DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-115 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 case was 
docketed on May 19, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  24,  2000,  is  signed  by  the three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
The applicant, a  xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the 
Board to correct his records to make him eligible for educational benefits under 
the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).1  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that when he contacted the Department of Veterans’ 
Affairs (DVA) regarding educational benefits in March 1999, he was told that he 
was  ineligible  because  he  did  not  elect  to  participate  in  VEAP  when  he  first 
enlisted.  The applicant alleged that he does not remember signing any document 
electing not to participate in VEAP.   
 
 
Furthermore, the applicant alleged, the DVA advised him that he should 
have been counseled in 1985 and 1987 concerning his right to transfer the funds 
                                                 
1    38 U.S.C. § 3201.  Money deposited by a servicemember in a VEAP account is matched two to one by the 
government. 

in his VEAP account to a new account providing benefits under the Montgomery 
G.I. Bill (MGIB).2  The applicant alleged that he never received this counseling. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 1, 19xx, for a term of 
four  years.    On  September  12,  198x,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years, 
through September 30, 198x. 
 
 
On May 1, 198x, the applicant signed an administrative (page 7) entry in 
his record, which stated the following:  “I have been advised about the Veterans’ 
Educational  Assistance  Program  (VEAP).    I  do  not  desire  to  participate  in 
VEAP.” 
 
 
On October 1, 1985, the applicant was discharged and immediately reen-
listed for a term of three years.  He was issued a DD 214 which indicates in block 
15 that he did not contribute to VEAP during his first enlistment.   
 
 
On September 29, 1988, the applicant was discharged and issued a DD 214 
that indicates in block 15 that he did not contribute to VEAP.  He immediately 
reenlisted and has served continuously on active duty since that time. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 6, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended 

 
that the applicant’s request for relief be denied. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the doctrine of laches should bar the appli-
cant’s claim because the passage of time has prejudiced the Coast Guard’s ability 
to  respond  since  the  claim  is  based  on  events  that  occurred  more  than  twelve 
years ago.  The twelve-year delay in the applicant’s claim, he alleged, has caused 
substantial prejudice to the government because it is impossible to confirm his 
allegations.    See,  e.g.,  Sargisson  v.  United  States,  12  Cl.  Ct.  539,  542  (1987).    The 
Chief Counsel further argued that 10 U.S.C. § 1552 authorizes the Board to cor-
rect a record only when it is “necessary to correct an error or remove an injus-
tice.”  In this case, he stated, the Board should exercise its discretion not to grant 
relief based on the doctrine of laches. 
 
 
Moreover,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  the  Coast  Guard  had  no  duty  to 
counsel members individually regarding their VEAP eligibility.  He alleged that 
the  only  time  members  had  to  be  informed  of  their  VEAP  eligibility  was  in 
November 1986, when ALCOAST 056/86 was issued.  The ALCOAST required 
                                                 
2    38 U.S.C. § 3001.  Funds deposited in an MGIB account are matched approximately twelve to one.   

that every member of each unit sign a roster and indicate whether they wanted 
to  participate  in  VEAP.    VEAP  participation  was  determined  by  those  rosters, 
which,  he  alleged,  no  longer  exist  because,  under  the  Paperwork  Management 
Manual (COMDTINST M5212.12), most unit documents may be destroyed after 
three  years.    However,  he  argued,  under  the  presumption  of  regularity,  the 
Board  must  assume  that  the  applicant’s  command  properly  implemented 
ALCOAST 056/86 with regard to his VEAP participation. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel further argued that the applicant could have enrolled 
in VEAP anytime between his enlistment on October 1, 19xx, and June 30, 1985, 
when  VEAP  expired,  or  during  the  open  enrollment  period  from  October  28, 
1986,  to  March  31,  1987.    The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that,  by  signing  a  page  7 
entry on May 1, 198x, the applicant acknowledged that he was informed of his 
eligibility to enroll in VEAP but decided not to enroll.3 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel argued, any relief the Board could grant would 
be  ineffective  in  this  case  because  the  Coast  Guard  does  not  administer  VEAP 
accounts.  VEAP accounts are administered by the DVA.  See 38 U.S.C. § 501(a) 
and 38 C.F.R. § 21.5001. 
 
 
 
 
On January 7, 2000, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the Chief 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The 
applicant did not respond. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

(1)    to  provide  educational  assistance  to  those  men  and  women  who  enter  the 
Armed  Forces  after  December  31,  1976,  and  before  July  1,  1985,  (2)  to  assist 
young men and women in obtaining an education they might not otherwise be 
able  to  afford,  and  (3)  to  promote  and  assist  the  all  volunteer  program  of  the 
United  States  by  attracting  qualified  men  and  women  to  serve  in  the  Armed 
Forces.   

 
 
The statute also states that “[e]ach person entering military service on or 
after January 1, 1977, and before July 1, 1985, shall have the right to enroll in the 
educational  benefits  program  provided  by  this  chapter  …  at  any  time  during 
such person’s service on active duty before July 1, 1985.”  38 U.S.C. § 3221. 
 

                                                 
3 The Chief Counsel stated that the page 7 entry in the applicant’s record was a proactive step taken by his 
command and was not required by any regulations. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 3201, the purpose of VEAP is 

 
 

 
On November 14, 1986, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 056/86, con-
cerning VEAP.  The ALCOAST announced a new enrollment period for members 
who first enlisted between January 1, 1977, and June 30, 1985, but who failed to 
enroll in VEAP during that time.  The new enrollment period lasted until March 
31, 1987.  The ALCOAST included the following instructions: 
 

3. 
Personnel Reporting Units will be provided with a list of eligible person-
nel.  This listing will be forwarded to the units.  Eligible members shall sign the 
roster indicating their intention to participate or not.  Personnel absent from the 
unit shall be so noted with their current status.  New personnel and personnel 
present  on  [temporary  active  duty]  shall  be  added  to  the  list  by  the  unit.    The 
completed list shall be forwarded by the unit to Commandant {G-PE-3}. 
 
4. 
mation is brought to the attention of all personnel. 
 

Commanding officers and officers in charge shall assure that this infor-

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

1. 

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 Chief Counsel alleged that the Board cannot grant relief in this 
case because VEAP accounts are administered by the DVA.  However, the Coast 
Guard clearly has duties with respect to VEAP and retains records concerning its 
members’  participation  in  the  program.    Under  10  U.S.C.  § 1552,  the  Board  is 
authorized  to  correct  errors  and  remove  injustices  in  Coast  Guard  records.  
Therefore, the Board has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard’s records concerning 
the applicant’s participation in VEAP.   

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

Under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C. 
§ 525, statutes of limitations are tolled during periods in which members serve 
on active duty.  See Sherengos v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 749, 750 (1977); Bickford 
v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 321, 323-24 (1981).  Because the applicant in this case 
continues to serve on active duty, the Board’s three-year statute of limitations has 
not begun to run on his claim.   

The Chief Counsel urged the Board to deny relief pursuant to the 
doctrine of laches.  Under that doctrine, an applicant who inexcusably delays his 
application  to  the  Board  may  be  denied  relief  if  the  delay  has  prejudiced  the 
Coast Guard’s case.  See Braddock v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 463, 470 (1986). 

The record indicates that the applicant knew or should have known 
of his non-participation in VEAP on May 1, 198x, when he signed a page 7 entry 
stating that he did not wish to participate in VEAP.  The applicant also received 

discharge forms that indicated he did not contribute to VEAP on October 1, 1985, 
and September 29, 1988.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant has 
inexcusably delayed his application to the Board by more than ten years. 

The Chief Counsel alleged that the delay has prejudiced the Coast 
Guard’s case because  the unit records reflecting the applicant’s decision not to 
participate in VEAP required by ALCOAST 056/86 would have been destroyed 
after  approximately  three  years  pursuant  to  the  COMDTINST  M5212.12.    The 
Board  finds  that  the  long,  inexcusable  delay  has  prejudiced  the  Coast  Guard’s 
case because pertinent records have been lost.  Therefore, the applicant’s request 
should be denied under the doctrine of laches.   

The  Chief  Counsel  further  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  no 
duty to inform its members individually about VEAP.  However, in light of the 
statutory  purpose  of  VEAP  and  members’  statutory  right  to  participate  in  the 
program, the Board believes that the applicant had a right to be informed about 
VEAP  in  some  manner.    Congress’s  goals  in  establishing  VEAP  could  not  be 
attained if the military departments did not inform recruits and members, and 
the  right  to  participate  in  VEAP  would  be  meaningless  if  members  were  not 
properly informed.  

Information  regarding  whether  the  applicant  was  informed  of 
VEAP benefits when he first enlisted is unavailable due to the long delay.  How-
ever, the record indicates that the Coast Guard fulfilled its duty to advise him of 
VEAP on May 1, 198x, when he signed a page 7 entry confirming his decision not 
to participate in the program.  Furthermore, under ALCOAST 056/86, the appli-
cant’s command was ordered to have each member of the unit sign a roster con-
firming his or her decision.  Absent evidence to the contrary and under the pre-
sumption of regularity, the Board assumes that the applicant’s command obeyed 
this  order  and  implemented  the  ALCOAST  properly.    Therefore,  even  if  the 
applicant’s request were not to be denied under the doctrine of laches, it should 
be  denied  on  the  merits  because  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was 
informed  about  VEAP  and  intentionally  elected  not  to  participate  in  the  pro-
gram. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  there  is  any  error  or  injustice  in  his  military  records  regarding  his  lack  of 
participation in VEAP. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  under  the 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

doctrine of laches and on the merits.  
 
 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 
 

 
 

USCG, is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXXX, 

ORDER