_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for the Correction of           
the Coast Guard Record of:  
                    
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

BCMR Docket No. 2007-206 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL DECISION                                                                                     

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
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 September 13, 
2007, 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  June  12,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  that  the  “[United  States  Coast  Guard]  Achievement  Medal  with 
Operational Distinguishing Device . . . be upgraded to . . .  a higher award with a more tangible 
recognition to the individual involved as per original request . . . “   In his application to the 
Board, the applicant submitted a tape recording and written transcript of the events of May 26, 
1982, that allegedly support his argument for a higher level medal.  He stated that his actions on 
the evening in question were “extreme, heroic and daring.” 
 
 
The  applicant  indicated  that  he  discovered  the  alleged  error  on  March  16,  1983.  
However,  he  argued  that  the  statute  of  limitations  should  be  waived  in  this  case  because  his 
officer-in-charge (OINC) had recommended a higher award, because the award was delivered at 
his new unit, a distance of 3000 miles from is old one, making it impossible to challenge the 
medal,  and  because  challenging  the  award  sooner  could  have  damaged  the  careers  of  fellow 
members  of  the  Group  who  would  have  been  required  to  explain  why  a  helicopter  was  not 
dispatched that morning, although one had been requested.  The applicant stated that the day after 
the May 1982 rescue mission, he questioned the air station commanding officer (CO) to find out 
why a helicopter had not been dispatched.  According to the applicant, his questioning was not 
appreciated and may have been the reason he did not receive a higher level award.   
 
 
On February 16, 1983, the Coast Guard Achievement Medal was awarded to the applicant 
for his efforts in a rescue mission that contributed to the saving of a life.   The citation for the 
medal read in part as follows: 
 

Petty  Officer  [applicant]  is  cited  for  outstanding  achievement  and  superior 
performance  of  duty  on  the  early  morning  of  26  May  1982  while  serving  as 
coxswain  of  Coast  Guard  Motor  Lifeboat  CG-44378  engaged  in  the  rescue  of 
three persons in the turbulent surf of Humbolt Bay Bar, California.  The two men 
and  one  woman  were  amid  debris  from  their  fifty-six  foot  trawler  .  .  .  which 
minutes  before  had  been  rolled  and  crushed  inverted  by  a  twenty-foot  breaker.  
Prior to the capsizing the crew of the KOALA II had been professionally briefed 
by  [the  applicant]  on  crossing  the  bar,  donning  life  jackets  and  having  flares 
readily accessible.  These actions were critical in their survival.  Once realizing 
the  KOALA  II  had  capsized  [the  applicant]  immediately  and  with  complete 
disregard  for  his  own  safety,  skillfully  maneuvered  the  Coast  Guard  Motor 
Lifeboat  into  the  heavy  surf.    Under  extreme  darkness,  without  radar,  and  in 
constant danger of being capsized himself, [the applicant] effectively utilized his 
crew  in  illuminating  the  bar  with  parachute  flares,  setting  a  lookout,  and 
broadcasting a loran position for additional group resources.  Once a survivor was 
spotted  amid  the  immense  amount  of  debris  from  the  destroyed  vessel,  [the 
applicant]  demonstrated  exceptional  seamanship  in  maneuvering  for  the  rescue.  
[The  applicant’s]  exceptional  skill,  fortitude  and  sound  judgment  in  spite  of 
personal  danger  in  this  rescue  mission  contributed  to  the  saving  of  a  life.    His 
unselfish  actions  and  zealous  devotion  to  duty  reflect  great  credit  upon  himself 
and are in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Coast Guard.   

 
There were two coxswains involved in the rescue on the morning of May 26, 1982: the 
 
applicant and another petty officer second class (PO2).  The PO2 was awarded the Coast Guard 
Commendation medal.  The applicant submitted a copy of the PO2’s citation that accompanied 
his  Medal  in  support  of  his  contention  that  the  applicant  deserved  a  higher  award.    The 
applicant’s  and  PO2’s  citations  read  almost  the  same  except  for  the  following  comments  (in 
italics) contained in the PO2’s:  “Under extreme darkness, without radar, and with debris from 
the  destroyed  vessel  caught  in  his  screws,  [PO2]  demonstrated  exceptional  seamanship  in 
maneuvering  .  .  .  into  position  for  his  disciplined  crew  to  rescue  two  survivors.    [PO2’s] 
exceptional skill, fortitude and sound judgment in spite of personal danger in this rescue mission 
contributed to the saving of two lives.” 
 
Background 
 
 
In  a  December  22,  1982  letter  the  applicant’s  then  OINC,  a  chief  boatswains  mate, 
informed the applicant that the OINC intended to recommend the applicant for the Coast Guard 
Medal.1   
 
 
On  January  4,  1983,  the  applicant’s  CO,  Commander,  Group  Humboldt  Bay, 
recommended to the Commander, 12th Coast Guard District2 that the applicant receive the Coast 
                                                 
1   To earn the Coast Guard Medal, an individual must have performed a voluntary act of heroism in the face of great 
danger to themselves and such as to stand out distinctly above normal expectations.  Article 2.B.7.b. of the Medals 
and Awards Manual (1982). 
 
