DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-037 
 
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 December 7, 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 his discharge form, DD 214, to show that he 
received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for his service during the Cuban Missile Crisis 
in October 1962.  He alleged that in October 1962, he was serving aboard the Coast Guard cutter 
Rockaway, which was deployed on an ocean station weather patrol.  After arriving at the station, 
the cutter received orders to go on wartime alert, and the crew remained in that status until late 
October or early November, when the Cuban Missile Crisis alert ended.  The applicant further 
alleged that he became aware of his possible eligibility for the award on February 12, 2007. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
On June 28, 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years.  On 
November 7, 1961, after completing recruit training, he was transferred to the Rockaway, where 
he  served  until  October  7,  1963  (except  for  a  ten-day  absence  without  leave  (AWOL)  from 
November 17 to 27, 1961).  From October 7, 1963, to July 7, 1965, the applicant was assigned to 
the  Coast  Guard’s  radio  station  in Alexandria, Virginia.    On  July  7,  1965,  he  was  released  to 
inactive duty in the Reserve with an honorable character of service.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 
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 applicant was assigned to the Rockaway from November 7, 1961, to October 6, 
1963.  CGPC stated that under Article 5.B.2. of the Medals and Awards Manual, the determina-
tion of which units or operations are entitled to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is made 
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and those units and operations are listed in Enclosure 15 of the man-
ual.  For the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized the medal only for those 
servicemembers  who  served  in  the  area  bounded  by  latitudinal  lines  12°N  and  28°N  and 
longitudinal lines 66°W and 84°W between October 24, 1962, and December 31, 1962.  The list 
of Coast Guard vessels that served in that area during that period does not include the Rockaway.  
CGPC further stated that a review of the applicant’s record does not reveal that he is entitled to 
the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. 
 

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 him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 

 

Commandant  Instruction  M1650.25D,  the  Coast  Guard’s  Medals  and  Awards  Manual, 
contains the rules governing the eligibility of Coast Guard members for various awards and med-
als.  Article 5.A.8.a. of the manual provides the eligibility requirements for the Armed Forces 
Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), as follows: 

 
The AFEM may be awarded to personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States who: 
(1) Participate, or have participated, as members of United States military units in a United States 
military operation in which, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, personnel of any military 
department participate in significant numbers. 
(2) Encounter, incident to such participation, foreign armed opposition, or are otherwise placed, or 
have been placed, in such position that, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by 
foreign armed forces was imminent even though it did not materialize. 
 
Additional criteria are listed in Article 5.A.8.d.  Enclosure (15) to the manual lists the 
vessels, flight crews, and shore units whose personnel are entitled to the Armed Forces Expedi-
tionary Medal because of their involvement in “Cuban Operations” from October 24 to Decem-
ber 31, 1962.  The area of operations is defined as “between 12°N and 28°N latitude and between 
66°W and 84°W longitude.”  The list of vessels whose crews are entitled to the Armed Forces 
Expeditionary Medal in Enclosure (15) does not include the Rockaway. 

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. 

 

1. 
 

2.  

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case with-
out a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  The Board’s rules at 33 C.F.R. 
§ 52.22 state that an 

 
application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after the applicant discov-
ered  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.  If  an  application  is 
untimely, the applicant shall set forth reasons in the application why it is in the interest of justice 
for the Board to consider the application. An untimely application shall be denied unless the Board 
finds that sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a finding that it would be in the inter-
est of justice to excuse the failure to file timely. 
 
4. 

Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  did  not  become  aware  of  his  eligibility 
until February 2007, more than forty years have passed since he was released from active duty, 
and nothing prevented him from learning of his eligibility for the award at an earlier date.  The 
Board finds that the application was untimely. 

 
3. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

  
7. 

 

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.   See also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

The applicant did not explain his long delay in inquiring about his eligibility for a 
medal.  Moreover, a cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the crew of the Rock-
away did not meet the criteria for an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal during the Cuban Mis-
sile Crisis because the Rockaway is not listed as one of the qualifying vessels in Enclosure (15) 
of the Medals and Awards Manuals.  In addition, the applicant submitted no evidence to support 
his claim that the crew of the Rockaway met the criteria for the medal listed under Article 5.A.8. 
of the manual. 

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.  However, if within 180 days of the date 
of  this  decision,  the  applicant  submits  substantial  evidence  to  prove  that  the  crew  of  the 
Rockaway met the criteria for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal during the Cuban Missile 
Crisis, in accordance with Article 5.A.8. of the Medals and Awards Manual, the Chair will docket 
the case for further consideration. 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

ORDER 

 

his Coast Guard military record is denied. 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray