DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-185 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 August 15, 2008, upon receipt 
of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare 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  April  30,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant wrote on her application form that “[t]he Defense Authorization Act of Fis-
cal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) of November 18, 1997, contains a provision (section 1102 of 
Title X1) which accords Veterans’ preference to everyone who served on active duty during the 
period beginning August 2, 1990, and ending January 2, 1992, provided, of course, the veteran is 
otherwise eligible.[1]  I was not awarded this ribbon on my DD 214.” 
 
                                                 
1 Section 1102 of Public Law 105-85 is entitled “Veterans’ Preference Status for Certain Veterans who Served on 
Active Duty During the Persian Gulf War,” and it amended 5 U.S.C. § 2108 to change the definition of the word 
“veteran” to include not only those who (A) “served on active duty in the armed forces during a war, in a campaign 
or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized, or during the period beginning April 28, 1952, and 
ending July 1, 1955,” or (B) “served on active duty as defined by section 101(21) of title 38 at any time in the armed 
forces for a period of more than 180 consecutive days any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955, and before 
October 15, 1976, not including service under section 12103(d) of title 10 pursuant to an enlistment in the Army 
National Guard or the Air National Guard or as a Reserve for service in the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force 
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, or Coast Guard Reserve,” but also those who (C) “served on active duty as defined 
by section 101(21) of title 38 in the armed forces during the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending on 
January 2, 1992.” 
 
Section 1102 of Public Law 105-85 makes no mention of any ribbon or medal.  Subtitle G of Title V of 
Public Law 105-85 concerns “Military Decorations and Awards,” but the sections therein concern matters that are 
apparently inapplicable to the applicant:  limitations on eligibility for the Purple Heart; an Armed Forces Expedi-
tionary Medal for service in Operation Joint Endeavor or Operation Joint Guard in Eastern Europe in the mid 1990s; 
the  waiver  of  certain  time  limitations  regarding  medals  for  specific  persons  and  for  intelligence  personnel;  the 
eligibility of particular World War II veterans for certain awards; and the retroactivity of the Medal of Honor special 
pension. 

The applicant’s DD 214 shows that she served on active duty as a member of the regular 
Coast Guard from March 4, 1985, to January 3, 1991, when she was honorably discharged due to 
the expiration of her enlistment.  She had no foreign service or sea service.  The DD 214 also 
lists the following medals:  Good Conduct Medal; Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon with 
gold star and “O” device; Bicentennial Unit Commendation Ribbon; Marksman Pistol Ribbon. 

 
The applicant did not state what date she discovered the alleged errors in her record and 

did not explain her delay in requesting correction of her DD 214. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On January 12, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   

 
CGPC pointed out that the application was not timely.  However, CGPC’s review of the 
applicant’s record and the Medals and Awards Manual (COMDTINST M1650.25D) revealed that 
the applicant is entitled to a National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore, CGPC recommended 
that the Board order that her DD 214 be corrected by issuance of a DD 215 to reflect the award 
of this medal. 

 
With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  reference  to  a  “veteran’s  preference”  under  Public  Law 
105-85, CGPC stated that the applicant’s DD 214 clearly shows that she was on active duty from 
March 4, 1985, to January 3, 1991, which overlaps with the period August 2, 1990, to January 2, 
1992.  Therefore, she is clearly entitled to claim a veteran’s preference when seeking Govern-
ment employment because of her service from August 2, 1990 (the beginning of the eligibility 
period), to January 3, 1991 (her separation date). 

 

 

On January 26, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s views and 

 
invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D states that when preparing a discharge form, 
DD 214, the administrative officer should “[e]nter all decorations, medals, badges, commenda-
tions, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized for all periods of service.”  This 
manual does not provide for any reference to or indication of a veteran’s preference on the DD 
214. 
 

COMDTINST M1650.25D, the Coast Guard’s current Medals and Awards Manual, con-
tains the rules governing the eligibility of Coast Guard members for various awards and medals.  
Chapter 5.A.5.a.(1) states the following as the primary eligibility criterion for a National Defense 
Service Medal: 

 
Honorable  active  service  as  a  member  of  the  Armed  Forces  for  any  period  (inclusive)  from  27 
June 1950 to 28 July 1954; from 1 January 1961 to 14 August 1974; from 2 August 1990 to 30 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

November  1995;  or  from  12  September  2001  to  a  date  to  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of 
Defense. 

 

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. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered,  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    Gulf  War-era  veterans  have  been  entitled  to  a  National 
Defense  Service  Medal  and  to  a  veteran’s  preference  in  Government  employment  for  many 
years.2  The applicant provided no date of discovery of the alleged errors in her record.  How-
ever, she clearly could have discovered the alleged errors upon simple inquiry many more than 
three years ago.  Therefore, her application is untimely. 

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

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  164-65;  see  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

Although the applicant failed to provide any justification for her delay, a cursory 
review  of  the  record  shows  that  she  is  entitled  to  a  medal  that  is  not  noted  on  her  DD  214.  
Therefore, the Board will waive the statute of limitations for this case in the interest of justice. 

Under  Chapter  5.A.5.a.(1)  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, the applicant is clearly entitled to a National Defense Service Medal because she 
served on active duty from before August 2, 1990—the beginning of the eligibility period for 
Gulf War-era veterans—until her discharge on January 3, 1991.  Therefore, her record should be 
corrected to show that she is entitled to this medal.   

6. 

The applicant’s DD 149 contains an unclear reference to the veteran’s preference 
authorized for all Gulf War-era veterans under section 1102 of the National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 1998.  While she clearly falls within the definition of a “veteran” under 
that law, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2108, she has not shown that her military record contains any 
error or injustice in this regard.  Nor has she shown that she has been denied a veteran’s prefer-
ence by the Government.  The manual for preparing DD 214s does not  allow eligibility for a 
veteran’s preference to be entered anywhere on the form, and the Board is unaware of any other 

                                                 
2  Exec.  Order  No.  12,776,  1991  WL  353263,  56  Fed.  Reg.  51,315  (1991);  U.S.  COAST  GUARD,  COMDTINST 
M1650.25B, MEDALS AND AWARDS MANUAL, Chap. 5.B.11. (March 29, 1995); National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. 105-85, § 1102, 111 Stat 1629 (1997). 

form where such information would be recorded in a veteran’s military record.  Moreover, the 
Board believes that eligibility for such a preference is assessed not by the Armed Forces upon 
discharge,  but  by  the  U.S.  Office  of  Personnel  Management,  since  the  preference  is  applied 
broadly to candidates for civilian Government employment with a certain amount or type of mili-
tary service.  The Board finds that the applicant has not proved that her Coast Guard military 
record contains any error or injustice with regard to her eligibility for a veteran’s preference. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s DD 214 

to show that she is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal. 
 

 
7. 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of her Coast Guard military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct her DD 214 dated January 3, 1991, by issuing a DD 215 

ORDER 

 

showing that she is entitled to a National Defense Service Medal. 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn  

 

 

 
 
 Janice Williams-Jones