DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2009-149 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  May  18,  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 February 25, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

 

 

The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  released  from  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard  on 
March 13, 1970, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was awarded a Bronze 
Star or Silver Star for his service in combat with Squadron #13 near Cat Lo, Vietnam, from Feb-
ruary to December, 1969.   

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD 214, which shows 
that he served on active duty from November 21, 1968, to March 13, 1970; performed 9 months 
and 14 days of overseas service; and is entitled  to wear the National  Defense Service Medal, 
Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon, and the Combat Action Ribbon.   

 
The applicant also submitted a copy of a memorandum from the Chief of the Office of 
Reserve dated November 24, 1969, stating that that office had been advised that “there was to be 
a ceremony honoring Reservists who have served in South Vietnam” either at the White House 
or the Pentagon and that the Department of Defense was inviting the Coast Guard to send one 
Reserve officer and one Reserve enlisted member to be honored along with reservists from the 
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.  A handwritten note below this memorandum states, “Random 
Silver Star? Copy to (PE).”  In addition, the applicant submitted a message dated November 26, 
1969, from the Chief of the Enlisted Personnel Division at the Personnel Command, stating that 
the applicant should report to Coast Guard Headquarters on December 12, 1969, to participate in 
a “presidential ceremony honoring reserve officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces.” 

 

The applicant also submitted pages 13 and 14 of an unknown document stating that three 
armed Navy skimmers and two Coast Guard cutters based at Cat Lo, Vietnam, POINT WHITE 
and POINT ELLIS, came under attack on October 27 (year unstated) and returned fire, causing 
“substantial casualties to the enemy vessel,” but there were no casualties on the Coast Guard’s 
vessels. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
The  applicant’s  military  record  shows  that  he  enlisted  in  the  Reserve  for  six  years  on 
October 4, 1966.  On November 21, 1968, he was called to extended active duty.  On February 
23, 1969, he was assigned to Activities Vietnam aboard the patrol boat POINT CLEAR, which 
was part of Division Thirteen.  An orange Service Record Card in the applicant’s record shows 
that in addition to serving on the POINT CLEAR, the applicant served on the POINT CAUTION 
from June 12 to 25, 1969; on the POINT PARTRIDGE from June 26 to 30, 1969; and on the 
POINT JEFFERSON from June 30, 1969, until he returned stateside in December of that year.   

 
On December 4, 1969, the applicant returned stateside from Vietnam.  An entry in his 
record dated December 7, 1969, states that the applicant was being transferred to Coast Guard 
Headquarters for temporary duty, after which he would be transferred to District 5.  It further 
states that he had served 9 months, 14 days in Division Thirteen in Vietnam and that all but 3 of 
those days were sea duty.  The applicant was authorized “to wear Vietnam Service Medal with 
one (01) bronze star and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with clasp (1960 -    ) for duty 
in Vietnam from 24 February 1969 to 7 December 1969, inclusive.” 

 
On December 16, 1969, the applicant advanced from seaman to boatswain’s mate, third 
class (BM3), upon an order from Headquarters.  On January 17, 1970, he was assigned to duty 
on the CAPSTAN, a small harbor tug in the port of Alexandria, Virginia, until he was released 
from active duty on March 13, 1970.   

 
In May 1971, the Navy awarded all of Division Thirteen a Meritorious Unit Commenda-
tion for “meritorious service … as a part of the Coastal Surveillance Force” in Vietnam from July 
8 to August 8, 1969.  The certificate and copies of correspondence about the award listing the 
applicant’s name as a member of Division Thirteen were entered in his record. 

 
On October 3, 1972, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Reserve upon the 

expiration of his Reserve enlistment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 15, 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 requests. 

 
The JAG stated that the applicant knew or should have known what medals he had been 
awarded upon his discharge from the Coast Guard Reserve in 1972 and so his application was 
not timely submitted.  The JAG stated that the applicant has submitted no excuse for his long 
delay in seeking the additional medals and no documentation of the medals he claims.  The JAG 
recommended that the applicant’s request “be denied for being untimely and lack of merit.” 

 
The  JAG  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a  memorandum  on  the  case 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (CGPSC).  CGPSC stated that a review of 
the applicant’s military record shows that he was authorized to wear a National Defense Service 
Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon, Combat Action Rib-
bon, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon but not a Bronze Star or Silver Star.  In addi-
tion, CGPSC stated that its review of the applicant’s record “revealed that it does not substantiate 
any performance or acts that would warrant the award of the Bronze Star or the Silver Star by 
today’s standards.”  Therefore, CGPSC recommended that the Board deny relief. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On September 28, 2009, 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 

 
 
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.” 
 

COMDTINST M1650.25D, the Coast Guard’s Medals and Awards Manual (MAM), con-
tains the rules governing the eligibility of Coast Guard members for various awards and medals.  
Chapter 2.A.5. provides the following criteria for a Silver Star under 10 U.S.C. § 6244: 

 
a. Eligibility requirements. May be awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with 
the U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps, is cited for gallantry in action but does not justify the award 
of the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross: 
 

(1) While engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in 
military  operations  involving  conflict  with  an  opposing  foreign  force;  or,  while  serving  with 
friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the 
United States is not a belligerent party. 

(2) To warrant this decoration, the act or the execution of duty must be performed in the 
presence of great danger or at great personal risk. It also must be performed in such a manner as to 
render the individual highly conspicuous above others of equal grade, rate, experience, or position 
of  responsibility.  An  accumulation  of  minor  acts  of  heroism  does  not  justify  the  award.  When 
recommending the award, bear in mind the high standards demanded. 

b.  Standard  opening  phrase  for  citations:  “.  .  .  distinguished  himself  or  herself  by  gallantry  in 
connection with military operations against (an enemy of the United States)….” 

 

  

 
Chapter  2.A.10.  of  the  MAM  provides  the  following  criteria  for  a  Bronze  Star  under 
Executive  Order  11046,  issued  on  August  25,  1962,  as  amended  by  Executive  Order  11382, 
issued on November 28, 1967: 
 

a. Eligibility requirements.  Awarded to any person  who, while serving in any capacity  with the 
Armed Forces of the United States, distinguishes him or herself after 7 December 1941, by heroic 
or meritorious achievement or service not involving participation in aerial flight. 

(1) While engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in 
military  operations  involving  conflict  with  an  opposing  foreign  force;  or,  while  serving  with 

friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the 
United States is not a belligerent party. 

(2) To warrant this decoration, accomplishment or performance of duty above that nor-
mally expected, and sufficient to distinguish the individual among those performing comparable 
duties,  is  required,  although  less  than  the  requirements  for  the  Silver  Star  or  LOM  [Legion  of 
Merit]. 

Enclosure (16) to the MAM states the following regarding the Vietnam Service Medal 

 

(VSM) and bronze stars: 
 

The Vietnam Service Medal was awarded to members of the armed forces, who served in Viet-
nam, its contiguous waters, or airspace, between 15 March 1962 and 28 March 1973. Personnel 
serving  in  Thailand,  Laos  or  Cambodia,  in  direct  support  of  operations  in  Vietnam,  during  this 
period, are also eligible for the medal. To qualify for award of the Vietnam Service Medal an indi-
vidual must have met one of the following qualifications: 
 
-  Be  attached  to  or  regularly  serve  for  1  or  more  days  with  an  organization  participating  in  or 
directly supporting or aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations. 
- Actually participate as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam 
and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations. 
- Serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days, except that the time 
limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations. 
 
**NOTE** Medal and 1 bronze star with first award. Additional bronze stars awarded for each 
subsequent period of service. A silver star is used in place of five (5) bronze stars. 
 
The list of eligible campaigns for the VSM in the current MAM includes three campaigns 

that overlap the applicant’s service in Vietnam in 1969: 

 
o X - 23 February 1969 to 8 June 1969 - TET 69/Counteroffensive 
o XI - 09 June 1969 to 31 October 1969 - Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969 
o XII - 01 November 1969 to 30 April 1970 - Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970 
 
Enclosure  (16)  of  COMDTINST  M1560.25D  also  lists  the  vessels  whose  crews  were 
eligible  for  the  VSM.    The  list  includes  the  four  patrol  boats  on  which  the  applicant  served 
according  to  his  Service  Record  Card:    POINT  CLEAR,  POINT  CAUTION,  POINT  PAR-
TRIDGE, and POINT JEFFERSON. 
 

Chapter 3.B.6. of the MAM states that the Secretary of the Navy may award the Navy 
Meritorious  Unit  Commendation  to  any  Coast  Guard  unit  “that  has  distinguished  itself,  under 
combat  or  non-combat  conditions,  by  either  valorous  or  meritorious  achievement,  but  whose 
achievement is not sufficient to justify the award of the Navy Unit Commendation.  Coast Guard 
personnel are eligible for this award only if they were serving with a cited unit and meet the eli-
gibility criteria.”  Enclosure (8) of the manual shows that Division Thirteen was awarded this 
medal for its performance from July 8 to August 8, 1969, and lists twelve of the patrol boats in 
that division, including POINT CAUTION, POINT CLEAR, POINT JEFFERSON, and POINT 
PARTRIDGE. 
 

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.  The applicant received his DD 214 in 1970, and he knew or 
should  have  known  that  he  had  not  been  awarded  a  Silver  Star  or  Bronze  Star  at  that  time.  
Therefore, his application is untimely. 

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

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).   

The applicant provided no explanation or justification for his long delay in seek-

ing the Silver Star and Bronze Star. 

The Board’s cursory review of the merit of the applicant’s request for a Silver Star 
or Bronze Star medal shows that it lacks merit.  An administrative entry dated December 7, 1969, 
in the applicant’s military record shows that while serving in Vietnam on the patrol boats of Divi-
sion Thirteen, he became entitled to wear the VSM with one bronze star, but this little bronze star 
is not the same thing as a Bronze Star.  A little bronze star attached to a VSM indicates that the 
VSM has been awarded once.  If the VSM is awarded again, another little bronze star is attached 
to the original medal, in accordance with Enclosure (16) of the MAM.  A Bronze Star, on the 
other hand, is awarded to an individual member who “distinguishes him or herself … by heroic 
or meritorious achievement or service.”  MAM, Chap. 2.A.10.  The applicant’s military records 
show that he served honorably.  However, there is no evidence in his record that he was ever 
awarded a Bronze Star or that he ever distinguished himself from his crewmates by such heroic 
or meritorious performance that his lack of receipt of a Bronze Star should be considered errone-
ous or unjust. 

The  applicant’s  record  shows  that  upon  his  return  from  Vietnam  in  December 
1969, he was called to participate in a ceremony honoring all Reserve branches of the Armed 
Forces as a representative of the Coast Guard Reserve.  On a memorandum dated November 24, 
1969, about the upcoming ceremony, someone made a handwritten note saying “Random Silver 
Star? Copy to (PE).”  This note suggests that someone questioned whether all the Reserve repre-
sentatives attending the ceremony were going to be issued Silver Stars regardless of whether the 
medals  had  been  earned.    However,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant  was 
actually awarded a Silver Star when he attended this ceremony.  And while the record shows that 
he served his country honorably, there is no evidence that he was ever awarded a Silver Star or 

that he ever so distinguished himself from his crewmates by gallantry in operations against the 
enemy that his lack of receipt of a Silver Star should be considered erroneous or unjust under 
Chapter 2.A.5. of the MAM. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  Bronze  Star  or  Silver  Star  should  be 

denied because it is untimely and lacks merit. 

However, in the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion, CGPSC noted that the applicant 
is entitled to a Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon, which was awarded to the crews 
of twelve cutters of Division Thirteen for their performance from July 8 to August 8, 1969.  This 
award is documented in the applicant’s record but is not listed on his DD 214, as required by 
Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D.  In fact, the award was not issued by the Navy until 
May 1971, more than a year after the applicant received the DD 214 upon his release from active 
duty  on  March  13,  1970.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  in  the  interest  of  justice  the  Coast 
Guard should correct the applicant’s DD 214 by issuing a DD 215 to show that he received a 
Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon during the period of active duty documented by 
the DD 214. 

Finally, the Board notes that the applicant was serving on patrol boats in or near 
the Mekong Delta during three of the periods listed in Enclosure (16) to the MAM, which states 
that members of the Armed Forces were eligible for an award of the VSM for each of the periods 
listed as long as they were serving on a vessel supporting military operations in Vietnam for at 
least one day during the period.  Therefore, although the administrative entry in the applicant’s 
record dated December 7, 1969, states that he was entitled to a VSM with one bronze star, denot-
ing one award of the VSM, it appears to the Board that the applicant may be entitled to three 
awards of the VSM—i.e., a VSM with three bronze stars.  The Board further notes that each of 
the four patrol boats on which the applicant served in 1969 is listed in Enclosure (16).  However, 
the  rules  regarding  the  award  of  the VSM  are  not  entirely  clear.   Therefore,  the  Board  is  not 
certain that the applicant is actually entitled to three awards of the VSM.  Because the Board is 
ordering the Coast Guard to issue a DD 215 noting the applicant’s receipt of a Navy Meritorious 
Unit Commendation Ribbon, the Board will also order the Coast Guard to review the applicant’s 
entitlement to VSMs under Enclosure (16) of the MAM in light of his service aboard the POINT 
CLEAR,  POINT  CAUTION,  POINT  PARTRIDGE,  and  POINT  JEFFERSON  in  1969  and  to 
make any necessary  correction regarding his receipt of VSMs (additional bronze stars) on the 
DD 215. 
 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former BM3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 

Coast Guard military record is denied except that the Coast Guard shall 

ORDER 

 

 
(a)  correct his DD 214 dated March 13, 1970, by issuing a DD 215 to show that he is 
entitled to wear the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon for his service on Division 
Thirteen patrol boats in Vietnam from July 8 to August 8, 1969; and  

 
(b)  review his record of service aboard patrol boats in Vietnam from February 23, 1969, 
to  December  4,  1969,  and  Enclosure  (16)  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  to  determine 
whether he is entitled to more than one award of the Vietnam Service Medal—i.e., a Vietnam 
Service Medal with more than one bronze star—and, if so, to note these awards correctly on the 
DD 215. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley