DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-096 
 
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  March  4,  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 November 12, 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 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his May 24, 1946, Dishonorable discharge to 
an Honorable discharge.  He stated that his Dishonorable discharge was unjust because he will-
ingly returned to his base after being absent without leave (AWOL).  He further stated that he 
regrets having gone AWOL and “would like to have a clean slate.” 

 
The applicant alleged that while serving on a ship in February 1946, he fell and injured 
his back and lower body and was moved to a nearby hospital ship, which transported him to a 
military hospital.  While in the hospital, he decided to go AWOL.  He stated that he does not 
remember why he decided to go AWOL, but his decision might have stemmed from his mental 
condition resulting from his injuries or he might have “had enough with the Coast Guard.”  Sev-
eral  weeks  later,  he  decided  to  return  to  his  base.    Upon  his  return,  he  was  assigned  to  basic 
duties, such as cleaning.  A few days later, his commanding officer (CO) told him he would be 
tried by  court-martial.  As a result of a summary  court-martial (SCM), he was sentenced to a 
Dishonorable discharge.  Although he appealed his discharge, his appeal was unsuccessful.  The 
applicant stated that he sincerely apologizes for going AWOL, but believes that it was “the result 
of mental injuries temporarily sustained when I fell on the ship.” 

 
In support of his request, the applicant submitted various documents and letters.  His wife 
of 61 years wrote that the applicant talks every day about his Dishonorable discharge for going 
AWOL with remorse.  She stated that he “has been a very hard worker [and] model citizen all his 

life,” a wonderful husband, a good provider, and a father of four daughters.  She implored the 
Board to remove “this black stain” from his records.  Another letter shows that in 2003 the appli-
cant’s wife was informed through their congressman that the applicant could seek an upgrade of 
his discharge through the BCMR. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD  

 
On February 12, 1943, at the age of 20, the applicant was inducted into the Coast Guard 
 
Reserve for three  years.  After completing training, he was assigned to a destroyer escort, the 
USS PETTIT, for two months before being transferred to another unit, the Captain of the Port 
(COTP) in Charleston, SC.  There is no documentation from the PETTIT regarding the appli-
cant’s performance while assigned to the ship. 
 
 
On December 2, 1943, the applicant went AWOL from the COTP.  He had forged a lib-
erty pass or leave papers.  He was apprehended by the Naval Shore Patrol at Union Station in 
Washington, DC, on December 3, 1943, and ordered to return to the COTP.  However, he did not 
return to his unit and was declared a deserter 30 days later.  The applicant surrendered himself to 
the Naval Shore Police in Detroit, Michigan, on April 27, 1944, almost four months later.  He 
was returned to the COTP and tried by SCM on June 7, 1944, for this offense.  He pled guilty to 
being AWOL, and his sentence was mitigated by the Reviewing Authority to forfeiture of $20 in 
pay per month for five months; to perform 20 hours of extra police duty; and to be restricted to 
the limits of the COTP for two months. 
 
 
to return to his unit following a 15-day period of authorized leave. 
 
 
On  January  27,  1945,  the  applicant  failed  to  return  from  authorized  liberty.    He  was 
declared a deserter 30 days later.  On November 13, 1945, more than nine months later, he sur-
rendered  himself  at  the  Coast  Guard  Operating  Base  in  Detroit,  MI,  and  was  returned  to  the 
COTP under escort.   
 

On January 18, 1945, the applicant was absent over leave (AOL) for a day when he failed 

On  December  13,  1945,  the  applicant  was  admitted  to  a  naval  hospital  for  psychiatric 
evaluation because of his disciplinary problems.  He remained in the hospital until February 26, 
1946.  The following are excerpts of medical notes made while the applicant was hospitalized: 

 

•  “Patient’s inability to adjust to military life on account of lifelong emotional instability 
and other personality traits is the cause of his admission.  Since being in the service he 
has had ‘all kinds of trouble,’ mostly in taking orders, and has been ‘miserable all the 
time.’ … Because he has always been a disciplinary problem, he was referred to this hos-
pital for observation.” 

•  “Except for 2 months sea duty aboard DE 253, no action; all service was ashore.  ‘I was 
taken off the ship because I was always on restriction.’  He has had numerous discipli-
nary infractions, several masts and one Summary Court Martial [for first AWOL].” 

•  “In  January  1945  he  deserted  again  …  ‘I  was  going  nuts  living  like  a  hermit—just 

couldn’t stand it.’” 

•  “Mother is living but not well. [She has] had several ‘nervous breakdowns’ and has been 
in  hospitals  several  times.  …  One  brother  recently  discharged  from  Army  because  of 
‘nerves.’  ‘He was always queer.’” 

•  “As  a  child,  patient  was  very  easily  excited,  had  a  very  bad  temper  and  had  very  bad 
nightmares. Talked in his sleep. Was afraid of the dark.… He was always restless. ‘I have 
never been able to stay in one place long, even a movie—I just can’t stand the dark.’” 

•  “He completed the 11th grade with fair grades; then quit one semester before graduation 
‘because I couldn’t stand it any longer.’  He joined the CCC’s but only remained for three 
weeks when he went AOL because he was ‘pushed around.’ … Work is very erratic; … 
could never hold one job for any length of time.” 

• 

•  “He is nervous and cannot eat.  He has trouble sleeping and is awakened by dreams of 
falling. … Complains of anorexia, indigestion, insomnia, nightmares, and general nerv-
ousness, of at least 2 years duration.” 
 “‘I want to get out of here.  I just can’t take it.  Don’t care any more – they ruined me!’  
Restlessness, nightmares, nervousness.” 

•  “There  is  no  evidence  of  mental  abnormality  (i.e.,  psychosis  or  psychoneurosis)  in 
patient’s general behavior, stream of talk, content or ideation.  However, he shows signs 
of great emotional tension and irritability. … At night he is restless.  Complains rather 
bitterly that he cannot sleep.  In the interview situation he is pouty, petulant and rather 
childish, takes an abused attitude.  Apparently takes no responsibility and feels no par-
ticular guilt.  Has the attitude that he couldn’t stand service conditions and it is not his 
fault that he went over the hill [AWOL].” 

•  “In  spite  of  patient’s  tension  and  some  initial  complaint  of  smothering  spells,  he  has 
shown no elevation of pulse or other sustained signs of anxiety neurosis.  He is regarded 
as simply an emotionally immature, self-centered irritable psychopath.  E.g., ‘I’ve been 
stubborn all my life. … I was the guy that was always catching it … people bother me too 
much.  I want to be left alone.’” 
 
The applicant was diagnosed with  “Personality  Disorder #1561,”1 and the psychiatrist 
wrote that the disorder was “EPTE”—i.e., it existed prior to entry on active duty.  On January 11, 
1946, a Board of Medical Survey reported that the applicant did not have a physical or mental 
disability  warranting  a  medical  separation  but  was  unfit  for  duty  because  of  his  personality 
disorder.  The board declared the applicant legally competent, responsible, and fit to stand trial.  
However, the board also noted that “he will not profit by disciplinary action and that long con-
finement will have a deleterious effect on his physical condition.”   

 
On  February  27,  1946,  the  District  Commander  forwarded  the  report  of  the  Medical 
Board of Survey to the Commandant with a recommendation that the disciplinary action against 
the applicant be dropped because the board had found that it would not profit the applicant and 
that a long confinement might cause harm.  He noted that the applicant could be administratively 
discharged due to “unsuitability” or due to a medical condition that pre-existed his enlistment. 
 

On April 3, 1946, the applicant was tried by SCM.  The charge(s) against him are not 
listed in the record, but he pled guilty to having been AOL from January 27 to November 13, 
                                                 
1 The coding of personality disorders has changed since 1946, and the exact meaning of #1561 is not in the record. 

1945.  He was sentenced to a Dishonorable discharge.  Because the trial documents are not in the 
applicant’s  record,  it  is  not  clear  whether  this  sentence  was  mitigated  from  something  worse.  
However,  a  note  dated  April  18,  1946,  states  that  “[i]t  has  not  been  the  policy  of  the  Navy 
department[2] to award DD’s for AOL offenses regardless of their duration.  In this case we are 
legally within the jurisdiction to award a DD but it would not conform to policy.  He certainly 
deserves the DD.” 

