DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2012-126 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

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  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on May 1, 2012, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c), with the assistance of D. Hale. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  18,  2013,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by changing it to show that 
he did not receive a hardship discharge.  He stated that his DD Form 214 shows that he received 
a  hardship  discharge  but  alleged  that  that  he  never  requested  a  hardship  discharge  nor  did  he 
deserve to be discharged.  The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 28, 1954, and was 
discharged on December 4, 1961.   
 

The applicant alleged that the discharge was racially motivated and that he was given the 
hardship discharge “without explanation.”  He argued that the racial divide that existed in 1961 
prevented  him  from  advancing  in  his  Coast  Guard  career,  and  alleged  that  he  was  discharged 
because he had made “one too many” requests to be advanced.   

 
Regarding  the  lengthy  delay  in  submitting  his  application,  the  applicant  stated  that  he 
discovered  the  alleged  errors  in  his  record  on  December  4,  1961,  and  argued  that  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness because he has been trying for more than 50 years to 
have the hardship discharge removed from his record. 

 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  28,  1954.    On  August  1,  1956,  he 
submitted a request to his Command for a transfer so he could be closer to a sick family member.  

BACKGROUND 

 

 

 

The request received two positive endorsements from his Command and was forwarded to Coast 
Guard Headquarters (CGHQ) for final approval, but there is nothing in the record documenting 
the  response  from  CGHQ.    On August  23,  1961,  the  applicant  submitted  another  request  for  a 
transfer because of “an urgent family problem which necessitates my presence…”    His request 
stated that he was trying “in every way possible to circumvent a hardship with the least bother to 
the Coast Guard.”  The request received positive Command endorsement but the 3rd Coast Guard 
District Personnel Chief forwarded the request to the Commandant as disapproved, because the 
applicant was “ineligible for inter-district rotation.”  The applicant was also instructed that “if his 
request  is  to  be  considered  on  a  hardship  basis,  it  has  not  been  properly  documented  under 
current instructions.” 

 
On October 6, 1961, the applicant submitted another application to the Commandant for a 
hardship transfer to the Baltimore area.   In the letter he cited mounting domestic problems and 
that his pay was insufficient to properly care for his family.  The final sentence of the applicant’s 
letter states “[I]f the above request is disapproved, it is further requested that I be considered for 
a hardship discharge.”  

 
On  October  6,  1961,  the  applicant’s  Commanding  Officer  (CO)  submitted  a  first 
endorsement to the applicant’s request but stated that the information contained in the applicant’s 
letter  does  not  “adequately  justify  either  a  hardship  transfer  or  discharge.”   The  CO  noted  that 
inadequate planning had caused the applicant’s financial problems even though several  officers 
from the applicant’s cutter had attempted to solve the problem.  The CO, however, concurred that 
“a transfer to an area with a lower cost of living and permission for outside employment would 
be a probable solution to the alleged hardship.” 

 
On October 25, 1961, the applicant’s transfer request was reviewed by the Commandant 
and the subsequent memorandum was issued to the Commander, 3rd Coast Guard District.  The 
Commandant stated that a panel of officers at Headquarters had reviewed the applicant’s request 
and  concluded  that  it  did  not  meet  the  requirements  for  a  hardship  transfer,  but  recommended 
that  he  be  given  a  “hardship  separation  if  he  so  desires.”    The  memo  stated  that  provided  the 
applicant  is  recommended  for  reenlistment  and  no  disciplinary  action  is  pending,  he  could  be 
transferred to the Coast Guard Reserve and released to inactive duty to complete a total of eight 
year’s service in accordance with Section 4(d)(3) of the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act, as amended.    

 
The  Commandant’s  memo  also  stated  that  if  the  applicant  is  not  recommended  for 
reenlistment,  then  he  should  be  discharged  by  reason  of  “HARDSHIP,  ARISING  SINCE 
ENLISTMENT”, pursuant to Article 12-B-7 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, and item 11c 
of DD Form 214 shall indicate Code 227. 

 
 
The  record  shows  that  the  applicant  was  discharged  to  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  on 
December  4,  1961.    His  DD  Form  214,  which  he  signed,  shows  that  he  received  an  honorable 
discharge and that his reason for discharge was “Hardship – (Code 227)” pursuant to Article 12-
B-7  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    His  rate  at  the  time  of  discharge  was 
commissaryman, second class (CS2).    

 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 3, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted 
the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Ser-
vice Center (PSC).  The PSC pointed out that the application is untimely since the applicant was 
discharged in  1961 and he did  not  provide a reason for his  delay in  seeking a correction to  his 
record.    The  PSC  argued  that  the  Board  should  deny  relief  because  in  his  October  6,  1961, 
request to the Commandant, the applicant specifically requested a hardship discharge in the event 
that his request for a hardship transfer was denied.  PSC stated that a panel of officers concluded 
that  the  applicant’s  request  did  not  meet  the  requirements  for  a  hardship  transfer  and 
subsequently  disapproved  the  request.    However,  the  PSC  stated  that  the  panel  also  concluded 
that the applicant’s hardship was permanent in nature and thus authorized a hardship separation if 
the  applicant  wanted  one.    PSC  stated  that  “it  would  appear  more  likely  than  not  that  the 
applicant decided to accept the offer of a hardship separation.”  

 
 The  PSC  stated  that  the  1961  policies  regarding  hardship  discharge  are  no  longer 
available  for  reference.    However,  it  noted  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  actions  in  response  to  the 
applicant’s requests for hardship transfer or discharge “closely align with current service policy” 
as  set  forth  in  the  current  Military  Separations  Manual,  and  it  can  “be  inferred  that  the  Coast 
Guard followed the policy in place at the time of his discharge.”    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  23,  2012,  the  Board  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 

 
 
applicant for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Article  12-B-7-c-3  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (1961)  provides  that  the 
Commandant may direct a hardship discharge or release from active duty when the dependency 
or hardship is not of a temporary nature, and the conditions have arisen or been aggravated since 
entry into the Service.  
 

Article 1.D.2.c. of the current Coast Guard Military Separations Manual provides that the 
Commander (PSC) may direct the discharge of a member when an undue or genuine dependency 
exists,  is  not  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  the  conditions  have  arisen  or  been  aggravated 
excessively  since  the  member  entered  the  Service.    Examples  include  situations  in  which  the 
member’s family is undergoing hardship more severe than normal, and the hardship is long-term 
or permanent.   
 

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 submission and applicable law: 
 

 

 

1. 

2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 
The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant  to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.51,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case 
without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.   
 

3. 

The  application  was  not  timely.    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  discovered,  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    The  applicant  was 
discharged  in  1961,  and  his  application  to  the  Board  states  that  he  discovered  the  error  on 
December  4,  1961.    Therefore,  he  knew  of  the  alleged  error  in  his  record  in  1961  and  his 
application was submitted approximately 48 years beyond the statute of limitations.    

 
4.  

The applicant asserted that it is in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness 
because he has been trying for more than 50 years to have the hardship discharge removed from 
his  record.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  explanation  for  his  delay  is  not  compelling 
because he failed to show that anything prevented him from discovering and seeking correction 
of the alleged error or injustice more promptly. 

  
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.”  Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   
 

6. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant is not likely 
to  prevail  on  his  claim.    He  has  not  demonstrated  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or 
injustice in discharging him because of a hardship.  Contrary to his allegation, the record shows 
that the applicant requested a hardship discharge.  Although the applicant made several requests 
for a hardship transfer (which were denied), in an October 6, 1961 letter he requested a hardship 
discharge if his renewed request for a hardship transfer was denied.  He stated that if his request 
for  a  hardship  transfer  was  not  approved,  “it  is  my  further  request  that  I  be  considered  for  a 
hardship  discharge.”    Subsequently,  the  Coast  Guard  approved  the  applicant’s  request  for  a 
hardship discharge and he was discharged on December 4, 1961.  There is nothing in the record 
to  indicate  that  he  opposed  the  hardship  discharge  until  April  10,  2012,  the  date  on  which  the 
BCMR received his application for correction of his record.  Nor is there evidence in the record 
to  prove  that  the  applicant  was  unable  to  advance  further  in  his  career  due  to  racial  bias.    The 
evidence is that he requested to be discharged from the Coast Guard due to hardship related to 
family issues.   The record contains no evidence that substantiates the applicant’s allegations of 
error or injustice with regard to his discharge.    

 
7. 

Accordingly, the application should be denied because it is untimely and because 

it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness.   

 

 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 Ashley A. Darbo 

 

 
 

 
 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

record is denied.