DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-212 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted according to 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 
completed application July 28, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the 
decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  22,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she received an honor-
able discharge, instead of a general discharge under honorable conditions, when she was sepa-
rated on June 11, 1945, because she was pregnant.  In support of her allegations, the applicant 
noted that she was married on January 14, 1945, and she submitted a copy of her under honor-
able conditions discharge certificate.  She did not explain why she waited more than sixty years 
to complain about her discharge. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

On March 20, 1943, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  She began active 
duty on May 18, 1943.  On January 14, 1945, while serving as a yeoman, second class (Y2c) at 
the 7th Naval District in Miami, the applicant married a technical sergeant in the U.S. Army Air 
Force.  On May 23, 1945, a doctor of the Public Health Service reported that a Friedman Rabbit 
Test performed on May 20, 1945, had shown that the applicant was six weeks pregnant.  

 
On June 4, 1945, the applicant was discharged from the Reserve “under honorable condi-
tions for the convenience of the Government,” having served two years, two months, and fifteen 
days in the service.  Her final average marks, on a 4.0 scale, were 4.0 in conduct, 3.52 in per-
formance in rating (PIR), and 3.24 in “ability as leader of men.”  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 18, 2009, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this case.  In so doing, 
he adopted the findings and analysis in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center 
(PSC).  The PSC noted that there is no document in the applicant’s record expressly stating that 
she was discharged because of her pregnancy.  The PSC also noted, however, that the applicant’s 
final average conduct and PIR marks met the standard for an honorable discharge published in 
Personnel Bulletin No. 4-46, which was made retroactive to April 6, 1944.  The PSC stated that 
under current standards, pregnant women are retained in the service instead of being awarded 
general discharges.  Therefore, the PSC concluded that in the interest of fairness and equity, the 
Coast Guard would not object to upgrading the applicant’s general discharge to honorable. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On January 29, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion.  

 
 
She stated that she accepted the recommendation of the Coast Guard. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

Article 583 of the 1940 Regulations for the United States Coast Guard states that “[t]he 
Commandant, without recourse to a board, may direct the discharge of an enlisted man under 
honorable conditions for the convenience of the government.”  Article 584(4) provides that hon-
orable discharges were awarded for any of five reasons:  expiration of enlistment; convenience of 
the government; hardship; minority (age); and disability not the result of own misconduct.  A 
general discharge under honorable conditions could be awarded “for the same reasons as an hon-
orable discharge and issued to individuals whose conduct and performance of duty have been 
satisfactory  but  not  sufficiently  deserving  or  meritorious  to  warrant  an  honorable  discharge.”  
However, women who were discharged because of pregnancy commonly received general dis-
charges under honorable conditions during World War II.  In 1955, the Coast Guard issued a new 
Personnel Manual, CG-207, under which women who became pregnant received honorable dis-
charges. 
 
ALCOAST (P) 101, issued on June 12, 1946, stated the following: 
 
Effective immediately [PIR] mark for honorable discharge will be [2.75] instead of [3.0].  Make 
changes in PB No. 4-46 … .  This change retroactive to 6 April 1944.  Any individual discharged 
on  or  subsequent  to  6 April  1944  with  discharge  under  honorable  conditions  …  solely  because 
[PIR] mark was below [3.0] but mark [2.75] or above may forward his certificate of discharge to 
[Headquarters] with request that he be issued an honorable discharge form … .  The matter will be 
given the widest publicity. 

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: 
 

 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

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 discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant received her discharge under honorable condi-
tions in 1945, and pregnancy has not been an authorized basis for a general discharge since 1955.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the application is untimely. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

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.”1   

The applicant long delayed her application to upgrade her discharge to honorable 
and has not explained or justified the delay.  However, a cursory review of the merits indicates 
that the applicant’s discharge under honorable conditions is unjust.  Therefore, the Board will 
excuse the untimeliness of the application and waive the statute of limitations.   

The applicant’s Coast Guard record indicates that she was discharged for the con-
venience of the Government, and her perfect conduct marks and good PIR marks met the stan-
dards for an honorable discharge under ALCOAST (P) 101.   Therefore, it appears that, but for 
her pregnancy, the applicant would have received an honorable discharge.  As there is nothing 
about  pregnancy  that  would  make  a  woman’s  military  service  “not  sufficiently  deserving  or 
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge,” in accordance with the standard applied to mem-
bers under Article 584(4) of the 1940 regulations, the Board finds that the applicant’s general 
discharge  under  honorable  conditions  constitutes  a  clear,  significant  injustice2  in  her  record, 
which should be corrected. 

 
Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s military record 
to show that she received an honorable discharge, and the Coast Guard should send her an hon-
orable discharge certificate. 
 
 

  
6. 

 

 

                                                 
1 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. 
Cir. 1995). 
2 For the purposes of the BCMRs, “‘[i]njustice’, when not also ‘error’, is treatment by the military authorities, that 
shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  
The Board has authority to determine whether an injustice exists on a “case-by-case basis.” Docket No. 2002-040 
(DOT BCMR, Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, Dec. 4, 2002).  “Indeed, ‘when a correction board fails to 
correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.’” Roth v. United 
States,  378  F.3d  1371,  1381  (Fed.  Cir.  2004)  (quoting  Yee  v.  United  States,  206  Ct.  Cl.  388,  397  (1975)).  And 
“[w]hen  a  board  does  not  act  to  redress  clear  injustice,  its  decision  is  arbitrary  and  capricious.”  Boyer  v.  United 
States, 81 Fed. Cl. 188, 194 (2008). 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction 
of  her  military  record  is  granted.   The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  her  record  to  show  that  she 
received an honorable discharge and shall send her an honorable discharge certificate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier