accordance with Article 12-B-12.” 

 
On October 6, 1976, the District Commander endorsed the CO’s recommendation that the 
applicant receive a General discharge for the convenience of the Government.  He wrote that the 
applicant’s behavior had been contrary to his claim that he just needed a “fresh start” to complete 
his enlistment.  Handwritten notes in the applicant’s record indicate that the Coast Guard Head-
quarters advised the CO that the applicant should be discharged due to misconduct, not for the 
convenience of the Government. 

 
On October 22, 1976, the CO notified the applicant in writing of his intent to recommend 
that the applicant receive a General discharge by reason of misconduct due to frequent involve-
ment of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The CO noted that the applicant’s per-
formance marks had been low since July 1975 and that his frequent disciplinary infractions had 
placed an “unacceptable administrative burden on this command.”  The CO advised him that he 
had the right to consult an attorney and to submit a statement on his own behalf. 

 
Also on October 22, 1976, the applicant acknowledged the notification and indicated that 
he did not object to being discharged but would submit a statement.  The applicant submitted 
both his prior statement and a new statement, in which he wrote the following in pertinent part: 

 
1.    …  I  have  already  expressed  my  feelings  concerning  any  type  of  discharge  from  the  Coast 
Guard  …    This  earlier  statement  sets  forth  my  feelings  as  they  exist  at  the  present  and  I  have 
attached a copy of that earlier statement as an enclosure to this statement. 
 
2.  However, I wish to reiterate that most problems I faced were the result of personal prejudices 
against me by the command of the USCGC BURTON ISLAND.  This prejudice built up a reputa-
tion which followed me to C. G. Base Terminal Island.  The record will show only one Captain’s 
Mast occurring before my transfer to the BURTON ISLAND. 
 
3.  I only desire to finish my enlistment with the Coast Guard.  Given a command without precon-
ceived notions about me, I am certain that I would pose no further problem. 
 
4.  However, should your decision be to discharge me, I feel an Honorable Discharge would be 
more appropriate than a General Discharge.  I have seen many other individuals  whose records 
were worse than mine who have received Honorable Discharges from the Coast Guard.  I would 
hope that the fact I was acquitted of conspiracy to possess cocaine will have no bearing on your 
decision on whether or not I should be discharged and the nature of such a discharge.  I should not 
be punished for any acts of which I was found not guilty by receiving a General Discharge from 
the Coast Guard. 
 

 On October 28, 1976, the applicant’s CO recommended that he be discharged for mis-
conduct based on his frequent disciplinary infractions and frequent involvement of a discredit-
able nature with military authorities. 

 
On November 4, 1976, the District Commander endorsed the CO’s recommendation for 
discharge and stated that his review of the applicant’s disciplinary record revealed that there was 
justification for discharging the applicant under Article 12-B-13, rather than Article 12-B-6 of 
the Personnel Manual. 

 
On  November  15,  1976,  the  Commandant  authorized  the  applicant’s  command  to  dis-
charge him within 30 days by reason of misconduct due to frequent involvement with military 
authorities  under  Article  12-B-13  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  Commandant  stated  that  the 
applicant should have the type of discharge to which he was entitled under Article 12-B-3 of the 
Personnel manual. 

 
On November 17, 1976, the base Executive Officer noted that the applicant had refused 
to sign his discharge papers and so he told the applicant that if he did not agree with his dis-
charge, he “had the right to appeal to the Board of Military Corrections.” 

 
On November 26, 1976, the applicant received a General discharge due to misconduct 
because of his “frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities,” 
pursuant to Article 12-B-13 of the Personnel Manual.  He was not recommended for reenlist-
ment.  The applicant’s final average marks were 2.36 for proficiency, 3.02 for leadership, and 
3.25 for conduct. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On May 2, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  requested  relief  because  of  the  application’s 
untimeliness and lack of merit. 
 
 
The JAG noted that the applicant was well aware of his character of discharge in 1976 
and provided no explanation for his long delay in seeking the requested correction.  In addition, 
he stated that the applicant has not submitted any documentation to support his allegations. 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    The  PSC  stated  that  although  the  applicant 
complained of racial discrimination in May 1976 and was advised that he could submit a formal 
complaint, there is no evidence that he ever did so after the District’s Civil Rights Officer found 
no evidence to support his complaint.  The PSC stated that the applicant’s allegation that he was 
discharged because of racial discrimination “is without merit” because the investigation did not 
substantiate any discrimination on the BURTON ISLAND.   
 
The PSC stated that the applicant was initially processed for a “convenience of the Gov-
 
ernment” discharge, but based on a direction from Commandant (G-PE) the reason for discharge 

was changed to misconduct.  The PSC stated that its review of the record “does not reveal any 
error or injustice with the processing of his discharge.” 
 
 
The PSC stated that during his two years and eight months of service, the applicant was 
punished  at  mast  seven  times  and  convicted  by  summary  court-martial  once.    He  was  also 
AWOL twice and lost his RD designator due to incompetence.  “Based upon current standards, 
the applicant’s record fully supports the assigned character of service ‘Under Honorable Condi-
tions.’  There is no basis for an upgrade to the applicant’s character of service.” 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 22, 2009, 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 

1. 
  
2. 

 
 
Article 12-B-13 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1976 authorized the Commandant to 
direct the discharge of an enlisted member by reason of misconduct for “frequent involvement of 
a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.”  The member could receive a discharge 
under other than honorable conditions, a General discharge, or an Honorable discharge “as war-
ranted by the particular circumstances of a given case.”  Members with less than eight years of 
service were entitled to notification of the reason for discharge, to counsel if a General discharge 
was  to  be  awarded,  and  to  submit  a  statement  on  their  own  behalf.    According  to  Article 
12.b.2.f.1.c. of the current Personnel Manual, prior to 1983, a member must have received final 
average marks of at least 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in conduct to receive an honorable discharge. 
 
 
Under  Article  12-B-3  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  a  member  had  to  have  minimum  final 
average marks of 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in conduct to receive an Honorable discharge.  If not, 
the member could receive a General discharge. 
 

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. 

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.  The applicant was discharged in 1976 and clearly knew that 
he  had  received  a  General  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  at  that  time.    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 

3. 

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.”  Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

The applicant provided no explanation or justification for his long delay in seek-

ing correction of his military record. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that it lacks merit.  Although 
the applicant alleged that his General discharge was a result of racial discrimination, he submit-
ted  no  evidence  to  prove  his  allegations,  and  there  is  no  supporting  evidence  in  his  military 
record.    His  record  shows  that  he  complained  about  racial  discrimination  while  serving  as  a 
crewmember  of  the  CGC  BURTON  ISLAND.    However,  after  interviewing  the  applicant  and 
other minority members of the crew, the investigator concluded that the applicant’s many NJPs 
resulted from his own misconduct rather than from any racial discrimination.  In addition, the 
Board notes that his record contains ample evidence of the frequent misconduct that caused his 
discharge.  These records are presumptively correct under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  See Arens v. 
United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 
804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979), for the required presumption, absent evidence to the contrary, that Gov-
ernment officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”).  Based on 
the record before it, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits.  

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  SR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 

 

 
   
 Janice Williams-Jones