DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-116 
 
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  3,  2011,  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 December 22, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his January 15, 1971, general discharge under 
honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.  He alleged that one day when he was restricted 
to base, he left for three hours and when he returned the chief “beat[] the crap out of me” even 
though he never struck back.  He was later told that if he refused to sign certain papers, he would 
be  court-martialed  and  given  a  dishonorable  discharge.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  believed 
what he was told because he was 18 years old and was given no legal advice. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  excuse  the 
untimeliness of his application because he is disabled by hepatitis C, cirrhosis, and degenerative 
arthritis and it is almost impossible for him to get a job. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On August 25, 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard at age 17.  Upon complet-
 
ing  recruit  training,  he  advanced  to  seaman  apprentice,  pay  grade  E-2,  and  was  assigned  to  a 
cutter stationed in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
 
In May 1970, the applicant requested a hardship discharge.  He reported that his mother, 
 
living in xxxxxxxxxx, had four younger children, including a 16 year old with medical problems, 
two  brothers  who  were  11  and  7  years  old,  and  a  4-year-old  sister.    He  stated  that  his  mother 

 

 

worked the third shift in a factory but was frequently laid off and that she received no alimony 
from  her former husbands.  Her third husband had a poor paying job,  had to  pay alimony, and 
had recently been hospitalized.  The applicant stated that he needed to leave the Coast Guard so 
that he could get a better paying job to support his family and his mother could stay home to take 
care of his siblings. 
 
 
On August 3, 1970, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation because of a “recent 
history of irritability, confusion, episodes of loss of emotional control, and some anxiety symp-
toms.”  The applicant  reported that his  stepfather was unable to  work because of a back injury 
and his mother was having difficulty supporting four other children.  He reported that he thought 
about  his  family’s  problems  constantly,  felt  frustrated  and  irritable,  and  was  getting  into  fights 
with his crewmates.  The doctor noted that the applicant had applied for a hardship discharge but 
that  his  request  had  “been  slowed  apparently  because  of  some  trouble  with  the  local  police.”  
Another  medical  note  stated  that  the  applicant  had  bought  stolen  property  but  that  the  matter 
“had  been  cleared  up.”    The  psychiatrist  found  the  applicant  fit  for  duty  but  referred  him  for 
counseling because of his preoccupation with his family’s problems. 
 
 
On September 26, 1970, the applicant’s friends left him in the emergency room of a hos-
pital with an empty bottle of Roboxin.  The doctor reported that he was uncooperative and hos-
tile and refused to give any additional information.  The doctor wrote, “probable drug overdose, 
i.e.,  LSD  bad  trip,  amphetamines.”    The  doctor  wrote  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  identified  him 
and reported that he had been “suspected of using amphetamines in the past.”  After resting for 
several days, the applicant told the doctor that he was frustrated because the Coast Guard would 
not  give  him  a  hardship  discharge,  that  his  mother  needed  his  help,  and  that  he  had  attempted 
suicide by taking pills that had been prescribed for a back injury.  The doctor discharged him as 
fit for duty but diagnosed him with a passive-aggressive personality. 
 
 
On October 19, 1970, the applicant was tried by special court-martial for an unauthorized 
absence  and  breaking  restriction  on  October  4,  1970.    He  pled  guilty  and  was  sentenced  to  21 
days of hard labor and restriction to base.  The sentence was approved on December 4, 1970, and 
the restriction was to extend from that date through December 24, 1970. 
 
 
On  November  6,  1970,  the  applicant  went  to  the  local  Public  Health  Service  hospital.  
The  only  documentation  of  this  visit  in  his  military  record  is  an  order  from  the  doctor,  who 
wrote, “NFFD [not fit for duty] from present until Tues. AM when [he] will be [transferred] to 
USPHS Staten Island for psych. eval.  Escort recommended.” 
 
 
On  November  18,  1970,  the  applicant  was  admitted  to  a  psychiatric  hospital  on  Staten 
Island for evaluation.  The applicant reported that his request for a hardship discharge had been 
denied  even  though  his  mother  needed  to  work  to  support  her  four  younger  children  but  could 
not work because two of the children were pre-school aged.  The applicant admitted that he had 
gone to the hospital feeling “panicky and as he puts it, paranoid,” but he denied having discipli-
nary problems or using illegal drugs.  The psychiatrist found the applicant to be psychiatrically 
unsuitable for military service, fit only  for light  duty, and recommended  that he be administra-
tively discharged for unsuitability because of a “primary inherent personality defect”—passive-

 

 

aggressive personality.  Following this hospitalization, on November 21, 1970, the applicant was 
transferred from the cutter to the Base. 
 
