DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-243 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  August  21,  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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  16,  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 July 25, 1944, because she was pregnant.  In support of her allegations, the applicant 
noted that she was married on January 9, 1944.  She did not explain why she waited more than 
sixty years to complain about her discharge. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

On January 9, 1943, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  She began active 
duty on February 17, 1943.  On January 9, 1944, while serving as a yeoman, first class (Y1c), the 
applicant married a chief gunner’s mate on active duty in the Coast Guard.  On July 14, 1944, a 
doctor of the Public Health Service reported that a Friedman Rabbit Test performed on July 11, 
1944, had shown that the applicant was pregnant.  

 
On  July  25,  1944,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Reserve  “under  honorable 
conditions for the convenience of the Government,” having performed 1 year, 6 months, and 17 
days of active duty.  Her final average marks, on a 4.0 scale, were 4.0 in conduct, 3.4 in perform-
ance in rating (PIR), and 3.1 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 also noted 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 15, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion.  

 
 
She stated that she agrees with 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: 
 

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

1. 

 
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. 

 

 

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 1944, and pregnancy has not been an authorized basis for a general discharge since 1955.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the application is untimely. 

 
 

                                                 
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 

 

    

 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray