DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-012 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 October 21, 2010, 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  June  23,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard in 1971, asked the 
Board to correct his discharge form DD 214 to show that he is entitled to wear the “Sea Service 
ribbon, Arctic ribbon, and one other.  Please review records for accuracy.”  He alleged that he 
discovered the errors on January 1, 2010, when he looked at his DD 214, which “had been put 
away for years.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  September  25,  1967,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years.    On 
October 21, 1968, after completing boot camp and Radioman “A” School, the applicant reported 
for duty at a LORAN station in Adak, Alaska, an isolated unit.1  On March 10, 1969, he was 
transferred to the CGC IRONWOOD, a buoy tender based in Homer, Alaska.2  An Administra-
tive Remarks entry made by the  executive officer of the  IRONWOOD  on February 13, 1970, 
noted that the applicant completed 11 months and 4 days of sea duty before he was transferred 
from  the  cutter.    On  February  28,  1970,  the  applicant  reported  for  duty  at  Air  Station  Port 
Angeles, Washington, where he served until he was released from active duty into the Reserve on 
September 24, 1971.   
                                                 
1 Located near the western end of the Aleutian Islands, Adak is the southernmost city in Alaska, at 51°53’0” North. 
2 Homer, Alaska, at 59°38’35” North, is south of Anchorage on the Kenai Peninsula. 

Administrative  entries  in  the  applicant’s  record  show  that  he  was  issued  the  National 

 
 
Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. 
 

The applicant’s DD 214 dated September 24, 1971, which he signed, shows entitlement 
to only the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal in block 24, where 
medals and awards are listed. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 5, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG 
stated that the application is untimely and that the applicant failed to explain why he waited so 
long to seek correction of the alleged error. 
 

In recommending denial, the JAG adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memo-
randum on the case prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).  The PSC stated that relief 
should be denied because a careful review of the applicant’s record has shown that no awards, 
medals, or ribbons were erroneously omitted from his DD 214.  In this regard, the PSC noted that 
the criteria for a Sea Service ribbon include 12 months of sea duty, which the applicant did not 
have, and that the list of units authorized to wear the Arctic Service medal does not include any 
unit to which the applicant was assigned for the period the medal was authorized. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
and invited him to submit a response within thirty days.  No response was received. 

On January 18, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

Chapter 5.A.21. of the  Medals and Awards Manual states that the Sea Service Ribbon 
was authorized on March 3, 1984, and is “[a]warded to active and inactive duty members of the 
Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve or non-Coast Guard personnel who, under temporary or 
permanent  assignment,  satisfactorily  complete  a  minimum  of  12  months  cumulative  sea  duty 
(first award).”  The manual contains no provisions for a retroactive award of this ribbon. 
 

Chapter 5.A.5.a. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that the Arctic Service Medal, 
which was authorized on May 20, 1976, may be awarded to the following members for service 
since January 1, 1946: 
 

(1)  Any  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  who,  during  summer  operations  (1  May  to  31  October), 
serves in any Coast Guard mission north of the Arctic Circle (66°33’N); or any member of the 
Coast Guard who, during winter operations (1 November to 30 April), serves or has served aboard 
a Coast Guard vessel operating in polar waters north of latitude 60 degrees North, specifically in 
the  Bering  Sea,  Davis  Strait,  or  Denmark  Strait.  Minimum  time  requirement  is  21  consecutive 
days under competent orders. Only one award per deployment is authorized. 
 
(2) Any member of the Coast Guard who participates in or has participated in flights … 

 
(3) Any member of the Coast Guard who serves or has served at least 21 consecutive days under 
competent orders at: 
 

(a) CG Loran Station, Cape Atholl, Greenland [76°18’56”N]; 
(b) CG Loran Station, Cape Christian, Baffin Island, Canada [70°32’N]; 
(c) CG Loran Station, Port Clarence, Alaska [65°14’40”N]; 
(d) CG Loran Station, Barrow, Alaska [71°17’44”N]; 
(e) CG Loran Station, Bo, Norway [68°38’06”N]; or 
(f) CG Loran Station, Jan Mayen Island, Norway [70°54’51”N]. 

 
 
Enclosure (14) to the Medals and Awards Manual lists the cutters and periods for which 
the crews of those cutters were eligible for the Arctic Service Medal.  The CGC IRONWOOD is 
not on the list. 
 

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. 

 

 
3. 

2. 

Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  an  application  to  the  Board  should  be  filed  within 
three years of when the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  Because the Arctic 
Service Medal and Sea Service Ribbon were both authorized after the applicant was discharged 
from active duty, he could not have known about the alleged errors upon his discharge.  How-
ever, he could have discovered the alleged errors at any time after the medal and ribbon were 
authorized in 1976 and 1984, respectively.  The applicant claimed that he discovered the alleged 
errors on January 1, 2010, when he apparently looked at his DD 214 for the first time in many 
years.  Presumably, after looking at his DD 214, he wondered if he might be entitled to additional 
medals and learned of the existence of the Sea Service Ribbon and the Arctic Service Medal.   

The  Board’s  rules  at  33  C.F.R.  §  52.22  state  that  an  application  “must  be  filed 
within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the 
alleged error or injustice.”  Courts have held that the plain language of § 1552(b) requires the 
Board to use the actual date of discovery, rather than the date at which a hypothetical “reasona-
ble person” would have  discovered the alleged error or injustice,3 but also that “this does not 
mean that the actual date of discovery is whenever a plaintiff says it is.”4  In McFarlane v. Secre-
tary of the Air Force, 867 F. Supp 405, 412 n.12 (E.D. Va. 1994), the court noted that “[a]though 
the relevant inquiry is what Ms. McFarlane knew and when she knew it, the Board may have to 
consider what a reasonable person would have known in order to establish what Ms. McFarlane 
herself knew. …. [I]f direct evidence of Ms. McFarlane’s knowledge is inconclusive, then the 
best evidence of what and when [she] knew may well be circumstantial, that is, what reasonable 
people in her situation would have known. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 797 F.2d 184, 187 
(4th Cir. 1986) (government may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge).”  In this 
                                                 
3 McFarlane v. Secretary of the Air Force, 867 F. Supp 405, 411-12 (E.D. Va. 1994). 
4 Wielkoszewski v. Harvey, 2005 WL 3206855, at *5 (D.D.C.). 

case, the Board knows of no ubiquitous publicity that would have alerted a reasonable veteran of 
the  Coast  Guard  to  his  potential  entitlement  to  the  Sea  Service  Ribbon  or  the  Arctic  Service 
Medal.  Therefore, although the applicant, with due diligence, could have discovered his poten-
tial entitlement to these awards many years ago, the Board finds that the date of his discovery 
was when he pulled out his DD 214 and learned about the awards in 2010.  Therefore, his appli-
cation is timely. 

Although  the  application  is  timely,  the  Board  finds  that  it  fails  on  the  merits 
because the applicant did not qualify for either a Sea Service Ribbon or an Arctic Service Medal 
under the eligibility criteria in the Medals and Awards Manual.  With regard to the Sea Service 
Ribbon, the applicant is ineligible for two reasons:  First, the ribbon was first authorized in 1984, 
and  Chapter  5.A.21.  of  the  Medals  and Awards  Manual,  which  governs  its  issuance,  does  not 
provide  for  retroactive  issuance  to  veterans;  second,  the  eligibility  criteria  in  Chapter  5.A.21. 
require a full year of sea duty, but the applicant performed just 11 months and 4 days of sea duty.  
In contrast, the Arctic Service Medal was authorized retroactively back to 1946 for veterans with 
qualifying service.  However, the applicant’s records show that he never performed service that 
qualified  him  for  the  medal  under  the  eligibility  criteria  in  Chapter  5.A.5.  of  the  Medals  and 
Awards Manual even though he was assigned to both a shore unit and a cutter based in Alaska.  
His shore unit, LORAN Station Adak, at latitude 51°53’ North, was far south of the Arctic Circle 
at latitude 66°33’ North and is not listed in Chapter 5.A.5.a.(3) as one of the LORAN stations 
whose personnel may qualify for the medal.  His cutter, CGC IRONWOOD, was a buoy tender, 
and although it was based at Homer, Alaska, latitude 59°38’35” North, it is not listed in Enclo-
sure (14) to the Medals and Awards Manual as one of the cutters whose crew ever served 21 con-
secutive days (a) north of the Arctic Circle during summer months or (b) north of latitude 60° 
North in the Bering Sea during winter months. 

The Board notes that the applicant requested another, unspecified award.  How-
ever,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to  any  medal,  ribbon,  or  award  other  than  those 
already listed on his DD 214. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request for correction should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Reagan N. Clyne 

 

 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

of his military record is denied.