DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2008-133 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 May 20, 
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 February 12, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he earned the Armed 
Forces  Expeditionary  Medal  (AFEM)  for  his  participation  as  a  member  of  the  Boarding  team 
aboard USCGC Rush that interdicted and seized 15 tons of cocaine in March/April 2001.  He 
stated that immediately after completion of the operation, he was separated from the Coast Guard 
and therefore did not received consideration for this award. 
 

The applicant alleged that he did not discover the alleged error until April 1, 2008.  He 
stated that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his application because receipt 
of the AFEM would enhance his opportunity for an appointment with a law enforcement unit.   
 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  July  24,  2000,  and  was  honorably 

discharged on April 12, 2001 by reason of unsuitability due to financial irresponsibility.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 14, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief,  as  recommended  by  the 
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) in a memorandum attached to the views 
of the Coast Guard.   
 

 

CGPC noted that the application was not timely.  The JAG further stated that according to 
Article  5.A.8.  of  COMDTINST  1650.2D  (the  Medals  and Awards  Manual}  the  criteria  for  an 
AFEM are: 
 

(1) Participate or have participated, as members of the 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 
joints Chiefs of Staff of staff, hostile action by foreign armed forces was imminent 
even though it did not materialize.   

 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  Enclosure  (15)  to  the  Medal  and Awards  Manual  lists  the  Coast 
Guard vessels, units, and special flights that are eligible for the AFEM and the USCG RUSH, to 
which the applicant was assigned at the time, is not listed. 
 
 
The JAG stated that contrary to the applicant’s allegation that he was part of a boarding 
team  directly  involved  with  a  drug  interdiction  operation,  his  record  does  not  note  any  such 
involvement or any requisite qualifications to be assigned to such a boarding team.  The JAG 
further stated that the events that the applicant described do not meet the standards required for 
the AFEM.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Guard for a reply.  The Board did not receive a reply to the views of the Coast Guard.     

On November 13, 2008, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United 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 stated that he discovered the alleged error or injustice on April 
1, 2008.  However, the applicant should have been aware at the time of his discharge from the 
Coast Guard, on April 12, 2001, that he had not received the AFEM.  Therefore, his application 
was submitted approximately 4 years past the statute of limitations.   
 

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 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 and consider his application because he was told in April 2008 that he qualified for 
the AFEM when applying for a position with the Bureau of Land Management and that receipt of 
the  Medal  would  enhance  his  employment  opportunity.  However,  the  applicant’s  reason  for 
waiving  the  statute  is  not  persuasive.    Further,  the  merits  of  the  application  suggest  that  the 
applicant is not likely to prevail.   
 
  
5.  According to CGPC, pursuant to Enclosure (15) of the Medals and Awards Manual, 
the  USCGC  Rush,  to  which  the  applicant  was  assigned  at  the  time,  is  not  listed  as  a  unit 
authorized  to  receive  the  AFEM.    Nor,  according  to  CGPC,  is  there  any  evidence  in  the 
applicant’s military record that he participated or was qualified to participate in an interdiction 
operation.    The  applicant  has  not  presented  a  regulation,  policy,  or  evidence  to  contradict  the 
CGPC in this regard.   
 

Accordingly, the application should be denied because it is untimely and because 

6. 

it lacks merit.    
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall