DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

_______________________ 
                                      
Application for Correction            
of Coast Guard Record of:                                                      
                                                                                                       BCMR Docket 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                     No.  2001-103 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
_______________________ 
 

FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  30,  2002,  is  signed  by  three  duly  appointed 

 
ULMER, Chair:  
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of  the United States Code.   It was docketed on July 3, 2001, upon the 
BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant's  complete  application  for  correction  of  his  military 
record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.  
 
 
The applicant, a former seaman recruit (SR; pay grade E-1), stated, “I was mis-
informed by the [United States Coast Guard] verbally & by documents that I had a 10 
[year]  limitation  of  [Veterans  Education  Assistance  Program  (VEAP)]  benefits  for 
education.”1    The  Board  has  interpreted  this  request  as  one  for  the  correction  of  his 
record  to  show  that  he  participated  in  the  VEAP  program  while  on  active  duty.  He 
stated that he needed documentation that he was told there “was a 10-year limitation 
on education benefits.” 
 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  October  28,  1980  and  was 
discharged on July 30, 1983.  He served a total of two years, seven months, and 14 days 
on active duty.  His DD Form 214 states in block 15 that he did not contribute to the 
VEAP program.   
 
                                                 
1   VEAP was the education program available for service members between January 1, 1977 and June 30, 
1985.   

 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on January 1, 2001.  He 
stated  that  in  the  interest  of  justice  the  Board  should  waive  the  three-year  statute  of 
limitations and consider his application because "I’m married with 2 children to support 
and I’m in school now to be re-trained in the computer industry & need Chapter 30 G.I. 
Bill benefits!” 
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On December 16, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the applicant’s request for relief be denied. He stated that no error or injustice occurred 
in this case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to 
inform him that VEAP benefits expired 10 years from the date of discharge.  He stated 
that  the  applicant  had  produced  no  evidence  that  he  ever  enrolled  in  or  made  the 
necessary  contribution  to  the  VEAP  program.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the 
applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard had a duty to provide him with VEAP 
eligibility  counseling.  He  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  no  duty  to  individually 
counsel  members  regarding  their  VEAP  educational  eligibility  or  to  document  such 
counseling.  
 
 
should be barred by the doctrine of laches.  The Chief Counsel further stated: 

The  Chief  Counsel  also  argued  that  this  claim  is  more  than  18  years  old  and 

 

 
This alleged "error" occurred over eighteen years ago and is now nearly 
impossible  to  confirm  independently  from  the  Applicant's  allegations.  
Applicant took no action to correct the alleged "error" then, and instead 
waited  over  twelve  years  to  challenge  it  before  the  BCMR.    Where  an 
applicant's  unexcused  delay  has  caused  substantial  prejudice  to  the 
government, the claim for relief is generally barred under the doctrine of 
laches.  See, e.g. Sargisson v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 539, 542 (1987). . . . 

In  the  present  case,  the  Coast Guard's ability to reconstruct the relevant 
evidence  on  this  case  has  been  severely  hampered  by  the  presumed 
destruction of key unit documents that have been destroyed or disposed 
of  per  paperwork  disposition  regulations. 
  See,  e.g.  Paperwork 
Management Manual, COMDTINST M5212.12. (Most documents may be 
destroyed  after  3  years.)    Therefore,  considering  the  substantial  delay 
between  the  "error"  and  date  of  application  in  this  case  and  that  the 
Applicant  has  the  burden  of  production  and  proof,  the  Board  should 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

dismiss Applicant's claim with prejudice.     

 

 
 
A  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC),  was  attached  as  an  enclosure  to  the  advisory  opinion.  He  stated,  “It  was 
routine  Coast  Guard  practice  to  indoctrinate  new  recruits  concerning  VEAP  benefits 
and other programs available to them during recruit training.”  He also stated that there 
was no requirement for service record entries to be made to acknowledge any type of 
counseling concerning VEAP.   
 
 
 
Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
applicant for a reply.  He did not submit a response. 
 

On November 26, 2001, a copy of the views of the Coast Guard was sent to the 

 

2.    Although  the  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  laches  should  bar  the  applicant’s 

1.  The  Board  has  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  issues  in  this  proceeding  under 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
submissions of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, 
and applicable law: 
 
 
section 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  
 
 
claim, the Board finds that the application is simply not timely.  
 
 
3.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a  military  record  must  be 
submitted within three years after the applicant discovered or should have discovered 
the alleged error or injustice.  See 33 CFR 52.22.  
 
 
4.  The Board may still consider the application on the merits, however, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so.  The interest of justice is determined by taking into 
consideration the reasons for and the length of the delay and the likelihood of success 
on the merits of the claim. See  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp 158 (D.D.C. 1992). 
 
5. Although the alleged error in this case occurred approximately 18 years ago, 
 
the applicant claimed that he did not discover it until 2001.  He should have discovered 
it at the time of his discharge in 1983, because his DD Form 214 (discharge document) 

clearly states that he did not participate in the VEAP program while on active duty.  He 
has not explained why he could not have discovered the alleged error sooner.  
 
6. Even if the Board were to find the request to be timely, it is not likely that the 
 
applicant  would  have  prevailed  on  the  merits  of  this  claim  for  which  he  bears  the 
burden of proof.  The applicant was not entitled to educational benefits since he never 
participated in the VEAP program. He has not presented any evidence showing that he 
ever attempted to enroll in the VEAP program.   
 
 
7.  Moreover, the applicant has not presented any evidence that the Coast Guard 
had a duty to advise him that VEAP benefits would expire 10 years from the date of his 
discharge.    Nor  is  the  Board  aware  of  any  regulation  or  law  that  required  VEAP 
counseling  during  the  period  the  applicant  was  on  active  duty.    There  are  no  VEAP 
counseling entries in the applicant’s military record.   
 
 
justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case.  
 
 

8.  In light of the above findings, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for the correction 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Angel Collaku 

 

 
 
James G. Parks 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
of his military record is denied.