DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2010-002 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  October  8,  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  July  15,  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, who received a general discharge “under honorable conditions” as an E-1 
on August 8, 1980, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he received an honorable 
discharge as an E-2.  The applicant alleged that prior to his discharge, he had a heart-to-heart talk 
with a chief warrant officer (CWO) and told him that he wanted to leave the Service.  The appli-
cant  alleged  that  he  had  a  significant  reason  for  wanting  to  leave  the  Service  but  declined  to 
reveal that reason to the Board in his initial application. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  CWO  told  him  that  he  would  receive  an  honorable  dis-
charge  as  an  E-2  and  that  he  would  be  able  to  reenlist  later.    However,  he  was  lied  to  in  this 
regard and did not receive the discharge he was promised.  The applicant alleged that he did not 
actually  have  to  leave  the  military  and  was  not  “kicked  out”  but  voluntarily  agreed  to  be  dis-
charged based upon the CWO’s false promises.  Moreover, the applicant alleged, he was told that 
there was nothing wrong with his discharge and that he  would not have accepted the discharge 
had he known that it would prevent him from being hired by government agencies. 

 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error and injustice in his record on August 1, 
2009, when he realized that he was being denied government jobs that he was well qualified for 
because of 30-year-old information on his DD 214.  He alleged that when he applied for a job at 
a medical facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), his general discharge was held 
against him. 

 

 

 
Regarding the circumstances of his enlistment and discharge, the applicant noted that he 
was  just  17  years  old  when  he  enlisted  and  was  “going  through  growing  pains  of  my  own 
experimenting  with  alcohol  and  drugs.”    He  joined  the  Coast  Guard  to  escape  a  very  troubled 
family  life  but  his  recruiter  should  not  have  enlisted  him  because  he  was  not  ready  for  the 
responsibility.  After enlisting, he enjoyed going on search and rescue missions but “could tell at 
that time something was lacking in my character.  I did not fit in.”  

 
The applicant apologized for having given his superiors “a hard time” and making them 
dislike him and for being a “smart aleck kid, who needed to grow up.  I just felt picked on, and 
did  not  know  how  to  deal  with  it.    I  regret  now  I  did  not  stay  on,  as  I  was  not  being  fired  or 
kicked out.”  The applicant stated that he was not discharged for misconduct and that there were 
no grounds for awarding him a general discharge. 

 
The applicant stated that after his discharge it took him almost ten years to distance him-
self from his wayward lifestyle, to quit drugs and alcohol, and to stabilize his life.  He argued, 
however, that his discharge should be upgraded because he is no longer a troubled 17 year old.  
He has become a mature citizen who has owned his own construction company for eleven years.  
He employs others and thus benefits his country.   

 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  certificate  showing  that  he  has 
received  a  high  school  equivalency  diploma  and  several  letters  of  reference,  including  letters 
from five clients for whom he has built or renovated homes and who highly praised his honesty, 
integrity, and the quality of his construction; one letter from a carpenter who is a subcontractor 
for the applicant’s company and who stated that the applicant has strict policies against cutting 
corners  and  “maintains  a  very  high  sense  of  quality”;  and  one  from  a  regional  sales  manager, 
who stated that he had observed the applicant’s construction of a home in his neighborhood and 
that  the  applicant  was  very  conscientious  and  built  a  high-quality  house.    The  applicant  also 
submitted a copy of his credit report, which is excellent, and an Oklahoma State criminal back-
ground  check  showing  that  he  paid  for  a  search  of  their  records  in  October  2009  and  that  no 
criminal record was found for him. 

 
The applicant also asked, if the Board upgrades his discharge, to have it upgraded in his 
legal  name.    He  submitted  evidence  showing  that  he  enlisted  and  served  under  a  name  that  he 
had used since age 8, when his mother had him adopt a new first name and his new stepfather’s 
last name, although he was not  legally  adopted by his stepfather.  He stated that he reverted to 
using the name on his birth certificate after he was discharged from the Coast Guard. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
On  June  26,  1979,  at  age  17,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  recruiter 
noted that the name on the applicant’s birth certificate was different from the name on all of his 
other official documents but that the different names were for “one and the same person.”   

 
On September 19, 1979, the applicant graduated from boot camp and advanced from E-1 
to E-2.  He received a conduct mark of 4.0 (out of 4.0) at the end of boot camp.  He was assigned 

 

 

to Group Xxxxx, xxxxxxxx.  On a regular, semiannual evaluation dated December 31, 1979, the 
applicant received a mark of 2.7 for proficiency and performance and a mark of 4.0 for conduct. 

 
On January 28, 1980, a chief petty officer at Group Xxxxx prepared a Page 7, which the 
applicant  signed, stating  that he had observed the applicant’s performance for four months and 
that it was still  unsatisfactory even though he had “interviewed” the applicant  five times  about 
his  performance.    He  noted  that  there  had  been  “some  improvement”  but  that  the  applicant 
tended to wander off the job and showed little initiative or pride in his work.  He also noted that 
the applicant had to be told things two or three times before he would do something. 

 
On  February  20,  1980,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  mast  and  received  non-judicial 
punishment  (NJP)  for  having  been  absent  without  leave  (AWOL)  for  nine  hours  and  for  dis-
obeying a lawful order.  He was restricted to base with extra duties for seven days and forfeited 
$50 per month for one month. Pursuant to the mast, the applicant received an evaluation with a 
conduct mark of 3.0. 

 
On February 27, 1980, the applicant was punished at mast and received NJP for wrong-
fully appropriating a musical tape of another E-2, Mr. H.  His punishment was reduction in rate 
from E-2 to E-1 and forfeiture of $50 per month for two months.  

 
On March 5, 1980, a psychiatrist reported that he had examined the applicant, who admit-
ted to a juvenile criminal history progressing from shoplifting to auto theft, to using LSD on five 
or six occasions (“most recently a week and a half ago”), and to using marijuana “on a more or 
less daily basis.”  The applicant told the psychiatrist that he had joined the Coast Guard “to keep 
[his] ass out of jail” because the sheriff had told him that if he enlisted, the charges of auto theft 
would be dropped.  The psychiatrist reported that the applicant showed  
 

no evidence of psychotic thought disorder, no paranoia, no hallucinations or delusional thinking.  
He does not have schizophrenic thinking disorder, manic or depressive illnesses; no suicidal idea-
tion  is  apparent.    He  does  not  have  dangerous  impulsivity  nor  are  there  any  specific  neurotic 
symptoms. 
 
[The applicant] relates that he has come to grief in the Coast Guard because of his behavior.  He 
believes that he has been misunderstood in that his entering another coastguardman’s room to bor-
row some items has been seen by the authorities as theft.  He does admit the room was locked, but 
has ready rationalization for his behavior. 
 
After considerable discussion with [the applicant], it appears that he does not have a psychotic or 
neurotic mental disorder, but does have antisocial personality characteristics. 
 
The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be administratively discharged or given 

more guidance and supervision to see if he could adjust to military life. 

 
On  March  12,  1980,  the  Group  Commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was  recom-
mending that the applicant receive an honorable discharge for unsuitability because of his nega-
tive  attitude,  apathy,  lack  of  discipline,  emotional  instability,  and  inability  to  adapt  to  military 
life.  He noted that what type of discharge the applicant would receive would be determined by 

 

 

the  Commandant.    He  advised  the  applicant  of  his  right  to  disagree  with  the  discharge  and  to 
submit a rebuttal statement. 

 
On  March  13,  1980,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receiving  notification  of  his  proposed 
discharge for unsuitability.  He waived his right to submit a statement and noted that he did not 
object to being discharged. 

 
The  applicant’s  acknowledgement  and  waiver  were  forwarded  with  the  Group  Com-
mander’s recommendation for discharge to the Commandant.  In his recommendation, the Group 
Commander stated that the applicant had been a marginal, apathetic performer despite numerous 
counseling  sessions  and  that  he  lacked  discipline  and  was  emotionally  unstable.    The  Group 
Commander  noted  that  the  applicant  had  been  awarded  NJP  twice  and  “appears  to  be  non-
responsive to traditional disciplinary methods.”  In addition, he stated that the applicant had been 
referred to  a local  psychiatrist  for consultation, who “revealed no specific mental  disorder” but 
confirmed suspicions of drug abuse. 

 
On April 24, 1980, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of Station Xxxxx informed the Comman-
dant that the applicant had been arrested by the St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office in Xxxxx that 
morning  for  extradition  to  Madison,  Wisconsin,  on  a  charge  of  “delivery  of  a  controlled  sub-
stance, contents THC” (a component of marijuana).   

 
On May 1, 1980, the Group Commander reported to the Commandant that the applicant 
was in jail, had been scheduled for an extradition hearing due to a felony arrest warrant, and had 
not been able to “make bail” set at $5,000. 

 
On  May  7,  1980,  the  applicant’s  command  reported  that  the  applicant’s  mother  had 
agreed to post bond for him.  The applicant waived extradition and was sent to Wisconsin.  On 
May  11,  1980,  the  applicant  was  released  on  bail.    However,  he  did  not  return  to  his  unit  and 
remained AWOL until July 23, 1980. 

 
On May 23, 1980, the District Commander forwarded the recommendation for the appli-
cant’s  discharge  to  the  Commandant  but  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  by 
reason of personality disorder due to his “antisocial personality characteristics.”  He stated that 
his recommendation was substantiated by the applicant’s behavioral patterns. 

 
On June 5, 1980, the Commandant instructed the applicant’s command to advise him of 
the proposed discharge for unsuitability, of his right to submit a statement objecting to the pro-
posed discharge, and of his right to consult counsel if a general discharge was indicated by the 
applicant’s marks. 

 
On June 9, 1980, while the applicant was still AWOL, the Group Commander sent a let-
ter addressed to him at his home address of record advising him that the Commandant had issued 
the  order  for  his  discharge.    The  letter  states  that  because  his  average  proficiency  mark  was 
below 2.7, he would receive a general discharge and was therefore entitled to consult an attorney.  
He  was  advised  of  how  to  telephone  the  District  legal  office.    The  Group  Commander  also 

 

 

advised him that he could submit a letter on his own behalf and that if he did not want to do so, 
he should indicate that. 

 
On  June  30,  1980,  on  his  regular,  semiannual  performance  evaluation,  the  applicant 

received a proficiency mark of 1.9 and a conduct mark of 2.4. 

 
On July 10, 1980, the Group command advised the Commandant that they were unable to 

discharge the applicant because he was still AWOL. 

 
On  July  23,  1980,  the  applicant  returned  to  his  unit  from  being  AWOL.    On  July  24, 
1980, he was punished at mast and awarded NJP of a $100 forfeiture.  Pursuant to the mast, he 
received a performance evaluation with a conduct mark of 2.0 

 
On July 25, 1980, the Group Commander notified the Commandant that the applicant had 
“entered  a  voluntary  plea  of  guilty  to  the  lesser  charge  of  possession  (vice  delivery)  of  a  con-
trolled  substance”  in  Madison,  Wisconsin,  on  July  23,  1980,  and  had  surrendered  himself  to 
Coast Guard jurisdiction later that night. 

 
On  August  4,  1980,  the  applicant  signed  an  acknowledgement  of  having  received  the 
Group  Commander’s  letter  dated  June  9,  1980,  regarding  his  pending  general  discharge.    The 
applicant also acknowledged that he had a right to consult counsel but indicated that he did not 
wish to do so and did not wish to submit a statement objecting to the recommended discharge. 

 
On  August  8,  1980,  the  applicant  received  a  general  discharge  under  honorable  condi-
tions for “Unsuitability” with an RE-4 reenlistment code (ineligible to reenlist).  His final aver-
age marks were 2.30 for proficiency and 3.08 for conduct. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On March 12, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  In so doing, he adopted the facts and analysis 
provided  in  an  enclosed  memorandum  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center 
(PSC).   
 
 
The PSC stated that the application was not timely and should be denied for untimeliness.  
The PSC also argued that the applicant’s case lacks merit because under the Personnel Manual, 
general discharges were normally awarded to members with final average marks of less than 2.7 
for proficiency or less than 3.0 for conduct.  The PSC stated that the applicant’s low final aver-
age  proficiency  mark  warranted  a  general  discharge.    The  PSC  further  noted  that  after  it  was 
determined that the applicant’s marks warranted a general discharge, he was offered the opportu-
nity  to  consult  an  attorney,  which  he  declined.    The  PSC  argued  that  the  applicant’s  discharge 
was  carried  out  in  accordance  with  applicable  policies  and  procedures  at  the  time  and  that  the 
applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice. 
  

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 1, 2009, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 
Guard.  The applicant admitted that he had a poor attitude and performance in the Coast Guard 
but asked the Board to upgrade his discharge based on his post-service conduct if at all possible. 

 
The applicant alleged that he was never told that he might receive something other than 
an honorable discharge.   He  alleged  that there is  no letter in  his  record expressly advising him 
that he might receive a lesser discharge. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  originally  requested  discharge  because  after  he  was 
assigned  to  Station  Xxxxx  in  November  1979,  an  older  member,  Mr.  H,  befriended  him.    One 
night  when  they  were  going  out  for  a  drink  in  Mr.  H’s  pickup  truck,  Mr.  H  began  singing  the 
lyrics to  a song, “boys, boys, it’s a beautiful thing, boys,”  and making suggestive comments to 
him.  Mr. H then scooted over on the seat, put his hand on the applicant’s thigh near his crotch, 
and tried to kiss him.  The applicant pushed him away, told him to stop, and asked him if he was 
gay.  When Mr. H admitted it, the applicant said, “I’m not.”  Mr. H tried to touch him again, and 
the applicant removed his hand and told him to drive him back to the base.  Mr. H asked him not 
to tell.  When the applicant asked him, “Why shouldn’t I,” Mr. H said, “Don’t tell.  I have friends 
here.”  Later that week, he was invited to a boat to play cards and drink.  There, he was confront-
ed  by  four  older  and  larger  Coast  Guard  members,  who  cornered  him.   One  of  them  started  to 
punch him.  He began to cry.  They told him that he better not say anything about being “hazed” 
and that he should leave Mr. H alone.  The applicant stated that he never reported these events 
because he thought it would do no good and that he would be labeled a snitch.  The next day, Mr. 
H took an empty baggie with traces of marijuana in it to the OIC and told him that he had found 
it  under  the  applicant’s  pillow.    The  applicant  denied  the  baggie  was  his  but  was  reprimanded 
and  received  a  suspended  punishment.    Therefore,  he  asked,  “Can  you  blame  me  for  my  ‘atti-
tude’ and not  speaking up?”  He stated that the baggie in  fact  belonged to  Mr. H, and it was a 
matter of “the pot calling the kettle black.” 

 
The applicant alleged that when he told the CWO that he wanted to leave the Service, he 
was advised that he could get away from Xxxxx by going to radioman’s school instead, but he 
refused.  He alleged that he would not have been invited to go to radioman’s school if his per-
formance marks were not good enough for an honorable discharge.  Moreover, he stated, if his 
marks were not good enough for an honorable discharge, then he should not have been told that 
he would get an honorable discharge.  In addition, he argued that his marks were “close enough” 
for an honorable discharge.   

 
The applicant stated, with regard to his arrest, that it was not related to his service in the 
Coast Guard, that the offense had occurred prior to his enlistment when he was still a juvenile, 
and that it was a misdemeanor, not a felony.  He stated, “I myself never did anything wrong to 
the Coast Guard, or to anybody.”  He also alleged that he never received any counseling and that 
the Coast Guard took advantage of his youth and innocence, demoralized him, and then let him 
“fall through the cracks.”  He alleged that the Coast Guard acted cowardly, showing “less con-
cern than they would in rescuing a civilian from troubled waters.  I was abandoned, and hung out 
to dry.”  The applicant denied having a personality disorder, which he alleged would have pre-

 

 

cluded  his  ability  to  succeed  in  business.    He  also  argued  that  he  received  a  general  discharge 
because he had asked to be discharged and the Coast Guard did not want to look bad. 

 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard is refusing to admit that it made any mistakes 
in his case and wants to cover up even the suggestion that it made a slight error.  He stated that 
he  has  become  a  hard-working,  sober  taxpayer  and  an  upright  general  contractor,  and  asked, 
“Why  couldn’t  the  Coast  Guard  see  that  about  me  then.”    With  regard  to  the  Coast  Guard’s 
allegation that his application was not timely, he asked, “is there a statute of limitation in doing 
the ‘right thing to  your fellow man’?”  The applicant  also alleged that a judge would not allow 
the documents in his record, many of which were not signed by him or addressed to him, to be 
admitted into evidence in a court of law. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 12-B-2 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1980 (CG-207) stated that a member 
could receive an honorable discharge for unsuitability if the member’s final average marks were 
at least 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in conduct.  Members being discharged for unsuitability whose 
marks did not meet those standards could receive general discharges. 
 

