DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2012-089
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the
completed application on March 7, 2012, 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 October 25, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to ensure that he receives his educa-
tional benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB). He stated that he fully paid for the
benefits. However, he did not explain or submit anything to show why he believes he cannot
receive the benefits, which are administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). The
applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in his record on February 8, 2012.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD 214, which shows
that he enlisted on September 9, 2002, and was honorably discharged on September 7, 2006, for
“completion of required active service.” The “remarks” in block 18 include the notation:
“MGIB info: Mbrs initial service contract was for 4 years.” The applicant also submitted the
notes from his Leave and Earnings Statement, showing that he had “contributed a total of
$1,200.00 to MGIB.” In addition to the evidence he submitted, the applicant’s record contains
an MGIB enrollment form showing that he did not disenroll from MGIB when he enlisted in
2002 and so was automatically enrolled in the program.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On July 15, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case. In so doing, the JAG adopted the
findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Service
Center (PSC), which stated that the application should be considered timely but should be denied
because the applicant’s record shows that he participated in MGIB and does not contain any
administrative irregularities. PSC noted that the applicant seems to be asking the Board for his
MGIB benefits and should be told to address his request to the DVA instead, which administers
MGIB benefits. PSC stated that relief should be denied because the applicant has failed to sub-
stantiate an error or injustice in his military record.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On June 10, 2012, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard
and invited him to respond within 30 days. No response was received. However, in a telephone
call on September 21, 2012, the applicant advised the Deputy Chair that he had contacted the
DVA and was already receiving his MGIB benefits.
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 submissions, and applicable law:
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.
The applicant alleged that he discovered the alleged error in his record on February 8, 2012.
Although the applicant submitted no evidence of error or injustice, assuming arguendo that he
had discovered that he would not receive MGIB benefits in February 2012, then his application
would be timely because it was filed within three years of his discovery of the alleged error. 10
U.S.C. § 1552(b).
2.
The Coast Guard has stated that the applicant’s record is not erroneous and clearly
shows that he is entitled to MGIB benefits. The Board’s own review of his record confirms this
fact. In a telephone call on September 21, 2012, the applicant advised a BCMR staff member
that he had contacted the DVA and was already receiving MGIB benefits. Therefore, the pre-
ponderance of the evidence shows no error or injustice in the applicant’s military record with
respect to his entitlement to MGIB benefits.
3.
Accordingly, the application should be denied.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
ORDER
H. Quinton Lucie
James H. Martin
Paul B. Oman
record is denied.
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2011-243
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 20, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC). Block 18 of the DD 214 correctly includes the following comment with regard to MGIB:...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2012-121
For a member of the Coast Guard, when the Coast Guard is operating as a Service of the DHS, the term means, “the Secretary of Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the service member.” Coast Guard ALCOAST 377/09, June 26, 2009 The Coast Guard released ALCOAST 377/09 on June 26, 2009 (internet release was authorized) announcing the Department of Defense and Coast Guard policy concerning Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and the transferability of unused benefits to family members. In paragraph 1...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-124
There is no evidence that the applicant served on active duty while enrolled in the Temporary Reserve. He stated that it is in the interest of justice to excuse his untimeliness because “I just want my recorded time of service corrected—the time served should be from [August 4, 1942] changed to [December 6, 1942].” VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On September 6, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2009-187
2009-187 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct block 15 of her DD 214 dated September 21, 1990, to show that she contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). He noted that the DVA denied her application for MGIB benefits because she was discharged in 1990, and as stated on the MGIB enrollment form, MGIB benefits must be used within 10 years of a veteran’s discharge. The applicant asked the Board to extend her eligibility for...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-083
PSC noted that the records show that the applicant repeatedly admitted that he had incurred his learning disability, which was what caused him to be unfit for duty, in a motorcycle accident in 1975; that the applicant stated in his rebuttal to the medical board report that his condition had improved while on active duty; and that the FPEB found, based on ample evidence, that there had been no increase in or aggravation of the applicant’s learning disability since his enlistment. He asked...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2011-111
The PSC stated that under the Coast Guard Medical Manual, members with incapacitating motion sickness are not entitled to medical boards; instead they are administratively discharged. of the Medical Manual states that “Members that manifest chronic motion sickness, that do not respond to conventional therapy, and are unable to perform their duties as a result, will be considered for administrative separation from active duty as per the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series).” Chapter...
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-120
After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-120
After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-148
States Code. 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 2 On January 4, 2010, the Board received a DD 149 from the applicant requesting an upgrade of his discharge and reenlistment code. On January 4, 2010, the Board received a new DD 149 from the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-042
In its rating decision, the DVA noted that a 1988 Medical Board was the only Coast Guard medical record it had pertaining to the applicant. 2009-086, where the Board ruled that “Although the DVA granted the applicant a disability rating for [his condition] this Board has consistently held that a disability rating from the DVA does not by itself establish that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by finding the applicant fit for separation.” The JAG stated that in addition to the...