DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-016 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 November 1, 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 1966, asked the 
Board to correct his discharge form DD 214 to show that he received a medal for participating in 
the Cuban Missile Crisis1 and to have the Coast Guard issue a DD 215 showing all of the medals 
and citations he received.  The applicant alleged that he was “on a 8203 running patrols around 
Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis to help protect other boats in the area.  We were stationed 
out of Miami, FL.”  He alleged that he discovered the error on August 10, 2010, when he applied 
to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars and was told he should have the medal. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On August 15, 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  After com-
pleting  basic  training  on  November  14,  1962,  he  was  assigned  to  the  administrative  office  of 
Group New Orleans in District 8 from November 26, 1962, until April 2, 1963, when he received 
temporary orders assigning him to the crew of a patrol boat, CG-82303, which was homeported 
at Grand Isle, Louisiana.  However, the patrol boat and its crew were temporarily reassigned to 
                                                 
1 The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962, when in response to the construction of missile bases on Cuba 
by the Soviet Union, the United States created a blockade to prevent the delivery of  arms to Cuba.  The crisis ended 
on October 28, 1962, when the Soviet Union agreed to dismantle and remove its missiles from Cuba and the United 
States agreed never to invade Cuba and to remove certain missiles from Europe and Turkey.  The Soviets dismantled 
the missile bases and removed the missiles in November and December 1962. 

Miami, Florida, in District 7, and the applicant remained with the crew in District 7 from April 7 
to July 1, 1963.  On July 17, 1963, the applicant reported for duty at Group Duluth, Minnesota.  
He served at various units in Minnesota and Wisconsin until he was honorably discharged on 
August 12, 1966.  The only award listed on his DD 214, which he signed upon his discharge, is 
the Good Conduct Medal.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 13, 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.    In 
recommending denial, the JAG adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on 
the  case  prepared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC),  which  stated  that  the  Board  should 
deny relief because there was no “citation, award, ribbon, medal, or any other accoutrement or 
designation”  for  members  involved  in  the  Cuban  Missile  Crisis.    The  PSC  also  stated  that  a 
thorough  review  of  the  applicant’s  entire  service  record  had  shown  that  the  only  award  he  is 
entitled to is a Good Conduct Medal, which is already shown on his DD 214. 
 

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.B.11.  of  the  old  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1650.25B, 
issued in 1995, states that the primary criterion for a National Defense Service Medal, which was 
authorized by Executive Order 11265 on January 11, 1966, is “[h]onorable active service as a 
member of the Armed Forces for any period after 26 June 1950 and before 28 July 1954, after 31 
December  1960  and  before  15  August  1974,  or  on  or  after  2  August  1990  until  a  date  to  be 
determined by the Secretary of Defense.”  The exceptions that follow this criterion are inapplica-
ble in this case.  Chapter 5.A.5.a.(1) of the current Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, includes similar language and adds more recent eligibility periods. 
 
 
Under  Chapter  5.B.4.  of  the  old  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  Coast  Guard  members 
could receive a Navy Expeditionary Medal, which was authorized on May 13, 1935, if between 
January 3, 1961, and October 23, 1962, they “actually landed on foreign territory and engaged in 
operations against armed opposition, or operated under circumstances which after full considera-
tion shall be deemed to merit special recognition and for which service no campaign medal has 
been awarded.”  For the purposes of this award, the “Cuban operation area” was defined as “that 
water area between 12 and 28 degrees north latitude and between 66 and 84 degrees west longi-
tude,” and so includes Miami, Florida, which is located at about 25° N, 80° W.  The units and 
vessels whose crews were eligible for this medal are listed in Enclosure (9) to the manual.  The 
applicant’s vessel, WPB 82303, later named the POINT YOUNG, is not on the list.  Nor is it on 
the list for this medal in Enclosure (12) to the current Medals and Awards Manual. 
 

 
Under Chapter 5.B.15. of the old Medals and Awards Manual, members could receive an 
Armed  Forces  Expeditionary  Medal,  which  was  authorized  by  Executive  Order  10977  on 
December 4, 1961, if between October 24, 1962, and June 1, 1963, they served 30 consecutive 
days in the Cuba operations area; served 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days in direct 
support of the operation and entered the operations area; or engaged in actual combat against an 
armed  opponent  during  the  operation.    The  vessels  and  the  periods  for  which  those  vessels’ 
crews are eligible for the medal are listed in Enclosure (12) to the manual.  The applicant’s ves-
sel, WPB 82303 (CGC POINT YOUNG), is not on the list.  Nor is it on the list for this medal in 
Enclosure (15) to the current Medals and Awards Manual. 
 

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. 

An application to the Board should be filed within three years of when the appli-
cant discovers the alleged error in his record.2  The applicant has asked for a medal for his ser-
vice  during  the  Cuban  Missile  Crisis.   All  of  the  medals  that  a  Coast  Guard  member  could 
receive for serving during the Cuban Missile Crisis were authorized before the applicant’s dis-
charge in 1966.  The applicant alleged that he did not know about the possibility of any such 
medals until August 10, 2010, but the Board finds this unlikely.3  Although the applicant may 
have forgotten in the long interim that some Coast Guard members received medals for service 
during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Board finds that he knew of the possibility of receiving such 
medals prior to his discharge.4  In addition, the Board notes that the applicant signed his DD 214 
showing  entitlement  to  only  the  Good  Conduct  Medal  in  1966.    Therefore,  his  application  is 
untimely.   

 

 
3. 

 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion 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.”5   

                                                 
2 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
3 Wielkoszewski v. Harvey, 2005 WL 3206855, at *5 (D.D.C.) (noting that for the purposes of 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), a 
date of discovery is not necessarily whatever date the applicant says it is). 
4 See McFarlane v. Secretary of the Air Force, 867 F. Supp 405, 412 n.12 (E.D. Va. 1994) (“Athough 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.”). 
5 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). 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

Some Coast Guard members were awarded either a Navy Expeditionary Medal or 
an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for their service in the Cuban operations area during and 
after the Cuban Missile Crisis.8  The applicant was still in boot camp during the crisis in October 
1962 and so is clearly ineligible for a Navy Expeditionary Medal because that medal was only 
awarded to members who served in the Cuban operation area on or before October 23, 1962.9  
However, the criteria for an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal include serving 30 consecutive 
days in the Cuba operation area or 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days in direct support 
of the operation, as long as the member enters the operation area, between October 24, 1962, and 
June 1, 1963.10   If the applicant met these criteria, he would be entitled  to the Armed Forces 
Expeditionary Medal.   

The applicant’s military records show that he served aboard a patrol boat, WPB 
82303, assigned to the Eighth District from April 7 to July 1, 1963, which period overlaps with 
the eligibility period for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, which ended on June 1, 1963.11  
Thus, the applicant served aboard the WPB 82303 in the Eighth District for 56 days—from April 
7 to June 1, 1963—during the eligibility period for the medal.  Because the patrol boat was based 
in Miami, Florida, which was within the Cuba operation area between 12° and 28° North and 66° 
and  84°  West,  the  crew  presumably  spent  many  of  those  56  days  in  the Cuba  operation  area.  
However,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  during  these  56  days,  the  crew  of  the  WPB 
82303 served 30 consecutive days in the Cuba operation area or in support of the operation, and 
the patrol boat is not on the list of vessels whose crews were found to be entitled to the medal.12  
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant is not entitled to either a 
Navy Expeditionary Medal or an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. 

4. 

Although  the  applicant  did  not  provide  a  compelling  reason  his  long  delay  in 
seeking another medal for his service, the Board’s cursory review of the merits of the case shows 
that he is entitled to at least one more medal.   Therefore, the Board will waive the statute of 
limitations and consider the case on its merits. 

The  applicant  asked  for  an  additional  medal  reflecting  his  service  during  the 
Cuban Missile Crisis.  His DD 214 and other military records show entitlement only to the Good 
Conduct Medal, and these records are presumptively correct.6  However, the National Defense 
Service Medal is awarded to all members who served honorably in the Armed Forces “for any 
period (inclusive) … from 1 January 1961 to 14 August 1974 ….”7  The applicant served honor-
ably for four years during this period.  Therefore, although no notation of the medal appears in 
his record, the Board finds that he is entitled to it under the regulation, and his DD 214 should be 
corrected to reflect that entitlement. 

Accordingly, the only relief that should be granted is to correct the applicant’s DD 

214 to show that he is entitled to wear the National Defense Service Medal. 
                                                 
6 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
7 Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25D (May 2008), Chapter 5.A.5.a.(1). 
8 Id. in Enclosures (12) and (15). 
9 Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25B (March 1995), Chapter 5.B.4. 
10 Id. at Chapter 5.B.15. 
11 Id. 
12 Id. in Enclosure (12); Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25D (May 2008), Enclosure (15). 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his DD 214 by issuing a DD 215 to show that he is entitled 

 
 

 
 

 
 

to wear the National Defense Service Medal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Reagan N. Clyne 

 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban