DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-067 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
Author: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
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 February 12, 2004, 
upon 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. 
 

This final decision, dated October 28, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD Form 214 to show that he was 
awarded the Grenada Campaign Ribbon.   He further requested that his DD Form 214 
be corrected to show that he served in Grenada, West Indies. 
 

The applicant submitted a copy of a Certificate of Achievement that he received 
for his service while on temporary assigned duty (TAD) in Grenada. The Certificate was 
awarded to the applicant for "outstanding service and achievement while assigned as 
electrician  mate  for  the  United  States  Coast  Guard  Surveillance  Force,  United  Stated 
Military Support Element, Grenada, West Indies" from June 13, 1984 to June 29, 1984. 
 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  January  5,  1981  for  four  years.  
Subsequently, he was assigned permanently to a unit in Miami, Florida.   On June 13, 
1984, he reported for TAD to a unit located in Grenada, West Indies.  He returned to his 
permanent unit in Miami, Florida on June 29, 1984.   
 

The applicant was released from active duty on January 5, 1985 after four years 

 
of service.  He stated that he did not discover the alleged error until January 20, 2004. 
 
 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  28,  2004,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board deny relief.  
TJAG argued that the application was untimely and that the applicant failed to explain 
why it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  In addition, TJAG asserted that 
the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence establishing that he is entitled to the 
award.     
 
 
A  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC)  was  attached  to  the  advisory  opinion  as  Enclosure  (1).    TJAG  adopted  the 
memorandum as part of the advisory opinion.  CGPC stated that based on input from 
the  Medals  and  Awards  Section  of  CGPC,  the  Armed  Forces  Expeditionary  Medal 
(AFEM)  was  the  only  campaign  medal  awarded  for  the  Grenada  Operation.    CGPC 
further  stated  that  according  to  the  Medal  and  Awards  Branch,  the  AFEM  "was 
awarded to Coast Guard members who served on the CGC CHASE from October 23, 
1983  to  November  21,  1984,  or  who  were  crew  members  for  special  flights  HC-130B 
1700 and/or HC130B 1701.   CGPC also stated that a member could earn the award by 
serving in the area of operation for at least 30 days.  
 

CGPC stated that Department of Defense is authorized to award the AFEM for 
all military units.  However, the Coast Guard establishes the  minimum  criteria that a 
Coast Guard unit or member must meet to be considered by DOD for an AFEM.   CGPC 
stated  that  OPNAV  published  a  master  list  of  Units  that  have  received  Awards  and 
Campaign Medals on September 18, 2002.  The OPNAV notice did not list the "United 
States Coast Guard Surveillance Force" or the "United States Military Support Element 
Grenada" as being entitled to an AFEM.  CGPC concluded with the following: 
 

Based on the Applicant's record and supplemental information . . . there is 
no evidence that the applicant met any of the criteria to receive the AFEM 
for his temporary assignment to Grenada.  First, there is no evidence that 
the unit to which the Applicant was assigned was authorized the AFEM    
. . . Secondly, if the unit had been authorized the AFEM, it appears that the 
Applicant  would  not  have  met  the  service  time  (at  least  30  days  for 
operations  lasting  30  days  or  more)  requirement  to  be  eligible.    The 
"Certificate  of  Achievement"  .  .  .  [submitted]  by  the  applicant  for  his 
service in Grenada appears to have been locally designed by the unit, and 

does not establish eligibility for the AFEM.  If the applicant has any other 
information that may document his eligibility, I encourage him to submit 
that information. 
 
In  reviewing  this  case,  an  error  was  discovered  in  block  12.f.  of  the 
Applicant's  DD-214  .  .  .  in  that  it  fails  to  record  his  foreign  service  in 
Grenada . . . We have administratively corrected this document through 
issuance of a DD-215.  
 
 
 

 
Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
review and comment.  He did not submit a response. 
 

 

On June 1, 2004, a copy of the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for his 

APPLICABLE REGULATION 

 

 
Medals and Awards Manual (COMDTINST M1650.26C) 
 
 
are bona fide members of a unit engaged in the operation or meet one of the following: 
 

Under Chapter 5.B.2. of the regulation, members are eligible for the AFEM if they 

"(1) Serve not less than 30 consecutive days in the area of operations;  
 
"(2) Engage in direct support of the operation for 30 consecutive days or 
60  non-consecutive  days,  provided  such  support  involves  entering  the 
area of operations; 
 
"(3)  Serve  for  the  full  period  when  an  operation  is  less  than  30  days 
duration; 
 
"(4)  Engage  in  actual  combat  or  duty  which  is  equally  as  hazardous  as 
combat duty, during an operation against armed opposition, regardless of 
time in the area; 
 
"(5) Participate as a regularly assigned crew member of an aircraft flying 
into, out of, within, or over the area in support of the military operation;  
. . . "  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's and Coast Guard's submissions, applicant's military record, and applicable 
law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  
 
 
2.  The application was not timely.   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.      This 
application was submitted approximately 16 years beyond the statute of limitations.   
 
 
3.  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 Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 
1995). 
 
 
4.  The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on January 20, 2004.  
However, he should have discovered the error sooner because the DD Form 214 that he 
signed does not list any awards, medals or decorations.  The applicant did not explain 
why he could not have discovered the alleged error sooner.  Accordingly, the applicant 
has failed to offer a reasonable explanation for not  filing his application sooner.    
 
 
5. Although the applicant's reason, or lack thereof, for not filing his application 
sooner is not persuasive, the Board must consider the applicant's likelihood of success 
on the merits of his claim in deciding whether to waive the statute of limitations. In this 
regard,  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  not  likely  that  the  applicant  would  prevail  on  the 
merits of this claim, even if the Board were to waive the statute of limitations.  He has 
not  submitted  evidence  establishing  that  he  was  assigned  to  a  command  or  unit  that 
was  designated  to  receive  the  AFEM  for  the  Grenada  Operation.    The  Certificate  of 
Achievement that he submitted shows that he was assigned to the United States Coast 
Guard  Surveillance  Force,  which  was  not  a  unit  designated  for  the  AFEM,  the  only 
medal approved for the Grenada Operation.  Nor has he established that he met any of 
the other requirements stated in Chapter 5.B.2. of COMDTINST M1650.26C that would 
entitle  him  to  the  AFEM,  such  as  serving  in  the  area  of  operation  for  a  minimum 
consecutive 30 day period.   
 

6.    TJAG  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  has  already  corrected  the  applicant's  DD 
Form 214 to show that he served in Grenada, West Indies through the issuance of a DD 
Form 215.  Therefore, this portion of the applicant's request is rendered moot. 
 

  

 
7.  Therefore, based on the length of the delay, the lack of persuasive reasons for 
not acting sooner to correct his record, and the probable lack of success on the merits of 
his claim, the Board finds it is not in the interest of justice to waive the three-year statute 
of limitations in this case.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

8.  Accordingly, the applicant's request for relief should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ORDER 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXX,  XXXXXXX  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

                                                                                     Dorothy J. Ulmer