DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-030 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 November 30, 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  August  14,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her discharge form, DD 214, to show that she is 
entitled to a Purple Heart Medal for injuries she sustained while serving on active duty in the 
Coast Guard in 1973 and 1974.  She stated that she underwent surgery for these injuries in Peta-
luma, California.  The applicant provided no explanation for her delay in seeking the medal.   

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
On August 4, 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Upon completing recruit 
training, she advanced to seaman apprentice (SA; pay grade E-2) and was sent to Subsistence 
Specialist “A” School in Petaluma, California.  While attending “A” School, the applicant sought 
treatment for stomach pain, which began after she lifted a 45-pound pot in the school’s galley.  
She was diagnosed with and underwent surgery to repair an inguinal hernia.   

 
The applicant was disenrolled from “A” School due to a “lack of petty officer potential” 
and assigned to the CGC Rush.  From May through August 1974, she committed a variety of 
offenses for which she was taken to mast and awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP) five times:  
being absent without leave, wearing unauthorized ribbons, using disrespectful language, possess-
ing marijuana, failing to report for duty, and willfully damaging government property. 

 

 

On September 4, 1974, the Executive Officer of the Rush counseled the applicant about 
deficiencies in her conduct and performance of duties and advised her that, unless her conduct 
and performance improved, she would be “recommended for a discharge by reason of unfitness.” 

 
On September 6, 1974, the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Rush recommended to the 
Commandant that the applicant be discharged for unfitness “due to frequent involvement of a 
discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.”  The CO listed the applicant’s NJPs and 
noted various other offenses, such as selling a vehicle to which she did not have title; not paying 
her long-distance telephone charges;  and refusing to purchase a  uniform even though she had 
been advanced pay and two days of liberty to do so.  The CO noted that the applicant “has stated 
[her] intention to remove [her]self from the Coast Guard by any means.  [She] has been coun-
seled regarding discharge for unfitness and [she] is agreeable to such action. … It is this com-
mand’s opinion that [she] is untrustworthy and lacks potential for adequate service in the Coast 
Guard.    [She]  lacks  motivation  and  initiative  to  remedy  [her]  problems  or  carry  out  assigned 
duties.”   
 
On September 11, 1974, the applicant was notified of the proposed “General Discharge 
by reason of unfitness … [due to] frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and 
military authorities.”  The applicant signed an acknowledgement of the notification and stated 
that she was “in substantial agreement with the recommendation.”   

 
On September 12, 1974, the applicant underwent a physical examination pursuant to her 
pending  discharge.    The  doctor  noted  her  hernia  operation  but  found  that  she  was  medically 
qualified for separation. 

 
On October 2, 1974, the Commandant ordered the CO of the Rush to discharge the appli-
cant  for  unfitness  under Article  12-B-12  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    On  October  4,  1974,  the 
applicant received a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions “due to unfitness.”  Her DD 
214 shows that she is entitled to wear the National Defense Service Medal.   

 

 
On March 18, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request based on 
the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum prepared by the Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC noted that the application is untimely.  Regarding the merits of the case, CGPC 
stated that the record does not substantiate the applicant’s claim of eligibility for a Purple Heart 
Medal.  CGPC stated that the precipitating factor for her inguinal hernia was lifting a heavy pot 
in  the  training  center’s  galley.    Moreover,  she  never  served  in  a  combat  zone  or  in  any  such 
operation wherein she could have become eligible for the medal. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On March 19, 2008, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s views and 

 
invited her to respond within thirty days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article 2.A.11.a. of Commandant Instruction M1650.25D, the Coast Guard’s Medals and 

Awards Manual, states that a Purple Heart Medal 

 
[m]ay be awarded … to any member of the U.S. Coast Guard … who … has been or may here-
after be wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States; in any action with 
an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are 
or  have  been  engaged;  while  serving  with  friendly  foreign  forces  engaged  in  an  armed  conflict 
against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party; as a result of 
an act of any hostile foreign force; as the indirect result of enemy action … ; or as the result of 
maltreatment inflicted by captors while a prisoner of war. … 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in her record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  The applicant knew or should 
have known that she had not been awarded a Purple Heart Medal upon her discharge in 1974.  
Therefore, her application is 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 
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.”  Id. at 164, 165.  

The  applicant  failed  to  explain  or  justify  her  long  delay  in  seeking  the  Purple 
Heart Medal.  Moreover, a cursory review of the record indicates that there is no merit in her 
claim.  Although she suffered an inguinal hernia while lifting a cooking pot during training and 
underwent corrective surgery, her injury did not meet any of the criteria for a Purple Heart Medal 
under Article 2.A.11.a. of the Medals and Awards Manual.  She never served in a combat zone or 
faced an enemy force.  She was medically qualified for separation and discharged because of her 
“frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities.” 

Accordingly, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in 

this case, and the applicant’s request should be denied. 

1. 
 
2.  

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The application of former SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 

 

of her military record is denied. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray