DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-152 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  March  26,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, a ship’s cook, first class during World War II, asked the Board to correct 
his  military  record  to  show  that  he  was  awarded  a  Purple  Heart  for  injuries  he  received  in 
Singapore in 1942.  The applicant alleged that he was serving aboard a troop transport ship when 
it came under fire by Japanese planes.  He alleged that he was wounded by shrapnel during an 
explosion.  The applicant did not explain why he waited 67 years before requesting the medal. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  April  18,  1939,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard.    He  served  as  a  mess 
attendant aboard the ITASCA from May 1939 to May 1941 and as a ship’s cook aboard the USS 
WAKEFIELD from June 1941 to September 1942.   
 

According to the Coast Guard’s history of the USS WAKEFIELD, on January 30, 1942, 
the WAKEFIELD was tied up to the dock in Singapore to refuel after offloading British troops 
and supplies when Japanese planes arrived and began dropping bombs.  There was one direct hit 
to the ship in the ship’s hospital area.  Five men were killed, and nine were injured.  

 
The applicant’s military medical records contain no entry dated in January or February 
1942.  On May 4, 1942, he underwent a physical examination aboard the WAKEFIELD pursuant 

to his reenlistment for three years.  The applicant reported “no illness since last examination.”  
The doctor did not report any illness or injuries, and the applicant was found fit for reenlistment. 

 
Following repairs, the WAKEFIELD delivered Marines to New Zealand in May 1942 and 
Army troops to Europe in August 1942.  On the way back from Europe in September 1942, a 
large fire broke out and destroyed the WAKEFIELD.  Other ships in the convoy rescued the pas-
sengers and crew.  
 
 
After the fire, the applicant served at six different shore units during the next two years.  
On August 15, 1944, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with “Psychoneurosis, Situational.”  He 
reported  feeling  increasingly  nervous  and  depressed  since  shortly  after  the WAKEFIELD  was 
bombed in Singapore.  He remained hospitalized because his condition did not improve.   
 

On March 29, 1945, the applicant was evaluated by a Board of Medical Survey, which 
found him to be permanently unfit for duty as a result of a situational psychoneurosis that was 
incident to service and recommended that he be  discharged.  On May 17, 1945, the applicant 
received an honorable discharge because of a “physical disability, incident to service,” in accor-
dance with the recommendation of the Board of Medical Survey. 
 
 
On August  22,  1945,  Chief,  Personnel  Records  forwarded  the  report  of  the  Board  of 
Medical Survey  and hospital records to the Veterans’ Administration along with the following 
summary of the applicant’s other medical treatment while in the Service: 
 

Treated  as  outpatient  CGC  ITASCA  from  20  to  23  June,  1939,  for  “Wound,  incised,  left  index 
finger”;  from  17  to  26  July,  1939,  for  “Infection,  right  big  toe”;  on  28  November,  1939,  for 
“Ingrowing nail, right great toe”; from 17 to 20 January, 1940, for “Trichophytosis, feet”; from 26 
to 28 July, 1940, for “Common cold.” 
 
Treated as outpatient U.S. Coast Guard YARD, Curtis Bay, Maryland, from 4 to 6 February, 1941, 
for “Common cold”; from 23 to 25 February, 1941, for “Wound, incised, right eye.” 
 
Treated as outpatient U.S. Coast Guard Training Station, Ellis Island, New York, from 4 to 8 June, 
1941, for “Blister, right thumb.” 

 

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  September  24,  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. 
 
 
The JAG stated that the application was not timely because he “was well aware of what 
awards or medals he obtained or not prior to his discharge in 1945.”  The JAG also noted that the 
applicant  provided  no  rationale  for  his  long  delay  in  seeking  a  Purple  Heart  and  no  evidence 
supporting his allegations. 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    PSC  noted  that  under  Chapter  2.A.11.  of  the  current 
Medals and Awards Manual, to receive a Purple Heart, a member must incur a wound that is a 
direct result of any enemy action and that “required treatment by a medical authority (except in 
the case of a prisoner of war).”  PSC stated that “there is no record of the applicant having been 
treated  by  medical  authorities  for  combat  related  injuries  due  to  an  incident  resulting  from 
shrapnel or  any such  combat-related malady.  The applicant’s claim to be awarded the Purple 
Heart Medal is therefore not justified.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On September 28, 2009, the Chair sent a copy of the Coast Guard’s views to the applicant 
and  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    The  applicant  requested  and  was  granted  an 
extension of the time to respond through January 8, 2010.  No further 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  applicant  waited  more  than  60  years  following  his 
discharge to request a Purple Heart.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 
 

3. 

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.”1   

The applicant provided no explanation for his delay.   

Purple  Heart  Medals  are  awarded  to  members  wounded  as  a  result  of  enemy 
action, and the wound must require medical treatment to qualify a member for a Purple Heart 
unless the member was a prisoner of war at the time.2  The Board’s review of the applicant’s 
military medical records shows that there are no records supporting his claim that he was injured 
by shrapnel when the WAKEFIELD was bombed in Singapore on January 30, 1942.  There is no 
evidence that he sought treatment for any injury during that period, and no injury was reported 
during his physical examination on May 4, 1942.  These military and medical records are pre-
sumptively correct.3  The Board notes that the applicant was medically separated due to a situ-
ational  psychoneurosis  stemming  from  the  bombing  of  the  WAKEFIELD,  and  under  current 
medical terminology his condition would likely be diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD).  However, Purple Hearts are not awarded for PTSD.  Based on the record before it, the 
Board finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

Accordingly, the Board will not waive the statute of limitations.  The applicant’s 

 
4. 
 
5. 

 
6. 

 

request should be denied. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995).   
2 SECNAVINST 1650.1H, § 230.9; COMDTINST 1650.25D, Chap. 2.A.11.   
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

his military record is denied.