Article 12-B-16(b) of the manual authorized the Commandant to direct the discharge of 
an enlisted member for “unsuitability,” due to, inter alia, apathy, defective attitude, or personal-
ity  disorders  as  “determined  by  medical  authority.”    Article  12-B-16(h)  stated  that  when  a 
psychiatric condition  was a consideration  in  the discharge for unsuitability, the member should 
be examined by a psychiatrist. 
 
Under Article 12-B-16(d), prior to recommending a member for such a discharge, the CO 
 
was required to notify the member of the proposed discharge; afford him the opportunity to sub-
mit a statement on his own behalf; and, if a General discharge was contemplated, allow him to 
consult with an attorney. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).   

1. 
 
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.  Although the applicant alleged that he discovered the error in 
his  record  in  2009,  the Board  finds  that  he  has  known  that  he  received  a  general  discharge  for 
unsuitability since 1980.  Therefore, his application is untimely.  

 
3. 

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 

 
4. 

The applicant long delayed seeking correction of his general discharge and did not 

provide a compelling explanation for his delay.  
 

5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  tricked  into  accepting  a  general  discharge 
because he had been told he would receive an honorable discharge.   The Board’s review of the 
record shows that he was originally recommended for an honorable discharge but was advised on 
March 12, 1980, that what type of discharge he received would be determined by the Comman-
dant.    Moreover,  the  applicant  subsequently  went  AWOL.    After  he  went  AWOL,  on  June  9, 
1980,  the  Group  Commander  sent  him  a  letter  notifying  him  that  he  would  receive  a  general 
discharge and so was entitled to consult an attorney.  On August 4, 1980, the applicant acknowl-
edged receipt of the June 9, 1980, letter and waived his right to consult an attorney and to submit 
a statement objecting to his discharge.  The applicant received poor marks each of the three times 
he  was  punished  at  mast  and  on  his  semiannual  evaluations.    His  final  average  marks  clearly 
warranted a general discharge under Article 12-B-2 of the Personnel Manual. 

 
6. 

 
The applicant  argued that  his  discharge should be upgraded because of his  post-
service conduct, and he submitted several letters of reference, a credit report, and a police inves-
tigation  indicating  that  he  has  long  been  an  upstanding  citizen.    In  1976,  however,  the  Board 
received the following instruction regarding veterans’ discharges from the delegate of the Secre-
tary, which he stated was to  be “binding on the Board until  specifically reversed by one of my 
successors”:2   

 
[T]he  board  should  not  upgrade  discharges  solely  on  the  basis  of  post-service  conduct.  …  This 
emphatically does not mean that the justness of a discharge must be judged by the criteria preva-
lent at the time it was rendered.  The Board is entirely free to take into account changes in commu-
nity  mores,  civilian  as  well  as  military,  since  the  time  of  discharge  was  rendered,  and  upgrade  a 
discharge  if  it  is  judged  to  be  unduly  severe  in  light  of  contemporary  standards  …  [T]he  Board 
should not upgrade a discharge unless it is convinced, after having considered 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. 
 

In light of the applicant’s repeated misconduct while on active duty, the Board is not persuaded 
that his general discharge was disproportionately severe.   
 

7. 

The  applicant  received  all  due  process  with  regard  to  his  general  discharge  for 
unsuitability.  In accordance with Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual, he was evaluated by 
a psychiatrist on March 5, 1980, notified of the reason for his pending discharge and the type of 
discharge he would receive (general) on August 4, 1980, and informed of his right to consult an 
attorney and to submit a statement objecting to his discharge, although he opted not to exercise 

                                                 
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  Memorandum  of  the  General  Counsel,  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation,  to  J.  Warner  Mills,  et  al.,  Board  for 
Correction of Military Records (July 8, 1976) (on file with the Board). 

 

 

those rights.   The applicant’s allegations of abuse are not supported by evidence and are insuf-
ficient  to  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity3  and  to  prove  that  his  general  discharge  for 
unsuitability is erroneous or unjust.4 

 
8. 

 
Accordingly, the application should be denied for untimeliness.  The  Board will 
not waive the statute of limitations in this case because the applicant’s claims cannot prevail on 
the merits. 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   
4 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that shocks 
the sense of justice.”  Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989),  rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 
(citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)). 

 

 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

his military record is denied. 
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

   
 
 Adrian Sevier