DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for Correction           
of the Coast Guard Record of:                     
                                         
                                                                                       BCMR Docket No. 2011-120 
                                                                               
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 upon receipt of the applicant's 
completed application on March 8, 2011, and subsequently prepared the final 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 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 (certificate of discharge or release 
from  active  duty)  by  adding  the  words  “active  on  ship”  and  “we  were  search  and  rescue 
patrolling for cold war enemies on the west Coast.” The applicant stated that he needs to have the 
comments  added  to  his  DD  214  to  qualify  for  medical  benefits  through  the  Department  of 
Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).   
 
  
The applicant submitted a page from his DVA application for medical benefits in which 
he indicated that he has a disability caused by his exposure to asbestos while on active duty.  He 
stated on the DVA application that he was exposed to asbestos while working in damage control 
on  a  Coast  Guard  cutter  where  he  repaired  leaky  valves  or  couplings  that  were  wrapped  in 
asbestos.  He also stated that in the early 1970s he began having breathing problems and that a 
doctor, who is now deceased, diagnosed him with sarcoidosis.  According to the applicant, the 
doctor asked him if he had ever been in contact with asbestos and he explained to the doctor that 
he had been in contact with asbestos while on a cutter. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010 and that it is 
in the interest of justice to consider his application even if it is untimely, because it is the right 
thing  to  do.    He  stated  that  he  served  his  country  and  asked  little  in  return  and  that  he  is 
concerned that the asbestos from the cutter is in his lungs.   
 

 
The military record shows that the applicant enlisted in the Reserve for 6 years on April 
10, 1967.   He completed recruit training on June 19, 1967, and he completed a period of active 
duty training on August 29, 1967 that included 2 months and 2 days of sea duty.  On August 29, 
1967 he was transferred to United States Coast Guard Base, Alameda, CA and on September 8, 
1967 he was released from active duty as a fireman apprentice (FA; pay grade E-2).  His DD 214 
shows that he served on active duty from April 10, 1967 to September 8, 1967, a period of 4 
months  and  29  days.    The  DD  214  shows  that  his  last  active  duty  station  was  the  USCGC 
LAMAR.    After  his  release  from  active  duty,  the  applicant  served  in  the  Reserve.      He  was 
honorably discharged from the Reserve on April 9, 1973.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 13, 2011, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the Judge 
Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard.  The JAG noted that the application was untimely 
and should be denied for that reason.  The JAG also concurred with the comments provided by 
the  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC),  which  were  attached as an enclosure to the 
advisory opinion.  
 
PSC  noted  that  the  application  was  untimely  and  that  the  applicant  did  not  provide  a 
 
persuasive reason for not filing his application sooner.  On the merits of the application, PSC 
stated that the Coast Guard is presumptively correct and the applicant has failed to substantiate 
any error or injustice with regard to his record.  In this regard, PSC stated the DD 214 already 
shows that the applicant was on the USCGC LAMAR for 2 months and 2 days.  PSC further 
stated that COMDTINST M1900.4D does not contain a provision for including language on a 
DD 214 such as that requested by the applicant.  PSC stated the applicant’s service record neither 
confirms nor denies the applicant’s participation in search and rescue operations or that he was 
patrolling for cold war enemies during his active duty service.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  18,  2011,  the  Board  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  and 

 
 
invited him to submit a reply.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.    
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions 

 
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law. 
 
 
United States Code.   
 

The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  this  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

1. 

2. 

The application was not timely. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application 
for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers 
the alleged error or injustice.  Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in 
December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was 
diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have 
been  caused  by  contact  with  asbestos. The  applicant  received  a  copy of his DD 214 upon his 

discharge in 1967, as witnessed by his signature.   Therefore, he was or should have been aware 
in the 1970s that his DD 214 did not contain any of the language that he is currently seeking to 
include on his DD 214. The applicant should have filed his application with the Board earlier 
than  February  25,  2011.    His  explanation  that  his  application  should  be  considered,  even  if 
untimely, because it is the right thing to do is not persuasive.   

   
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, 165.    

 
 
4.   With respect to the merits of this case, the applicant is not likely to prevail because 
DD 214s are prepared according to COMDTINST M1900.4D, and it does not authorize adding 
the language requested by the applicant to his DD 214.  Moreover, as the advisory opinion stated, 
the military record does not support a finding that the applicant was assigned to search and rescue 
duties  or  to  patrolling  for  enemies  during  the  cold  war  era.    In  addition,  the  DD  214  already 
shows that the applicant was assigned to a ship while on active duty.  In this regard, section 12 of 
the DD 214 shows that the applicant’s last duty station was the USCGC LAMAR and section 
22.c. shows 2 months and 2 days of foreign and/or sea duty.  The applicant’s DD 214 is correct 
as it currently stands.   
 
 
applicant’s  application should be denied.   
 
 

5.    Accordingly,  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the    untimeliness  and  the 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 H. Quinton Lucie 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied.