DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-123 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on April  10,  2009,  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  January  14,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
 

 

 

 

The applicant, who was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve on February 
25, 1946, asked the Board to award him a Purple Heart.  He alleged that during World War II he 
suffered a 30% hearing loss because he served in combat on a 3” gun crew on an LST. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  discovered  the  error  in  his  record  on  February  8,  2008, 
when he learned from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) that a  hearing loss could be 
considered a combat injury. 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  a  DVA  decision  dated 
February 8, 2008, which stated that he has been awarded a 30% combined disability rating for 
hearing loss (20%) and tinnitus (10%), effective as of September 14, 2007. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORDS 

On November 10, 1943, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  The applicant 
was assigned the various training units before reporting aboard LST 168 on September 7, 1944.  
During his service, he advanced to radarman third class (RdM3c) 

 
The  applicant’s  military  medical  records  show  that  while  serving  on  active  duty,  he 
received  an  induction  physical  examination,  several  vaccinations,  a  physical  examination  to 

determine his fitness for training as a radarman, a physical examination to determine his fitness 
for sea duty, four dental examinations, and a pre-discharge physical examination.  None of the 
medical records contain any mention of a complaint of or treatment for hearing loss. 

 
Prior to the pre-discharge physical examination, the applicant completed a medical ques-
tionnaire, on which he noted that he had not suffered any injuries or disabilities while in the ser-
vice.    In  response  to  the  question,  “Were  you  treated  for  any  illnesses  which  are  not  in  your 
health record, but which you want noted,” he wrote, “Yes, jungle rot.”  The applicant was found 
fit for discharge and he signed a form on February 15, 1946, agreeing with the physician’s find-
ing  that  he  had  no  physical  defects.    The  applicant  also  signed  forms  stating  that  he  did  not 
intend to file a claim for compensation or a pension from the Veterans’ Administration. 

 
A note in the applicant’s record signed by the commanding officer of LST 168 states that 

he is “entitled to wear the following campaign ribbons with authorized stars as enumerated”: 

 
Asiatic-Pacific Theatre 
   1.  Morotai Operation 
   1.  Leyte Operation 
   1.  Lingayen Gulf Operation 
   1.  Balikpapan Invasion 
 
Philippine Liberation ribbon (2) stars thereon. 
 
Participated in occupation of Japan, Yokohama, Tokyo Bay.  9-14-45 to 9-23-45. 
 
American Theatre 
 
World War 2 Victory Medal 
 
On  February  16,  1946,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Reserve.   A 
memorandum dated February 16, 1946, advised him that he was entitled to wear the American 
Area Campaign Ribbon, the Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Ribbon with four stars, the Philip-
pine Liberation Campaign Ribbon with two stars, and the World War II Victory Ribbon. 

 
On April 18, 1990, the applicant submitted a request for medals to the National Personnel 
Records Center (NPRC).  On May 16, 1990, he was sent the medals listed in his military records, 
which did not include a Purple Heart. 

 
On  December,  13,  2006,  the  applicant  again  asked  the  NPRC  for  medals.   The  NPRC 
advised him that policy allowed each veteran to receive just one replacement of his awards and 
that the applicant had already received his awards. 
  

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
During World War II, the Coast Guard operated as a part of the Navy.  Section 230.9 of 
SECNAVINST 1650.1H states that the Purple Heart is awarded to members of the Armed Forces 
who have been wounded in action against an enemy of the United States.  Paragraph d of this 
section states that “the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a 

medical officer at the time of injury,” unless the wound was received while the member was a 
prisoner of war.   
 

Section  831.1  of  SECNAVINST  1650.1H  states  that  for  World  Wars  I  and  II  and  the 
Korean War, the Purple Heart is only awarded to members “wounded as a direct result of enemy 
action.”  (For later conflicts, the wound may be an indirect result of enemy action.)  Paragraph d 
of this section states that if adequate document of the cause of the injury is not available “due to 
the complete or partial loss of an individual’s records, two sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses to 
the injury who were present at the time of the injury and have personal knowledge of the circum-
stances under which the injury occurred, may be submitted for consideration. (Statements from 
witnesses ‘after the fact’ will not be considered.)” 

 
Similar criteria for the Purple Heart Medal appear in the Coast Guard Medals and Awards 

Manual, COMDTINST 1650.25D. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 5, 2009, 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.  In so 
doing,  he  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a  memorandum  on  the  case  by  the 
Personnel Service Center (PSC). 
 
 
The PSC noted that the application was not timely and that the applicant “provided no 
justification for the over 60 year delay in filing.”  Regarding the applicant’s request for a Purple 
Heart, the PSC stated the following: 
 

A review of the Applicant’s record does not support his entitlement to  the Purple Heart Medal.  
There is no indication within the Applicant’s record that he was injured as a result of enemy action 
and received treatment by a medical authority for such injury. [Citation omitted.]  While the Appli-
cant has a service connected disability  for hearing loss, such disability does not in and of itself 
qualify [him] for the award of the Purple Heart. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 6, 2009, the Chair sent a copy of the Coast Guard’s views to the applicant.  

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

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. 

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.  The record shows that upon his discharge from active duty, 

the  applicant  was  notified  in  a  memorandum  of  the  awards  he  was  entitled  to  wear.    The 
memorandum does not mention a Purple Heart.  The applicant’s discharge papers also list his 
medals but no Purple Heart.  Moreover, the record indicates that the applicant inquired about his 
medals in 1990 and did not claim or receive a Purple Heart.  Therefore, the Board finds that the 
applicant  clearly  knew  he  had  not  received  a  Purple  Heart  several  decades  ago,  and  so  his 
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 164-65; see also Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

3. 

Regarding the delay of his application, the applicant stated that he only recently 
realized he was entitled to a Purple Heart when the DVA awarded him a service-connected dis-
ability rating for his hearing loss.  However, a finding of a service-connected disability by the 
DVA is not probative of whether a member is entitled to a Purple Heart.  The applicant’s expla-
nation for his long delay is not compelling.  

The  Board’s  review  of  the  applicant’s  military  and  medical  records  shows  that 
there are no records supporting his claim that he suffered significant hearing loss while aboard 
the LST 168 as a result of enemy action.  The fact that today, more than 60 years later, the appli-
cant is suffering from hearing loss and tinnitus that the DVA has found to be service connected 
does not prove that he suffered an injury in action against the enemy that was sufficiently severe 
at the time to require medical treatment.  Section 230.9 of SECNAVINST 1650.1H states that the 
Purple Heart is awarded to members who have incurred an injury in action against an enemy of 
the United States, and the injury “must have required treatment by a medical officer at the time 
of injury,” unless the injury was received while the member was a prisoner of war.  There is no 
evidence that the applicant was treated for hearing loss while aboard the LST 168 or prior to his 
discharge from the Service.  Based on the record before it, the Board finds that the applicant’s 
claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  will  not  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  the  application  or 

waive the statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  former  RdM3c  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

his military record is denied.