DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-218 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

This is a proceeding under 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 26, 2007, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare 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  June  12,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former radioman second class (RM2/E-5), who was honorably separated 
from  active  duty  on  July  11,  1964,  upon  the  expiration  of  his  enlistment,  asked  the  Board  to 
award him a Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant alleged that he failed to receive the medal 
because in July 1961, while attending radio school, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP or 
“captain’s mast”) for creating a disturbance in the barracks and smoking after taps.  The appli-
cant alleged that he did not create a disturbance in the barracks.  He alleged that the NJP and his 
resulting ineligibility for a Good Conduct Medal constitute “cruel, unusual, and disproportionate 
[punishment] to the offenses.”   
 
 
The applicant alleged that his two roommates were actually guilty of the offenses he him-
self was charged with, but they were not charged and did not speak up for him.  Moreover, he 
alleged,  even  those  two  roommates  were  not  speaking  loudly  enough  to  create  a  disturbance.  
The applicant alleged that he himself was not talking or making any noise at all.  Moreover, the 
applicant  alleged,  the  incident  occurred  at  2210  hours,  when  the  barracks  “was  still  ‘settling 
down’ for the night” and not everyone was  yet quiet.  In addition, he alleged that some other 
members who were housed upstairs “did as they pleased.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the base legal officer told him in private that he was “going to 
‘make an example’ out of [him].”  Therefore, when the legal officer asked him whether he had 

anything to say for himself, he replied, “No sir,” because he did not think anything he said would 
make a difference in the outcome of his case and his roommates would not testify on his behalf.  
The applicant alleged that under “ordinary circumstances” the most punishment he would have 
received was a warning that a further infraction might result in NJP.  He further alleged that if his 
commanding officer (CO) had known all the facts, he would not have been taken to mast.  He 
stated  that  at  mast,  the  CO  also  asked  him  if  he  had  anything  to  say  for  himself.    He  again 
replied, “No sir,” because he was “an extremely shy 19 year old” and because given the legal 
officer’s statement, he still did not think anything he said would make a difference.  He alleged 
that even his Division Officer thought the charges were outrageous and called the legal officer 
“demented.” 
 
 
The applicant further alleged that his roommates were cruel and thought they were being 
funny when they recorded their accusations against him in the station log.  He alleged that one of 
them killed a woman and her children just a month later.  The other laughed at him and tried to 
embarrass him when he met him at a Coast Guard recruiting station several years later. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the charges against him were inconsistent with his character 
and pointed to the fact that the remainder of his record is “entirely unblemished with marks in 
conduct of 4.0.”  He also alleged that on the date of his discharge, he was within seventeen days 
of having the three  consecutive  years of faultless service  required to receive a  Good Conduct 
Medal.  The applicant stated that he also served honorably in the Reserve following his release 
from active duty and suggested that this time should be added to his active duty to justify his 
receipt of the medal. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the long-term consequences of not receiving a Good Conduct 
Medal  have  been  “extremely  devastating”  …  “amount[ing]  to  an  undeserved  life  sentence  of 
humiliation and dishonor for once having done literally nothing more than smoking a cigarette.”  
He alleged that when someone sees him in a veterans’ parade, “they assume the worst—that I 
have committed some horrible crime and not just the minor infraction of an obscure, arbitrarily 
enforced  rule.  …  And,  I  have  actually  been  asked  why  I  am  not  wearing  a  Good  Conduct 
Medal.” 
 
 
Regarding his delay in applying to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that he discovered 
the error in his record on May 10, 2003.  He further stated that he has always believed that he 
was treated unfairly when he was taken to mast but that he never knew that he could appeal the 
error until he contacted the office of the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard in 2007. 
 
 
support his arguments and allegations of false charges and cruel mistreatment. 
 

The  applicant  submitted  copies  of  his  military  records  but  submitted  no  evidence  to 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On July 12, 1960, the applicant enlisted on active duty in the Coast Guard.  He attended 
radioman school from July 3 to December 15, 1961.  A CG-3307 (“Page 7”) in his record shows 
that on July 28, 1961, he was taken to mast after having been charged with failing to obey an 
order or regulation by “[c]reating a disturbance  in the barracks and smoking after taps.”  The 

Page 7 also shows that at mast, he was awarded four days of extra duty as NJP.  He advanced to 
radioman third class (RM3) upon graduating from radioman school on December 15, 1961, and 
to RM2 on June 1, 1963. 
 

The applicant received perfect conduct marks of 4.0 on all of his performance evaluations 
except for the evaluation dated December 15, 1961, when he received a performance mark of 3.9 
upon graduating from radioman school.  His final average conduct mark upon his release from 
active duty was 3.98.  All of the applicant’s marks for proficiency and leadership were 3.1 or 
higher. 
 

On July 10, 1964, the applicant was released to the Reserve with an “Honorable” charac-
ter of service.  He was recommended for reenlistment.  The medals and awards section of his 
discharge form, DD 214, states “NONE,” but he has since been awarded the National Defense 
Service Medal, as shown on a DD 215 dated June 16, 2003. 

 
The applicant performed some inactive duty drills while a member of the Reserve.  On 
July 11, 1966, he was honorably discharge from the Reserve.  He was recommended for reenlist-
ment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  6,  2008,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  forwarded  a 
memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and 
adopted the findings and analysis therein as his advisory opinion.  CGPC recommended that the 
Board deny the applicant’s request for a Good Conduct Medal. 
 