 
On May 14, 1946, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury approved the applicant’s sentence 
upon the recommendation of the Commandant.  On May 24, 1946, the applicant was separated 
with a Dishonorable discharge. 
 
 
On November 12, 1946, the applicant asked the Board of Review, Discharges and Dis-
missals  (now  known  as  the  Discharge  Review  Board)  to  upgrade  his  discharge.    The  board 
decided that no correction of his discharge was warranted, and the Acting Secretary of the Treas-
ury approved the decision.  The board noted in its decision that prior to his second SCM, the 
applicant’s mental condition had been evaluated by a Board of Medical Survey, which found that 
he was sane and fit for trial but had a personality disorder that had pre-existed his enlistment.  
Therefore,  he  could  be  discharged  either  for  unsuitability  or  for  a  physical  disability  existing 
prior to enlistment.  The board therefore concluded that the applicant was not entitled to a medi-
cal discharge, that he knew the probable consequences of being AWOL, and that his Dishonor-
able discharge “was equitable and just under existing standards of Naval law and discipline.” 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 21, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  application  should  be  denied  because  it  is  untimely  since  the 
applicant clearly knew the character of his discharge in 1946.  The JAG stated that even if the 
applicant did not know about the BCMR in 1946,3 he presumably knew about it in 2003 through 
his wife’s correspondence with their congressman.  The JAG stated that the applicant has pro-
vided “no rationale for his approximately 60+ year delay” and “has not provided a compelling 
reason based on the merits as to why the Board should waive the statute of limitations.” 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
from the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC).  The PSC stated that although the appli-
cation is not timely, it “should be considered particularly because the Coast Guard advised [the 
applicant] to apply to the BCMR if he felt he had suffered an injustice.” 
                                                 
2 During World War II, the Coast Guard functioned under the auspices of the Navy, pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3, 
until December 31, 1945.  On January 1, 1946, the Coast Guard reverted to the Department of the Treasury and 
operated under its own rules.  Executive Order No. 9666, December 28, 1945. 
3 The BCMRs were authorized on August 2, 1946. See Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 601, ch. 
753, § 207, 60 Stat. 812, 837 (current version at 10 U.S.C. § 1552). The BCMR of the Coast Guard first convened 
on  August  21,  1947.    See  Decision,  BCMR  Docket  No.  1  (upgrading  1934  Dishonorable  discharge  to  General 
discharge for a veteran who had been AWOL for 6 months because he had 9 years of service with 4 prior Honorable 
discharges  and  because  his  medical  records  showed  that  he  was  suffering  from  “neurasthenia,  a  disease  of  the 
nervous system, which causes a man to lose his perspective in determining the relative weight of his actions.”). 

 
The PSC argued that the applicant’s request should be denied, however, because the Dis-
honorable discharge was just given his extensive periods of absence.  The PSC noted that the 
Dishonorable discharge was the only punishment the applicant received for the second of his two 
long, unauthorized absences.  The PSC stated that the applicant’s diagnosed personality disorder 
does not alleviate his responsibility for his actions; that his Dishonorable discharge was not in 
error; and that it “is not shocking that someone  who absented themselves for a period of 291 
days would receive a Dishonorable discharge.” 
 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 22, 2009, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the applicant 

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

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article 459 of the Personnel Instructions in effect in 1946 provided that “[u]pon separa-
tion from the Coast Guard for any reason other than death, an enlisted man shall be entitled to 
receive  a  discharge,  the  character  of  which  shall  be  determined  by  the  reason  for  discharge 
and/or the character of service rendered during his period of enlistment.”  Under Article 4592, 
members could receive an Honorable discharge if  

 

 

 

(a) they had a  final average proficiency in rating mark of “not less than 2.75” and a final 

average conduct mark of at least 3.0 [out of 4.0]; 

(b) they were “[n]ever convicted by general Coast Guard court or more than once by a sum-

mary Coast Guard court, or more than twice by a Coast Guard deck court”; and 

(c) they  were  being  discharged  for  one  of  the  following  reasons:  expiration  of  enlistment, 
convenience of the government, minority, hardship, or physical or mental disability not 
the result of own misconduct. 
 
Members being discharged for the reasons listed in paragraph (c) above could receive a 
discharge “Under Honorable Conditions,” which is now known as a General discharge, if their 
marks did not meet the minimums required for an Honorable discharge or if they had been con-
victed once by a General Court Martial, twice or more by a Summary Court-Martial, or at least 
three  times  by  a  deck  court.    Members  could  also  receive  an  administrative  Undesirable  dis-
charge for misconduct or unfitness, which was defined to include homosexuals, shirkers, alco-
holics, and repeat petty offenders.  Members could receive a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable dis-
charge under Article 4592 if they were “[d]ischarged in accordance with the approved sentence 
of a general or summary Coast Guard court, as mitigated.” 
 
 
Under Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice today, the maximum punish-
ment for a member’s unauthorized absence from his unit for more than 30 days is a Dishonorable 
discharge following confinement for one year and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. 
 

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.4  The applicant received his Dishonorable discharge on 
May 24, 1946, and sought an upgrade from the Board of Review, Discharges and Dismissals on 
November 12, 1946.  Thus, the application was untimely by about 59 years.   

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
6. 

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   

5. 

The applicant provided no reason for or explanation of his long delay in seeking 
the  requested  relief.    However,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  before  the 
BCMRs were created by Congress on August 2, 1946.  The record indicates, however, that the 
applicant learned of the BCMR six years ago through congressional correspondence. 
 

The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his Dishonorable discharge to Honor-
able.  He received his Dishonorable discharge as the sentence of a summary court-martial (SCM) 
in 1946.  The record shows that although the applicant had been declared a deserter during his 
unauthorized  nine-month  absence,  he  pled  guilty  to  the  lesser  offense  of  being  “absent  over 
leave” (AOL)6—i.e., not returning to duty after leave—and the Dishonorable discharge was his 
only punishment for this offense.  This Board does not have the authority to overturn a convic-
tion by court-martial, but it may grant clemency on the sentence of a court-martial.7 

The applicant argued that his Dishonorable discharge was erroneous and unjust 
because he only went AWOL because of a mental injury he incurred when he fell and injured his 
back on a ship.  He alleged that it was when he was hospitalized for these injuries that he went 
AWOL.  However, his military records clearly contradict his claims.  While his military record 
contains many medical records, there is no record of any injury aboard a ship or of any hospitali-
zation for such an injury.  Instead, his records show the following:   
                                                 
4 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).   
5 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). 
6 The difference between a  simple absence offense (AWOL or  AOL) and desertion is  that desertion requires the 
member to have had, at least once during the period of absence, the intention of staying absent permanently.  10 
U.S.C. §§ 885, 886.  The length of the absence is considered probative of whether the member ever intended to stay 
away permanently. MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2008), page IV-11. The voluntariness of the 
return—i.e.,  whether  the  member  surrendered  himself  or  was  apprehended—is  also  considered  probative.  Id.  An 
unauthorized absence is a “lesser included offense” under desertion in the UCMJ.  Id. at IV-12. 
7 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f)(2). 

•  Because of numerous disciplinary infractions, the applicant was transferred off the USS 
PETTIT  to  the  COTP  in  Charleston,  SC,  in  November  1943,  after  serving  just  two 
months aboard the ship, at his first duty station. 

•  On  December  2,  1943,  the  applicant  went  AWOL  from  the  COTP  by  forging  leave 
papers  or  a  liberty  pass.    Even  after  being  apprehended  by  the  Naval  Shore  Patrol  in 
Washington, DC, on December 3, 1943, he did not return to duty and so was declared a 
deserter 30 days later.  He did not surrender until April 27, 1944, about four months later.  
•  The applicant was tried at an SCM for this first AWOL period and sentenced to forfeiture 
of $20 in pay per month for five months, to perform 20 hours of extra police duty, and to 
be restricted to the limits of the COTP for two months. 

•  On January 27, 1945, the applicant failed to return from liberty and was therefore AOL.  
He was again declared a deserter and did not surrender until November 13, 1945, more 
than nine months later. 

•  The applicant was hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation on December 13, 1945, because 
of his frequent disciplinary infractions. During the evaluation, the applicant admitted that 
his long absences were due to his inability to take orders and to adapt to military life, just 
as he had quit the CCC after just three weeks because he felt “pushed around.” 

•  The applicant was not diagnosed with any mental disease, injury, or disability, but with a 
personality disorder,8 and he was found to be mentally responsible for his misconduct.  A 
psychiatrist recommended against confinement. 

•  Pleading guilty at SCM to having been AOL for more than nine months, the applicant 

was sentenced to a Dishonorable discharge with no confinement. 
 
In light of these records, which are presumptively correct,9 the Board is not persuaded 

that the applicant’s allegations about the cause of his unauthorized absence are accurate. 

 

 
7. 

In  1945,  during  the  applicant’s  second  long  unauthorized  absence,  the  Coast 
Guard was still operating as a part of the Navy, but when the applicant was tried and sentenced 
in 1946, the Coast Guard had returned to the Treasury Department.10  Under Article 39 of Coast 
Guard Courts and Boards, 1935, crimes committed by Coast Guard members under the Navy in 
1945 could be prosecuted and punished by the Coast Guard under the Treasury in 1946, but the 
punishment could “not exceed that to which the offender was liable at the time of the commis-
sion of his offense.”11  A note dated April 18, 1946, in the applicant’s record indicates that his 
                                                 
8 A “personality disorder” is “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the 
expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, 
is  stable  over  time,  and  leads  to  distress  or  impairment.”    American  Psychiatric  Association,  DIAGNOSTIC  AND 
STATISTICAL  MANUAL  OF  MENTAL  DISORDERS,  FOURTH  EDITION,  TEXT  REVISION  (2000)  (DSM-IV-TR),  p.  685.  
Types of personality disorders include paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, 
avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive.  Id. 
9 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
10  Executive  Order  No.  9666,  December  28,  1945  (returning  the  Coast  Guard  to  the  Treasury  Department  as  of 
January 1, 1946). 
11 U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, U.S. COAST GUARD, COAST GUARD COURTS AND BOARDS, 1935, Chap. II, Art. 39 
(G.P.O., 1935): 

Whenever, in time of war, the Coast Guard operates as a part of the Navy in accordance with law, 
the  personnel  of  that  service  shall  be  subject  to  the  laws  prescribed  for  the  government  of  the 

sentence—the Dishonorable discharge—fell within the punishment allowed by law for absence 
offenses  but  was  more  severe  than  what  the  Navy  was  awarding  for  most  absence  offenses.  
However, the record of trial is not before the Board, and it is possible that the applicant’s guilty 
plea on the AOL charge and the Dishonorable discharge without confinement were part of a plea 
bargain, since he clearly could have been charged with desertion.   

 
8. 

 
9. 

Under the Articles for the Government of the United States Navy, which (along 
with  the  Articles  of  War  for  the  Army)  preceded  the  1948  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ), the punishment for being “absent from his station or duty  without leave or  after his 
leave has expired” was “[s]uch punishment as a court-martial may adjudge.”12  Under Article 21 
of Coast Guard Courts and Boards, 1935, an SCM could impose the following as punishment:  

 
Dishonorable discharge; forfeiture of not to exceed two months’ pay; imprisonment on land for a 
period not to exceed one year; confinement aboard ship not to exceed one month; confinement in 
single irons, on bread and  water, or on diminished rations, not exceeding thirty days, but a full 
ration shall in all cases be given at least every third day; confinement in single irons; reduction to 
next inferior rating; deprivation of liberty for a period not to exceed three  months; extra duties 
…The proceedings, findings, and sentences of Coast Guard courts shall be subject to review by 
the Secretary of the Treasury, as the convening authority … 
 
The record shows that on May 14, 1946, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury reviewed 
and approved the applicant’s Dishonorable discharge in accordance with this requirement.  The 
Board finds no evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error with regard to the applicant’s 
Dishonorable discharge. 

