DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2011-103 
 
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 February 16, 2011, 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 November 18, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was honorably discharged on March 4, 1977, asked the Board to cor-
rect  his record to show that  he is  entitled to  wear a Good Conduct Medal  (GCM).   He alleged 
that he lost eligibility for the GCM because he “was put on report for being 10 min. late to my 
duty  station  even  though  [he]  put  in  a  wake  up  call,”  which  was  not  made.    He  alleged  that  a 
chief warrant officer (CWO T) did not like him at all.  He stated that if CWO T could receive a 
GCM “after swinging a foot-long rubber dildo on the officer deck, I should too.” 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  while  in  the  Service,  he  was  hospitalized  for  back  pain,  but 
CWO T and others believed he was faking his injury.  The day he returned to duty on his ship, he 
saw  two  other  enlisted  members  on  the  deck  who  dropped  what  they  had  in  their  hands  and 
began  walking  toward  him  in  a  threatening  way.   Another  petty  officer  ran  into  the  wardroom.  
The applicant left quickly because he thought his life was in danger.  He returned to the ship on a 
busy weekday to receive his honorable discharge.  A lieutenant on board wanted to humiliate him 
and so made one of the cooks give him a haircut and made the applicant sign a paper saying he 
could never join the Coast Guard again.  The applicant saw CWO T laughing. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted on March 5, 1973.  Upon completing recruit training, he advanced 

to pay grade E-2.   

 

 

 

On  March  7,  1974,  a  Letter  of  Appreciation  was  entered  in  the  applicant’s  record  to 
acknowledge his good work in performing various maintenance jobs around the training center.  
On March 12, 1974, another Letter of Appreciation was entered in the applicant’s record to com-
mend him for doing  an excellent job preparing barracks for new recruits.  On March 25, 1974, 
the applicant was awarded 48 hours of liberty based on the letters. 

 
On June 9, 1974, the applicant was arrested for drunk driving while on liberty.  He pled 
guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving and was fined $315.  The record does not show that 
he received any military punishment for this offense. 

 
On March 1, 1976, the applicant was counseled in writing by the Executive Officer of his 

cutter about having missed the ship’s movement on February 29, 1976. 

 
On December 30, 1976, the applicant was awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP).  His 
alleged  offense(s)  are  not  stated  in  the  record,  but  the  applicant  was  awarded  restriction  to  the 
cutter for seven days with two hours of extra duty each day. 

 
On January 6, 1977, the applicant appealed the NJP.  He argued that his punishment was 
disproportionate  to  the  offense  because  although  he  had  asked  for  a  wake-up  call,  he  had  not 
received  one.    The  applicant  also  alleged  that  he  had  been  singled  out  for  punishment  for  an 
offense others had not been punished for.  He noted that another member had arrived very late on 
three occasions but had not been placed on report.  The applicant admitted that his work perfor-
mance  and  attitude  had  not  been  satisfactory  recently  because  of  his  marital  problems,  but  he 
alleged that his  performance had improved after  he was placed on report.  To make up for lost 
time, he had painted the entire mess deck in two days.  He noted that a master chief petty officer 
had testified at mast that his performance had greatly improved and argued that his punishment 
was therefore unnecessary and harsh.  The applicant also noted that the mast was his first offense 
in almost four years and asked the District Commander to set aside the NJP. 

 
On January 18, 1977, the District Commander advised the applicant that his appeal of his 

NJP was denied because his punishment was neither unjust nor disproportionate. 

 
The applicant was honorably discharged on March 4, 1977, with a JBK separation code 
and  an  RE-4  reenlistment  code  (ineligible  to  reenlist).    Upon  his  discharge,  his  final  average 
marks  were  3.09  for  proficiency  and  3.85  for  conduct.    He  received  no  marks  for  leadership 
because he never advanced beyond E-2. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  May  4,  2011,  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 based on 
the untimeliness of the application and the lack of any relevant documentation or rationale sup-
porting  the  applicant’s  claim.    The  JAG  also  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a 
memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   

 

 

 

The PSC stated that Under Chapter 5.A.2.a. of the Medals and Awards Manual, the GCM 
is awarded to members who have satisfactorily completed three consecutive years1 of creditable 
service and that the requisite period of service is broken when a member is convicted by civilian 
authorities or is awarded NJP.  The PSC stated that because of the applicant’s civil conviction in 
1974 and his NJP in 1976, he is not entitled to wear the GCM.   

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
In his response to the views of the Coast Guard, the applicant stated that he was arrested 
on June 9, 1974, only because his three passengers were drunk and so noisy that he almost hit a 
traffic cone because of the distraction.  The chief petty officer who came to  get  him out of jail 
advised him to plead guilty so he could leave, and the applicant regrets taking his advice. 
 
 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that  while  in  the  Service,  his  wife  abandoned  him  and  their 
baby daughter, whom he had to take care of, which took a great toll on him and caused him to try 
to end his life at one point.  A member from his unit picked him up from the hospital and took 
him to a bar. 
 
The applicant also repeated his allegations about receiving NJP due to the lack of a wake-
 
up  call,  about  the  threatening  reception  he  received  when  he  returned  to  his  cutter  after  sick 
leave, and about once seeing CWO T swinging a foot-long dildo around and laughing about it.  
The applicant concluded that he believes that he deserved the GCM. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Enclosure (11) to the Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25D, states that 
 
from November 1963 through December 1979, to receive a Good Conduct Medal, a member had 
to complete four consecutive years of service with no court-martial, no NJP, no misconduct, and 
no civil conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude, as well as minimum average marks 
of 3.0 for proficiency, leadership, and conduct. 
 
 
Since 1983, a GCM has required three consecutive years with no court-martial or equiva-
lent  civil  conviction,  no  NJP,  no  misconduct,  a  performance  factor  average  in  each  marking 
period of not less than 3 in any factor, and no conduct characteristic mark less than 4. 
 

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 the alleged error or injustice.  The 

                                                 
1  The  Board  notes  that  3  consecutive  years  with  no  misconduct  is  the  current  stand  for  the  GCM,  but  from 
November  1963  through  December  1979,  4  consecutive  years  with  no  misconduct  were  required.  COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, Enc. (11). 

 

 

applicant knew in 1977 that he had been awarded NJP and had not received a GCM.  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.”    Id.  at  164-65;  see  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

 
4. 

The applicant failed to provide any justification for his delay in seeking correction 
of his record.  His desire for the GCM is not a compelling reason to waive the statute of limita-
tions. 

 
5. 

A cursory review of the  merits shows that the applicant  is  not  entitled to wear a 
GCM  because  he  did  not  perform  four  consecutive  years  of  active  duty  without  misconduct  or 
NJP, as required by  Enclosure (11) to  the Medals and Awards Manual.   Although the  applicant 
alleges that his  offense was minor and not  his  fault, that others did  not receive NJP for similar 
offenses,  and  that  he  should  not  have  received  NJP,  he  submitted  no  evidence  to  support  his 
allegations  that  the  NJP  was  erroneous  or  unjust.   Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board 
must presume that his military records, including the NJP and the lack of an award of the GCM, 
are  correct.  33  C.F.R.  § 52.24(b).    In  addition,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  made  similar 
arguments in his NJP appeal, which was reviewed and denied by the District Commander, who 
would have had the documentation of the mast and the appeal before him.  Therefore, the Board 
finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, relief should be denied based on the untimeliness of the application 

and its apparent lack of merit.   
 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

 

The  application  of  former  SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of 

his Coast Guard military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 H. Quinton Lucie