2  Under  Article  1-.A-5.c.  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  District  Commanders  were  delegated  authority  to 
approve the following awards:  Coast Guard Commendation Medal and the Coast Guard Achievement Medal and 
other lesser awards.   
  

Guard  Commendation  Medal3  (a  lesser  award  than  the  Coast  Guard  Medal). 
  This 
recommendation was made on the “Personal Award Recommendation” form as required for use 
by the Medals and Awards Manual.  On the back side of this form under “summary of action” is 
a full page description of the events of May 25, 1982.  The following were noted as attachments 
to  the  award  recommendation:    Chartlet  of  Humboldt  bay  Entrance,  COMCOGARDGUR 
message 261645Z May 1982, excerpt from transcript of radio communication of May 25, 1982, 
and the proposed citation.   
 
On February 9, 1983, the 12th Coast Guard District Board of Awards recommended that 
 
the applicant receive the Coast Guard Achievement Medal4 (not the Coast Guard Commendation 
Medal) for his action on May 26, 1982.   
 
 
Guard Achievement Medal as recommended by the Board of Awards.    
 
 
After the approval of the Coast Guard Achievement Medal for the applicant, the OINC 
 
asked the Commander, 12th Coast Guard District to reconsider his decision not to award higher 
level medals to the crew members.  The OINC stated that he had initially recommended that the 
two  coxswains  receive  the  Coast  Guard  Medal  and  that  the  crewmembers  receive  the  Coast 
Guard Commendation Medal.  The OINC noted that the investigating officer recommended that 
all  members  involved  in  the  rescue  receive  the  Coast  Guard  Medal.  Instead,  the  applicant 
received the Achievement Medal, the other coxswain received the Coast Guard Commendation 
medal, and the other crewmembers received the Commandant’s Letter of Commendation.  The 
OINC stated that the lesser awards were an injustice.   
 

On February 16, 1983, the Commander, 12th Coast Guard District approved  the Coast 

 
 
On February 1, 2008, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the Judge 
Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard,  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief.    He 
adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC).   CGPC noted that the application was not timely and further stated the following: 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

The applicant claims that based upon an investigation of events, the investigation 
officer recommended that those involved be awarded the Coast Guard Medal  . . .  
While the applicant may have been submitted for the award of the Coast Guard 
Medal,  the  awarding  authority  in  accordance  with  [the  Medals  and  Awards 
Manual]  approved  the  award  of  the  Coast  Guard  Achievement  Medal  for  the 
applicant.  The applicant’s OINC appealed to the awarding authority for the award 
to be upgraded  . . .  However, it is apparent that the awarding authority remained 

                                                 
3    The  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal  is  given  to  armed  forces  personnel  serving  with  the  Coast  Guard  that 
distinguish themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement or service.  To merit this award, the acts or services 
must be accomplished or performed in a manner above that normally expected and must be sufficient to distinguish 
the  individual  above  others  of  comparable  grade  or  rating  performing  similar  services.    Article  2-B-11.b.  of  the 
Medals and Awards Manual. 
 
4   The Coast Guard Achievement Award is given for professional and/or leadership achievement in a combat or non-
combat situation based on sustained performance or specific achievement of a superlative nature and shall be of such 
merit  as  to  warrant  more  tangible  recognition  than  is  possible  by  the  Commandant’s  Letter  of  Commendation 
Ribbon, but which does not warrant a Coast Guard Commendation Medal or higher award.   Article 2-B-13.b. of the 
Medals and Awards Manual.   

consistent  with  their  determination  of  the  level  of  award  for  the  applicant  and 
other station members who were recommended for awards.  The decision of the 
awarding authority is final . . .   
 
The applicant further argues that the other coxswain was presented with the Coast 
Guard Commendation Medal and that in the interest of equity and justice that his 
award should at least be upgraded to that level.  The information provided by the 
applicant  supports  that  the  coxswain  of  the  other  vessel  encountered  and 
overcame  mechanical  difficulties  resulting  from  debris  being  entangled  in  the 
propeller.    In  light  of  this  it  is  probable  that  the  awarding  authority  considered 
such in determining the level of award to bestow.  Additionally, the other crew 
members  were  presented  the  Commandant’s  Letter  of  Commendation  for  the 
events.  Based upon . . the respective levels of awards issued for this evolution the 
applicant’s award of the Coast Guard Achievement Medal is neither in error nor  
unjust.   
 
The  applicant  is  convinced  that  his  actions  warrant  a  much  higher  award.  
Additionally,  he  purports  that  this  award  was  unjustly  downgraded  due  to  his 
interactions  with  the  Coast  Guard  Air  Station  after  the  incident.    This  is  not 
supported by the record.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice with regard 
to the assigning of the applicant’s award, and pursuant to [the Medals and Awards 
Manual] the decision of the awarding authority is final.  The applicant’s record 
supports the award of the Coast Guard Achievement Medal.   

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO COAST GUARD VIEWS 

 
On March 19, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
 
Guard.  He disagreed with them.  The applicant argued that the evidence he submitted supports 
his  argument  that  the  OINC’s  recommendation  that  the  applicant  received  the  Coast  Guard 
Medal was not legitimately processed.   In this regard, he argued that the recommendations of the 
OINC and the investigating officer were overlooked and not considered by the awards board.  
  

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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. 
 
 
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  twenty-one  years  beyond  the  statute  of  limitations.      The  applicant 
acknowledged that he discovered the alleged error on March 16, 1983.  Therefore, the applicant 
knew  or  should  have  known  of  the  alleged  error  at  that  time.      He  explained  that  he  feared 
repercussions against the helicopter pilot on duty that night because the pilot failed to dispatch a 
helicopter  although  one  had  been  requested.      He  stated  that  he  wanted  to  wait  until  that 
individual was no longer on active duty to file his application.   Apparently, there had been an 

investigation  into  the  rescue  mission  and  if  the  pilot  had  been  derelict  in  his  duties,  the 
investigation  should  have  discovered  that  matter  and  recommended  appropriate  action  at  that 
time.  Therefore, the applicant’s reason for not filing his application sooner is not persuasive.   
 

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 stated that "the longer the delay has 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. 
 
 
4.  With respect to the merits, the applicant is not likely to prevail.  He argued that his 
OINC’s  recommendation  that  the  applicant  receive  the  Coast  Guard  Medal  was  not  properly 
processed.  However, a review of the military record and the evidence submitted by the applicant 
indicates that his OINC’s recommendation was processed correctly.  The OINC had no award 
approval authority and could only recommend through his chain of command that the applicant 
receive the Coast Guard Medal. See Article 1-A-9.a. of the Medals and Awards Manual (1982).     
The  Commander,  12th  Coast  Guard  District  was  the  first  level  awarding  authority  for  the 
applicant’s  unit,  although  even  he  was  not  delegated  authority  to  approve  the  Coast  Guard 
Medal.5   
 
5.  However, the Medals and Awards Manual stated that recommendations for personal 
 
awards not within the authority delegated to others shall be forwarded to the Commandant only if 
approval for the higher award is recommended.  The evidence of record is that, except for the 
OINC, the Coast Guard Medal was not recommended by any officer in the applicant’s chain of 
command.  The applicant’s commanding officer downgraded the recommendation for the Coast 
Guard  Medal  to  a  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal,  and  the  awards  board  downgraded  the 
CO’s recommendation to a Coast Guard Achievement Medal, which the Commander, 12th  Coast 
District  approved.    Accordingly  under  Article  1-B-2-g.(1)  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual 
(1982)  the  decision  with  respect  to  the  Achievement  Medal  was  final  because  the  District’s 
Board  of  Awards  and  the  Awarding  Authority  agreed  upon  the  Achievement  Medal  for  the 
applicant.  The evidence of record in this case shows clearly that the Board of Awards and the 
awarding  authority  agreed  that  the  applicant  should  receive  the  Achievement  Medal.  The 
eventual awarding of the Achievement Medal to the applicant was in accordance with the process 
contemplated by the Medals and Awards Manual.   
 
6. A subsequent letter from the OINC requesting that the Commander, 12th Coast Guard 
 
District reconsider his decision to award the Coast Guard Achievement Medal to the applicant 
does  not  mean  that  the  OINC’s  original  recommendation  was  not  processed  properly.    The 
reconsideration request simply meant that the OINC disagreed with the Commander’s decision to 
award the Achievement Medal.  There is no evidence of a response from the Commander, 12th 
Coast Guard District to the OINC’s request for reconsideration.  Nor is there any evidence that he 
                                                 
5      Article  1-A-10.b.  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  (1982)  stated  that  all  award  recommendations  shall  be 
addressed, and forwarded via the chain of command to the first level awarding authority, (e.g., headquarters office 
chief,  area,  MLC,  or  district  commander,  Superintendent,  Coast  Guard  Academy,  Commander,  NPFC,  or 
Commander,  MPC).    Subsection  1-A-10.b.(1)(a)  stated  that  recommendations  for  personal  awards  not  within 
delegated  authority  that  are  considered  insufficient  to  warrant  the  higher  award  may  be  downgraded  to  an  award 
within delegated authority and approved by the awarding authority.   

8.    Accordingly,  the  applicant's  request  should  be  denied  because  it  is  untimely  and 

was required to respond since his decision to award the Achievement Medal to the applicant was 
final.   
 
  
7.   The OINC’s and applicant’s opinions that he should have received a more prestigious 
award does not establish error or injustice on the part of the Coast Guard by approving the Coast 
Guard Achievement Medal for the applicant for his part in the rescue mission on May 26, 1982.  
Nor does the fact that the PO2 received the Coast Guard Commendation Medal prove that the 
Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by awarding the Coast Guard Achievement Medal to 
the applicant.    
 
 
because it lacks merit.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Robert S. Johnson 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier