DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-131 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

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 case on may 20, 2008, 
upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final 
decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).         
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 12, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by directing the Coast Guard to pay 
him severance pay due to his separation by reason of physical disability due to schizophrenia on 
November 26, 1980.  The applicant stated that he is owed the pay because his DD Form 214 
noted that he was separated by physical disability with severance pay.    
 
 
The  Commandant  approved  the  findings  of  Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PED)  and 
directed that the applicant be separated by reason of physical disability incident to service.  The 
Commandant noted that severance pay would be in accordance with volume 2 of the Comptroller 
Manual (COMPTMAN).    The Commandant noted at that time that the applicant had 3 months 
and  0  days  of  active  service  as  of  October  21,  1980.    At  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  actual 
discharge on November 26, 1980 he had 4 months and 5 days of active service.   
 
 
The applicant noted that he did not discover the alleged error until May 16, 2008.  He 
further stated that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his application to set the 
record straight even if it has been more than 3 years since discovery of the error. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  14,  2008,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Office  of  the 
Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard in which he recommended that the  Board 

deny relief.  In recommending denial of the application, the JAG noted that the application was 
not timely and further stated the following: 
 

The applicant served a total of 4 months and 5 days . . . before being discharged 
as a result of a medical board approved by the Commandant . . . The applicant 
was  recommended  for  separation  with  severance  pay  due  to  a  combined  20% 
disability rating  . . . The applicant’s discharge and severance pay were directed 
by the Commandant . . . in accordance with VOL2 COMPTMAN[1] . . . Because 
the applicant had less than six months of active duty service, he was not then and 
is not now entitled to disability severance pay . . .  

 
 
The JAG noted Article 10.G.2. of the Coast Guard Pay Manual, which states, “A member 
who  has  completed  6  months  or  more  but  less  than  20  years  of  active  service  at  the  time 
separated is entitled to disability separation pay.” The JAG stated that this was the policy at the 
time  of  the  applicant’s  discharge  and  that  it  is  the  current  policy.    The  JAG  stated  that  the 
applicant’s DD Form 214 should have indicated disability severance payment in the amount of 
$0.   
 
 
The JAG attached a memorandum to the advisory opinion from the Commander, Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC noted 10 USC § 1212(a)(A) states that upon the 
separation from the armed force under 10 USC § 1203 or 106, a member is entitled to disability 
severance  pay  computed  by  multiplying  his  years  of  service,  not  more  than  12,  by  twice  the 
amount of monthly basic pay.    Subsection (b) of this law further explains that “a part of a year 
of active service that is six months or more is counted as a whole year, and a part of a year that is 
less than six months is disregarded.”  CGPC stated that the computation of severance pay in the 
applicant’s case amounted to zero, since fractions of a year less than six months are not included 
in the computation.   
 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 16, 2008, a copy of the Coast Guard views was sent to the applicant for a 

 
 
response.   The BCMR did not receive a response. 
 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  The application was not timely.  
 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United 

                                                 
1   The advisory opinion noted that COMPTMAN is not available and the information relative to disability severance 
pay is contained in the Coast Guard Pay Manual.  The advisory opinion noted that based upon the Coast Guard’s 
research there has been no change in policy that would have entitled the applicant to severance pay at the time of his 
discharge.   

 
2. To be timely, an application for correction must be filed within three years of the date 
the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was,  or  should  have  been,  discovered.    See  10  U.S.C.  §  1552, 
33 CFR § 52.22.   The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error or injustice in April 
2008.    However,  the  applicant  should  have  been  aware  at  the  time  of  his  discharge  from  the 
Coast Guard or shortly thereafter that he had not received severance pay.  The notation about 
severance  pay  was  on  the  DD  Form  214  that  the  applicant  received  upon  his  discharge.  
Therefore, his application was submitted approximately 25 years past the statute of limitations.   

 

3.    The  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  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  in  assessing  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 ahs 
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).   

 
4.  The applicant did not offer a persuasive why it is in the interest of justice to excuse his 
delay in bringing his claim.  Although, the applicant was discharged due to a mental illness, he 
offered no evidence that the illness adversely affected his ability to seek an earlier correction to 
his record.  
 

5. With respect to the merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely to prevail.     

When  the  calculation  for  severance  pay  under  10  USC  1212  is  applied  to  the  applicant’s 
situation,  the  amount  of  such  pay  would  be  zero.    The  result  of  this  calculation  is  the  same 
whether done in 1980 or today.  Accordingly, the applicant was not entitled to severance pay 
because he did not have 6 months or more of active service.    
 

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

because of its lack of merit.   
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER  

 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall