DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for Correction           
of the Coast Guard Record of:                     
                                         
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2008-104 
                                                                               
XXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                              
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

  

FINAL DECISION                                                                                     

 
 
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 application on April 
18, 2008, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision 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 December 17, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  earned  the  Good 
Conduct Medal during his period of service from August 27, 1943 to February 12, 1946.   The 
applicant believes that he was not awarded the Good Conduct Medal because of a captain’s mast 
he received during “A” school.  The applicant’s military record shows that he was punished at 
captain’s mast on June 30, 1945 and that he received 3.5 in conduct as a result of the captain’s 
mast.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  is  82  years  old  and  regrets  not  receiving  this  award.    He 
  
asserted that he has led an exemplary life since his discharge and that he had spent 41 years in 
banking and retired in that field as a regional vice president.   
 
 
his delay in bringing this application be excused for the reasons stated above.     
 
 

The applicant did not list the date on which he discovered the alleged error but asked that 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 9, 2008, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge Advocate 
General (JAG) of the Coast Guard.  The JAG requested that the Board accept the memorandum 
from Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command as the advisory opinion. 
 

  

 

 
CGPC recommended that the Board deny relief.  In recommending denial of relief, CGPC 
noted  that  the  application  was  untimely  and  that  the  applicant  had  failed  to  provide  any 
justification for delay in bringing his claim.  CGPC stated that if the Board decides to waive the 
three-year  statute  of  limitations  and  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  it  should  still  be 
denied for the following reasons: 
 

A complete review of the applicant’s record confirms that the applicant enlisted in 
the Coast Guard on August 27, 1943 . . . and was discharged 2 years, 5 month and 
16 days later on February 12, 1946 . . .  Regardless of the applicant’s conduct or 
non-judicial punishment he does not meet the minimum 3 year continuous active 
duty requirements specified in the Medal and Awards Manual1 . . . for the award 
of the Good Conduct Medal.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 12, 2008, the Board sent a copy of the Coast Guard views to the applicant 

 
 
for a response.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.    
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions 

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

 
 
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law. 
 
 
States Code.  The application was not timely.  
 
 
2. To be timely, an application for correction must be filed within three years of the date 
the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was,  or  should  have  been,  discovered.    See  10  U.S.C.  §  1552, 
33 CFR § 52.22.   The applicant did not state the date on which he discovered the alleged error or 
injustice.  Therefore, his application is untimely by approximately 59 years past the statute of 
limitations.   
 

3.  However, 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 instructed that “the longer the delay ahs 
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).   
 
 
4.  The applicant stated that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitation 
in his case due to his age, the fact that he has been an upstanding citizen for more than 41 years, 

                                                 
1   Enclosure (11) to Article 5.A.1. of  the Medal and Awards Manual states that during the period from July 1, 1934 
through and including June 30, 1947, three years of continuous active duty is required to be entitled to the award of 
the Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal, as well as a 4.0 in conduct.     

  

and his regret for committing the misconduct that he believes led to his not receiving the award.  
However,  none  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  applicant  explains  why  he  could  not  have  acted 
sooner.  The  applicant  has  not  provided  the  Board  with  a  persuasive  reason  to  excuse  his 
untimeliness.   
 
  
5.    However,  the  Board  must  still  perform  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  in  deciding 
whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.   With respect to the 
merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely to prevail.   The applicant did not meet the 
eligibility requirements for a good conduct award at the time of his discharge.  In this regard, at 
the time of his discharge, the applicant had served on active duty only for 2 years, 5 months, and 
16 days when 3 years of continuous service was required to earn the Good Conduct. In addition, 
he did not have the required 4.0 average in conduct due to the 3.5 mark he received after being 
punished  at  captain’s  mast.    See  Enclosure  (11)  to  Article  5.A.1.  of  the  Medals  and  Awards 
Manual.  Accordingly, the applicant has put forth no evidence that the Coast Guard committed an 
error and/or injustice by not awarding the Good Conduct Medal to him.   
  
 
and because it is untimely. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied because it lacks potential merit 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of former RM3c xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of 

ORDER 

  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Janice Williams-Jones