 
CGPC stated that under Article 5.A.1. of the Medals and Awards Manual, creditable time 
toward the Good Conduct Award can only be accrued while serving on active duty in the regular 
Coast Guard or Reserve.  CGPC stated that from November 1, 1960, through October 31, 1963 
the  manual  required  a  three-year  period  of  satisfactory  service  with  no  NJP  and  that  from 
November 1, 1963, through December 31, 1979, the manual required a four-year period with no 
NJP.  CGPC stated that on the day a member is taken to mast, his period of eligibility for the 
Good Conduct Medal ends and a new period of eligibility commences the next day. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the application should be denied because it is not timely since the appli-
cant should have known that he had not received a Good Conduct Medal upon his release from 
active duty in 1964.  Regarding the merits of the application, CGPC stated that the applicant’s 
record “does not substantiate his eligibility for the Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal,” because 
he was awarded NJP on July 28, 1961.  CGPC stated that the applicant’s assertions are not sup-
ported in the record, which is presumptively correct.  Moreover, because of the applicant’s delay 
in filing his application, “the Coast Guard is unable to further expand upon [the circumstances of 
the NJP] beyond the documentation contained in the applicant’s personnel record.” 
 
CGPC stated that because of the NJP on July 28, 1961, the applicant’s eligibility period 
 
for a Good Conduct Medal reset on July 29, 1961.  Therefore, upon his release from active duty 
on July 10, 1964, he had not served the required period of continuous active duty to earn the 

medal.  CGPC noted that the Medal and Awards Manual “precludes including the inactive duty 
(reserve) time accrued subsequent to the applicant’s release from active duty toward his Good 
Conduct  Medal  eligibility.”    In  addition,  CGPC  noted  that  the  applicant  did  not  qualify  for  a 
Reserve Good Conduct Medal. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On February 29, 2008, the applicant submitted a response to the Coast Guard’s advisory 
 
opinion.  He argued that he could not have submitted his application any earlier because he did 
not  know  that  it  was  possible  to  do  so.   The  applicant  stated  that  even  if  the  Board  does  not 
award him the Good Conduct Medal based on his statement of the facts, he hopes that the board 
will at least amend the Page 7 to remove the phrase, “Creating a disturbance in the barracks and 
… .” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Enclosure 11 to the Coast Guard Medal and Awards Manual (COMDTINST M1650.25C) 
states that from November 1, 1960, to October 31, 1963, to receive a Good Conduct Medal, a 
member  must  have  accrued  three  years  of  continuous  active  duty  in  either  the  regular  Coast 
Guard or the Reserve with no NJP.  From November 1, 1963, to December 31, 1979, a member 
must  have  accrued  four  years  of  continuous  active  duty  with  no  NJP  allowed  to  receive  the 
award.  In addition, during this era the member could not receive a single proficiency, leadership, 
or  conduct  mark  lower  than  3.0.    Under  Chapter  5.A.1.a.(2)(c)  of  the  manual,  when  NJP  is 
awarded  the  eligibility  period  for  the  medal  is  terminated  and  restarts  the  next  day.    Chapter 
5.A.1.a.(1)(a)  disallows  crediting  reservists’  inactive  duty  or  short  periods  of  active  duty  for 
training but states that if a reservist serves on continuous active duty for at least three months, 
that period “may be counted.” 
 

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 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in his record.1  The applicant alleged that it was error and injustice to 
deny  him  a  Good  Conduct  Medal,  but  he  knew  or  should  have  known  that  he  had  not  been 
awarded a Good Conduct Medal upon his release from active duty in 1964 or upon his discharge 
from the Reserve in 1966.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if 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 to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 

 

 
3. 

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).   

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 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.”2     

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  could  not  have  submitted  his  application  earlier 
because he did not know about the BCMR.  He alleged that he learned about the BCMR only 
recently when he contacted the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard about his desire 
for a Good Conduct Medal.  However, there was nothing to prevent the applicant from making 
the same inquiry and thereby learning about the BCMR in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.   
Therefore, his explanation for his long delay is not compelling.   

  
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

Regarding the merits of the case, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim has 
little  likelihood  of  succeeding.   The  Board  begins  its  review  of  each  case  presuming  that  the 
applicant’s  military  record  is  correct,  and  the  applicant  bears  the  burden  of  proving  that  the 
record  is  incorrect  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.3      The  applicant  in  this  case  has 
submitted no evidence whatsoever to support his allegations of innocence or of his mistreatment 
by his roommates, the legal officer, and the CO with respect to the charges laid against him and 
the NJP awarded on July 28, 1961.  In addition, the Board is not convinced by the applicant’s 
argument that his NJP of four days’ extra duty was disproportionate to his offense. 

Because  of  his  NJP  on  July  28,  1961,  the  applicant’s  eligibility  period  for  the 
Good Conduct Medal was terminated and restarted on July 29, 1961.4  Therefore, he could not 
have earned a Good Conduct Medal unless he served satisfactorily on continuous active duty for 
four years past that date—i.e., until July 28, 1965—since the eligibility period for the medal was 
extended from three years to four years on November 1, 1963.5  The applicant did not serve on 
active duty through July 28, 1965.  Instead, although he was recommended for reenlistment, he 
elected to be released from active duty about one year earlier, on July 10, 1964.  Nor is there any 
evidence that the applicant served on extended active duty as a reservist prior to his discharge 
from the Reserve on July 11, 1966. 

Given the lack of a good reason for the applicant’s long delay in submitting his 
application and the lack of evidence supporting his allegations of error and injustice, the Board 
finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.  The application 
should be denied. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 

                                                 
2 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-5 (D.D.C. 1992).  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995). 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
4 Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25C, Chapter 5.A.1.a.(2)(c). 
5 Id. at Enclosure 11. 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Robert S. Johnson 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.