Although  the  applicant  was  technically  a  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve 
from February 12, 1943, to May 24, 1946, he was AWOL, AOL, in the brig, or under psychiatric 
observation  for  almost  half  of  that  time,  and  he  apparently  committed  so  many  disciplinary 
infractions  that  the  commands  of  both  the  USS  PETTIT  and  the  COTP  found  him  to  be  an 
administrative and disciplinary burden.  The psychiatrist found that the applicant was not suffer-
ing from any mental disability and was responsible for his misconduct.  In light of the applicant’s 
two long unauthorized absences during war time and the laws then in effect, the Board is not per-

                                                                                                                                                             

Navy:    Provided,  That  in  the  initiation,  prosecution,  and  completion  of  disciplinary  action, 
including remission and mitigation of punishments for any offense committed by any officer or 
enlisted man of the Coast Guard, the jurisdiction shall depend upon and be in accordance with the 
laws and regulations of the department having jurisdiction of the person of such offender at the 
various stages of such action:  Provided further, That any punishment imposed and executed in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not  exceed  that  to  which  the  offender  was 
liable at the time of the commission of his offense (U.S.C., title 14, sec. 3). 

12 U.S. NAVY, ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY, 1930, Arts. 8 (G.P.O., 1932).  Under 
Articles 4 and 18, “[t]he punishment of death, or such other punishment as a court martial may adjudge, may be 
inflicted on any person in the naval service—[who] … in time of war, deserts,” and the deserter also “forfeited his 
rights of citizenship.”  

suaded  that  his  Dishonorable  discharge  was  erroneous  or  unjust.13    In  this  regard,  the  Board 
notes that some servicemembers received Dishonorable discharges for much shorter absences.14 

The applicant argued that his discharge should be upgraded in the interest of jus-
tice because he has suffered the burden of it for more than 60 years while being a good citizen, 
husband, and father.  Aside from a letter from his wife, he submitted nothing to show that he has 
been  a  “model  citizen”  since  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    Moreover,  with  respect  to 
upgrading  discharges,  the  delegate  of  the  Secretary  informed  the  Board  on  July  7,  1976,  by 
memorandum that it “should not upgrade a discharge unless it is convinced, after having consid-
ered all the evidence … that in light of today’s standards the discharge was disproportionately 
severe vis-à-vis the  conduct in response to which it was imposed.”15  Under today’s Uniform 
Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, the maximum punishment allowed 
for a member who is absent without leave for more than 30 days is (a) Dishonorable discharge; 
(b) forfeiture of all pay and allowances; and (c) confinement for one year.  Also, under Article 
12.B.21. of the current Personnel Manual, it is possible that a member today who had, like the 
applicant,  been AOL for more than nine months after previously having been AWOL for about 
four months, might have requested and been awarded an administrative Other Than Honorable 
(OTH) discharge to avoid trial by court-martial and a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct discharge.  
OTH discharges did not exist during World War II, however, and in light of his two long unau-
thorized absences during war time, the Board is not persuaded that his Dishonorable discharge 
was disproportionately severe in light of today’s standards. 