 
On December 4, the commanding officer (CO) of the cutter wrote a memorandum to the 
Base  command  about  the  applicant.    He  stated  that  the  applicant  had  requested  a  hardship  dis-
charge in May 1970 and submitted letters from his mother, grandmother, and former employer.  
However,  when  asked  for  additional  required  information,  the  applicant  had  not  provided  it.  
After a problem with  the local  police had been cleared up, the applicant  was  advised that if he 
provided the necessary additional information, the command would initiate a hardship transfer or 
discharge.    However,  no  further  information  was  received,  and  in  August  1970,  the  command 
noticed that the applicant required constant supervision.  He complained of nervousness, but was 
found psychiatrically fit for duty.  The CO noted the applicant’s drug overdose in September and 
his special court-martial in October.  The CO stated that the applicant was sent to the psychiatric 
hospital  in  November  because  on  November  6,  1970,  he  had  complained  of  having  flashbacks 
from taking LSD.  When the applicant returned to the cutter upon his release from the hospital 
and was awaiting transfer orders, he climbed the ship’s mast while carrying a guitar at 3:00 a.m. 
on November 21, 1970, and had to be talked into climbing down. 
 
On  December  17,  1970,  the  Base  CO  advised  the  applicant  had  he  was  being  recom-
 
mended for an administrative discharge due to unsuitability under Article 12-B-10 of the Person-
nel  Manual  in  accordance  with  the  psychiatrist’s  findings.    The  Base  CO  advised  him  that  he 
could  submit  a  statement  in  his  own  behalf.    The  applicant  acknowledged  the  notification  and 
noted that he did not wish to submit a statement. 
 
 
On  December  18,  1970,  the  applicant  was  punished  at  mast  for  having  “introduced  an 
unauthorized female visitor into barracks” the day before.  He was awarded a forfeiture of $50 in 
pay per month for two months and 14 days of restriction to base with extra duties beginning as of 
December 25, 1970. 
 
On December 23, 1970,  a chief  warrant  officer  (CWO) reported that  the  day before,  he 
 
had been advised that the applicant had told someone that he had a date that night even though he 
was restricted to Base.  The applicant had reported for muster at 8:00 p.m. on December 22nd, but 
at 10:00 p.m. he was not in the barracks.  The CWO “piped him to lay to Base Operations with 
negative results.”  Two petty officers searched all of the barracks, cars, boats, docks, and grounds 
on the Base but could not find the applicant.  Therefore, the CWO reported the applicant as being 
absent without leave (AWOL) at 11:30 p.m.  At 2:30 a.m., a petty officer reported that the appli-
cant was on the dock with a belt in his hand.  The CWO found the applicant in front of the bar-
racks, on his  knees with his  head on the ground, “saying over and over,  ‘that’s alright  I’ll find 
my  way  home.’”    When  the  CWO  tried  to  get  the  applicant  to  stand  up,  the  applicant  began 
swinging at him.  When the CWO tried to put handcuffs on him, the applicant “jumped up and 
ran out the gate yelling, ‘God help me I’ll find my way home.’”  The applicant ran between some 
houses  and  two  petty  officers  tried  to  find  him  to  no  avail,  so  the  CWO  contacted  the  shore 
patrol.    A  petty  officer  on  rounds  at  the  base  found  a  suitcase  full  of  the  applicant’s  clothes 
beside  a  government  vehicle.    At  about  3:50  a.m.,  the  applicant  returned  to  his  room,  and  the 
CWO set a watch so the applicant could not leave again. 
 

 

 

On December 23, 1970, the Base CO received a summary of the applicant’s medical his-
 
tory  from  the  local  Public  Health  Service  hospital.    The  Chief  Medical  Officer  recounted  the 
applicant’s consultations and noted that on November 6, 1970, the applicant had gone to the hos-
pital  and  admitted  that  he  was  using  marijuana  and  LSD  and  that  he  suffered  from  flashbacks 
from the LSD, which frightened him.  He asked when the flashbacks would stop and whether he 
would be permanently damaged.  However, the Chief Medical Officer noted, when admitted to 
the psychiatric hospital on Staten Island, the applicant had denied using illegal drugs.  The Chief 
Medical Officer concurred with the psychiatrist that separation from the Coast Guard would be 
in the best interest of both the applicant and the Service. 
 
 
On  December  23,  1970,  the  Base  CO  sent  the  Commandant  a  recommendation  that  the 
applicant be discharged for unsuitability.  The CO noted that the applicant had been found psy-
chiatrically unfit for anything but light duty and that, while serving restriction for a prior offense, 
he  had  become  intoxicated  and  taken  an  intoxicated  female  into  the  barracks.    The  CO  also 
described the incidents on December 22 and 23, 1970, which he stated had alarmed some civilian 
neighbors. 
 
 
On January 14, 1971, the applicant was taken to mast for an unauthorized absence from 
December 22 to 23, 1970, and for attempting to strike the CWO and escaping from lawful cus-
tody on December 23, 1970.  He was awarded correctional custody for 30 days and reduction in 
pay grade to E-1. 
 
 
Also on January 14, 1971, the Base CO notified the applicant that he was being recom-
mended for a discharge for “unfitness,” under Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual.  The CO 
advised him that he had a right to make a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant acknowl-
edged the notification and noted that he did not wish to submit a statement.  The CO forwarded 
this  notification  to  the  Commandant  and  noted  that  the  “provisions  of  Article  12-B-12(B)(3) 
[regarding discharges for unfitness due to illegal drug use] had been explained to the applicant.  
He wrote that the applicant wanted to be released from active duty as soon as possible and “will-
ingly  accepted  the  recommendation  by  this  command  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unfitness  for 
drug abuse causes.” 
 
 
On January 15, 1971, the Commandant ordered the Base to discharge the applicant with a 
general  discharge  by  reason  of  unfitness  under  Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The 
applicant was discharged the same day.  He received a general discharge for unfitness in accor-
dance with Article 12-B-12 of the Personnel Manual.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 
21 days of active duty, and his final average marks (on a 4.0 scale) were 2.28 for proficiency in 
rating and 2.75 for conduct. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 2, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast  Guard recommended 
that the Board deny relief in this case.  He stated that the application should be denied because of 
its  untimeliness  and  because  the  applicant  “has  not  provided  any  relevant  documentation  or 
rationale to support his position.” 
 

 

 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by 
 
the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    The  PSC  stated  that  there  is  no  evidence  supporting  the 
applicant’s claim that the CWO assaulted him and that the evidence “paints a very different pic-
ture.”  The PSC noted that there is also no evidence that the applicant was coerced into accepting 
the  proposed  discharge  under  duress.    The  PSC  noted  that  the  record  shows  that  the  applicant 
wanted to be discharged as soon as possible and accepted the CO’s recommendation.  The PSC 
stated that under  current  regulations, the applicant  would likely  have received the same sort of 
discharge, although “unfitness” is now called “unsuitability.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 9, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

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

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article 12-B-12(b)(3) of the Personnel Manual authorized the administrative discharge of 
members  for  “unfitness”  due  to  illegal  drug  use.    If  the  member’s  CO  was  recommending  an 
honorable  or  a  general  discharge,  the  member  was  entitled  to  notification  of  the  proposed  dis-
charge and an opportunity to submit a statement.  
 
 
Under  Article  12-B-3(a)  of  the  manual,  a  member  discharged  for  “unfitness”  could 
receive an honorable discharge if he had demonstrated “proper military behavior and proficient 
performance of duty” and had earned “a minimum final average of 2.7 in proficiency and 3.0 in 
conduct.”  Under Article 12-B-3(b), a member could receive a general discharge for unfitness if 
the member’s final average marks were lower than 2.7 for proficiency or 3.0 for conduct. 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

1. 
 
2. 

Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  an  application  should  be  filed  within  three  years  of 
the applicant’s discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  The Board finds that the application 
was  untimely  because  it  was  submitted  approximately  40  years  after  the  applicant  received  his 
general discharge for unfitness. 

 
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 excusing 
the untimeliness of an application, 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.”  Id. at 164-65; see Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

 

 

 
4. 

The applicant alleged that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the 
untimeliness of his application because he is disabled by hepatitis C, cirrhosis, and degenerative 
arthritis, and it is almost impossible for him to get a job.  The Board finds the applicant’s argu-
ment unpersuasive because it does not explain or justify his long delay in seeking correction of 
the alleged error or injustice. 

 
5. 

The Board’s cursory review of the merits of the case shows that the applicant was 
properly discharged for unfitness due to illegal drug use in accordance with Article 12-B-12 of 
the Personnel Manual.  His military records support the reason for and character of his discharge, 
and he was afforded the due process then provided for members awarded a general discharge for 
unfitness.    His  final  average  marks—2.28  for  proficiency  and  2.75  for  conduct—mandated  a 
general discharge under Article 12-B-3 of the Personnel Manual.  These military records are pre-
sumptively correct.  33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  The Board finds insufficient grounds in the record for 
upgrading his discharge as if he had earned an honorable discharge.  His claim cannot prevail on 
the merits. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because it is untimely and 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
6. 

lacks merit. 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of  former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 

 

 
Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
Barbara Walthers