DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-151 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  May  18,  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 February 25, 2010, 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, a former seaman who enlisted in the Coast Guard at age 15 on June 19, 
1947,  and  received  a  general  discharge  on  October  18,  1948,  asked  the  Board  to  upgrade  his 
general discharge to an honorable discharge. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that when he was discharged in 1948, he did not understand the 
difference between a general discharge under honorable conditions and an honorable discharge.  
He was told he would be eligible for veterans’ benefits.  The applicant further alleged that he did 
not discover that he had not received an honorable discharge until 1998.  He asked the Board to 
excuse the untimeliness of his application because he “would very much like to leave a clean 
record for [his] descendents.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
On June 19, 1947, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He claimed to be 17 years 
 
old with a birth date of February 5, 1930, and his father signed a consent, declaration, and oath 
agreeing to his enlistment and affirming this birth date.  The applicant’s recruiter signed a decla-
ration stating that he had been shown the applicant’s birth certificate and seen that his date of 
birth was February 5, 1930.  Following recruit training, the applicant was assigned to the York 
Spit  Light  Station,  a  lighthouse  at  the  mouth  of  the  York  River  on  the  Virginia  shore  of  the 
Chesapeake Bay.  He advanced to seaman, second class (S1c) and then to seaman (E-3). 

 

On July 3, 1948, the applicant submitted a written request to be discharged.  He stated 
that he had realized that he was too young to be of any value to the service.  He asked to be dis-
charged so that he could finish school (his education had stopped in the 7th grade) and help his 
father on the family farm.  The applicant further stated that his physical defects were embarrass-
ing and rendered him “an undesirable in any unit of the service.” 

 
Also on July 3, 1948, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of York Spit Light Station sent the 
District  Commander  a  recommendation  that  the  applicant  be  discharged.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant “is a minor and has become dissatisfied [and] consequently is of little or no value to the 
service.”  The OIC also reported that the applicant had an “uncontrollable bladder.” 
 
 
On July 12, 1948, the District Commander forwarded the recommendation for discharge 
to the Commandant.  He stated that the applicant had admitted to having falsified the birth cer-
tificate he showed to his recruiter by changing his year of birth from 1932 to 1930.  He noted that 
pursuant to Personnel Circular No. 19-48, members who fraudulently enlist with parental consent 
by misstating their age should be discharged for misconduct by reason of fraudulent enlistment 
rather than by reason of minority.  He attached to the discharge recommendation a certified copy 
of the applicant’s birth certificate with a date of birth of February 5, 1932. 
 
 
On July 15, 1948, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be evaluated by a Board of 
Medical Survey to determine his fitness for duty.  From August 4 to 19, 1948, the applicant was 
hospitalized for evaluation of his enuresis.1  On September 14, 1948, the Board of Medical Sur-
vey reported that the applicant admitted having been troubled by enuresis all of his life and that 
the problem occurred most frequently when he could hear the sound of water.  His enuresis had 
thus increased since he joined the Coast Guard, and the OIC of the York Spit Light Station had 
reported  that  the  condition  was  chronic.    The  medical  examination  had  revealed  no  physical 
abnormality that would cause enuresis.  However, the Board of Medical Survey noted that the 
applicant had enlisted at age 15 and was still just 16 years old.  The applicant was diagnosed 
with enuresis existing prior to enlistment, and the Board of Medical Survey recommended that 
he be discharged for unsuitability because of his chronic enuresis. 
 
 
On October 11, 1948, the Commandant informed the District Commander that in light of 
the report of the Board of Medical Survey, the applicant would receive a general discharge for 
unsuitability.   
 
On October 18, 1948, the applicant received a general discharge under honorable condi-
 
tions by reason of unsuitability.  He was issued an honorable service button but not an honorable 
discharge button and was counseled about his “rights and benefits as a veteran.”  The applicant’s 
final average marks, on a 4.0 scale, were 2.83 for proficiency and 4.0 for conduct.  The applicant 
signed his Notice of Separation and a Termination of Service form, both of which clearly state 
that he was receiving a  “GENERAL DISCHARGE.”  The discharge certificate he was issued 
was an honorable discharge certificate with the words “GENERAL DISCHARGE” typed above 
the calligraphic “Honorable Discharge” on the form.  

                                                 
1 Enuresis is a medical term for bed-wetting. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board waive the statute of limitations and upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honor-
able.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum submitted by 
the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (CGPSC).  
 
CGPSC stated that under Article 12.B.14.i. of the current Personnel Manual, a minor dis-
 
charged due to his minority may receive either an honorable or a general discharge pursuant to 
Article 12.B.2.f. of the Personnel Manual.  CGPSC stated that under Article 12.B.2.f., the appli-
cant  would  likely  have  received  an  honorable  discharge  because  of  his  marks  and  conduct.  
Therefore, CGPSC argued, because under current policy the applicant would have received an 
honorable discharge, his general discharge should be upgraded “in the interest of equity and fair-
ness.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 15, 2009, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard and stated 
that  he  is  grateful  that  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  and  that  he 
hopes the Board will accept that recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 12.B.14.i. of the current Personnel Manual states that a “member discharged for 
minority  shall  be  given  an  honorable  or  general  discharge,  as  appropriate,  under  Article 
12.B.2.f.”  Article 12.B.14.g. states that “[t]he enlistment of a minor who enlisted with false rep-
resentation of age or without proper consent will not in itself be considered a fraudulent enlist-
ment.” 

 
Article 12.B.2.f. states that a commanding officer or higher authority can effect a mem-
ber’s separation with a an honorable discharge if the member is discharged for one of the reasons 
listed, and the list includes “Minority (age).”  Prior to June 30, 1983, to receive an honorable dis-
charge, “the member must have made a minimum final average of 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in 
conduct.”    In  addition,  the  separation  authority  should  consider  whether  the  member  showed 
“[p]roper  military  behavior  and  proficient  performance  of  duty  with  due  consideration  for  the 
member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.” 
 

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. 

1. 
 

 
3. 

 
5. 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the date the appli-
cant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error in his record.2  The appli-
cant  signed  and  received  his  Notice  of  Separation  and  Termination  of  Service  form,  both  of 
which clearly show that he was receiving a general discharge on October 18, 1948.  Therefore, 
he knew or should have known that he had received a general rather than an honorable discharge 
in 1948.  His application was 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 (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.”3  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.”4   
 
 
The applicant did not explain or justify his long delay in requesting an honorable 
discharge.  However, because a cursory review of the merits reveals that the Coast Guard has 
recommended that the Board grant relief, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to 
excuse the untimeliness of the application and consider the case on its merits. 

4. 

The record shows that in 1947 the applicant enlisted at age 15 by misrepresenting 
his age with the help of his family.  Upon his discharge in 1948 at age 16, he had advanced to 
seaman (E-3), had received perfect conduct marks of 4.0, and had a final average proficiency in 
rating mark of 2.83.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that under current regu-
lations in Article 12.B. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant would receive an honorable dis-
charge.  
 
6. 

Although  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  was  correctly  issued  in  accordance 
with the policy in effect in 1948, the Board finds that his discharge should be upgraded to honor-
able in the interest of justice.  The delegate of the Secretary has instructed the Board with respect 
to upgrading discharges that it “should not upgrade a discharge unless it is convinced, after hav-
ing considered all the evidence … that in light of today’s standards the discharge was dispropor-
tionately severe vis-à-vis the conduct in response to which it was imposed.”5  In light of today’s 
standards, the applicant’s general discharge was disproportionately severe vis-à-vis his conduct 
when enlisting and serving in the Coast Guard. 

 
7. 

 
 

 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
3 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
4 Id. at 164-65; see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 
5 Memorandum of the General Counsel to J. Warner Mills, et al., Board for Correction of Military Records (July 8, 
1976). 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  SN  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted.   

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he received an honorable discharge 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 
 

 
 

and shall send him an honorable discharge certificate.