The Board does not, however, construe the delegate’s guidance as prohibiting it 
from exercising clemency in court-martial cases under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), even if the discharge 
was neither disproportionately severe compared to the misconduct, nor clearly inconsistent with 
today’s Coast Guard standards.  Such a construction would be inconsistent with the very nature 
of “clemency,” which means “mercy or leniency.”16   Clemency does not require that a sentence 
have been unjust or overly harsh; on the contrary, it can be (and often is) forgiveness of punish-
ment that was otherwise appropriate.  An analysis under the 1976 guidance17 primarily considers 
whether the past discharge was unjust at the time or would be unjust if applied to a similarly 
situated member today; a clemency analysis considers whether it is appropriate today to forgive 
the past offense that led to the punishment and to mitigate the punishment accordingly. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

 

                                                 
13 According to Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577, and 
Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976), purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” 
is “treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of justice.” 
14  See,  e.g.,  BCMR  Dockets  No.  2  (desertion,  apprehended  after  2  days),  6  (AWOL  6  days),  27  (desertion, 
surrendered after 18 days), 37 (desertion, forged liberty pass, apprehended after 6 days), 48 (desertion, surrendered 
after 181 days), 72 (AWOL 14 days), 73 (desertion, apprehended after 26 days), 78 (desertion, apprehended after 
103  days),  82  (desertion,  surrendered  after  112  days),  87  (desertion,  apprehended  after  131  days),  95  (desertion, 
apprehended after 41 days), 117 (desertion surrendered after 145 days), 120 (AWOL 174 days), 163 (AWOL 81 
days), 174 (AOL 38 days), 211 (desertion, surrendered after 84 days), 246 (AWOL 23 days), 260 (AOL 11 days), 
413 (AOL 23 days). 
15 Memorandum of the General Counsel to J. Warner Mills, et al., Board for Correction of Military Records (July 8, 
1976). 
16 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 288 (9th ed., 2009) 
17 Memorandum of the General Counsel to J. Warner Mills, et al., Board for Correction of Military Records (July 8, 
1976). 

12. 

This  Board  has  sometimes  granted  clemency  by  upgrading  Dishonorable  dis-
charges to Bad Conduct discharges or even General discharges under honorable conditions based 
upon such factors as the applicants being teenagers at the time of their offenses or having limited 
education;18 having committed comparatively short absence offenses;19 having performed long, 
arduous  sea  duty  in  combat  or  having  served  honorably  during  prior  enlistments;20  having 
compelling  reasons  for  their  unauthorized  absences;21  being  mentally  ill;22  having  conducted 
themselves well in post-discharge civilian or military life;23 and having endured the punitive dis-
charge for a very long time.24  More recently, Boards have considered the fact that during World 
War II, members being tried at SCMs were subject to abbreviated procedures and were not enti-
tled to representation by an attorney.25 

In this case, the applicant was not a teenager, as he was inducted at age 20; his 
offenses were very long absence offenses; he performed little sea duty and has no other, honor-
able military service; he was found to be responsible for his conduct despite his personality dis-
order; and aside from his own wife’s letter, there is no evidence to show that he has spent the 
intervening 63 years as a “model citizen.”  The only factors favoring clemency that are known to 
the Board at this time are the extremely long time that the applicant has suffered the burden of 
the Dishonorable discharge and the fact that his crimes did not involve violence.  There is insuf-
ficient evidence in the record regarding the applicant’s post-discharge conduct—such as docu-
mentation of how he has made his living since 1946 and whether he has committed any more 
crimes—for the Board to conclude that clemency is warranted.  Given the paucity of evidence in 
the record concerning how the applicant has lived his life since 1946, the Board is not persuaded 
that clemency is justified in this case. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the 
untimeliness  of  the  application  and  that  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  because  his 
claim that his Dishonorable discharge was erroneous and unjust cannot prevail and because there 
are insufficient grounds on which the Board could grant clemency. 

The  application  of  former  S1c  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

 
13. 

 
14. 

 
 

 
 
 

                                                 
18 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 78, 89, 125, and 210. 
19 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2, 6, 27, 72, 73, and 246. 
20 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 65, 66, 73, 78, 82, 89, 83, 91, 174, 260, and 268.  
21 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 78, 91, 117, and 174. 
22 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 1, 120, 126, 158, and 222. 
23 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 5, 77, 87, 115, 192, and 459   
24 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 2, 27, 72, 89, 130, 174, and 210. 
25 See, e.g., BCMR Docket Nos. 322-91 and 2005-107. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger