DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2011-230 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
EN3 (former)  

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  August  26,  2011,  and  prepared  the  decision  for  the  Board  as 
required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c), with the assistance of D. Hale. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  17,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was honorably discharged on November 2, 1973, asked the Board to 
correct his record to show that he is entitled to the awards and medals that were authorized for 
his  unit  after  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He  also  specifically  requested  the  Good 
Conduct Medal (GCM), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, and weapons qualification medals.   
 

The Coast Guard has already corrected the applicant’s record to show that he earned the 

Sea Service Ribbon, the Expert Rifle Medal and the following awards:   

 
Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon 
Navy Combat Action Ribbon 
Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Commendation with Gallantry Cross 
Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Commendation Civil Action Ribbon 
Vietnam Service Medal with 2 Bronze Stars 
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal 
Overseas Service Ribbon 
 

Therefore,  issues  are  now  moot  with  regard  to  applicant’s  entitlement  to  the  awards  already 
granted by the Coast Guard.  However, the issue with regard to the GCM is still before the Board 
because the Coast Guard stated in the advisory opinion that the applicant was not entitled to the 
GCM.  
 
 

 

 

 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged errors on November 2, 1973, and July 
29, 2011.  He argued that if more than three years have passed since the alleged error or injustice 
was discovered, it is in the interest of justice to consider his application because he did his “duty 
stateside as well as Vietnam and could have been injured or killed.”   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD AND APPLICANT’S RESPONSES 

 
On  November  29,  2011,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  submitted  an  advisory 
opinion recommending that the application be administratively closed because the Coast Guard 
had corrected the record through the issuance of a DD 215 to show that the applicant is entitled 
to the awards mentioned above.  However, the GCM was not listed on the DD 215. 

 
On January 3, 2012, the Chair sent  a copy of the Coast  Guard‘s views to the applicant.  
On January 23, 2012, the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion.  In his 
response, he argued that he is entitled to the GCM “because he never received any disciplinary 
action  or  any  adverse  counseling.”    He  stated  that  he  is  entitled  to  the  Expert  Pistol  Medal 
because he qualified with the pistol at Otis Air Force Base at the same time he qualified with the 
rifle.    The  applicant  also  submitted  an  illegible  copy  of  a  newspaper  article  which  allegedly 
shows that he was a Ceremonial Honor Guard.   

 
On January 27, 2012, the Chair sent  the applicant’s response to  the advisory opinion to 
the Coast Guard for a supplemental advisory opinion to specifically address the issues related to 
the GCM, Ceremonial Honor Guard award, and the Expert Pistol Medal. 

 
On  January  27,  2012,  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  a  supplemental  advisory  opinion,  in 
which it stated that the applicant was not entitled to the GCM because under Chapter 5.A.2.a. of 
the  Coast  Guard  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  (MAM),  the  GCM  is  awarded  to  members  who 
have satisfactorily completed three years of creditable service,1  and that the requisite period of 
service is broken when a member is awarded NJP.  The advisory opinion stated that because the 
applicant  received  non-judicial  punishment  on  August  10,  1970,  less  than  three  years  after 
enlisting, his entitlement to the GCM was terminated.  With regard to the Expert Pistol Medal, 
the advisory opinion stated that the applicant’s record does not support entitlement to the medal.  
The advisory opinion also noted that there is no medal or award for a member’s participation in 
the Ceremonial Honor Guard.   

 
On  April  10,  2012,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  supplemental  advisory  opinion  and 
again stated that he qualified for the Expert Pistol Medal at Otis Air Force base in October 1973. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Enclosure (11) to the Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25D, states that 
from  November  1963  through  December  1979,  to  receive  a  GCM,  a  member  had  to  complete 
four  consecutive  years  of  service  with  no  court-martial,  no  NJP,  no  misconduct,  and  no  civil 
                                                 
1  The  Board  notes  that  3  consecutive  years  with  no  misconduct  is  the  current  standard  for  the  GCM,  but  from 
November  1963  through  December  1979,  4  consecutive  years  with  no  misconduct  were  required.  COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, Enc. (11). 

 

 

conviction  for  an offense involving moral  turpitude, as  well as minimum  average marks of 3.0 
for proficiency, leadership, and conduct. 
 
 
Since 1980, 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 3.0 in any factor, and no conduct characteristic mark less than 4.0. 
 

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: 
 

1.    The  issue  before  the  Board  is  whether  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to 
show that he is entitled to the GCM, Expert Pistol Medal, and a Ceremonial Honor Guard award.   

 
2.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 USC § 1552. 
 
3.    Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b)  an  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three 
years  after  the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    The  applicant  stated  that  he 
discovered the error on November 2, 1973 and on July 29, 2011.  However, he failed to explain 
how the discovery occurred on two different dates approximately 38 years apart.   The applicant 
was aware (or should have been) at the time of his discharge in 1973 that he had not received the 
a GCM, the Expert Pistol Medal, or a Ceremonial Honor Guard award because neither is listed in 
the “decorations, medals, etc.” block the DD Form 214 that he received at the time of discharge 
and  that  he  acknowledged  with  his  signature.  Therefore,  his  application  is  untimely  by 
approximately 38 years.      
 

4. 

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.  The applicant argued that the Board should 
excuse his untimeliness because he served in Vietnam and “could have been injured or killed.”  
However,  this  explanation  does  not  explain  why  he  could  not  have  filed  his  application  within 
three  years  of  his  discharge.    Therefore,  the  applicant’s  argument  in  favor  of  excusing  his 
untimeliness is not persuasive. 

 
5. 

Although  the  application  is  untimely,  the  Board  must  still  perform  a  cursory 
review  of  the  merits  to  determine  whether  it  is  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of 
limitations.  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).    

 
6. 

The Board has conducted a cursory review of the merits in this case and finds that 
the applicant cannot prevail because he did not meet the regulatory requirements for the GCM.  
In this regard, Enclosure (11) to the Medals and Awards Manual required that members perform 
four  consecutive  years  of  active  duty  between  November  1,  1963  and  December  31,  1979 
without misconduct or NJP to be eligible for the GCM.  The applicant served on active duty for 

 

 

approximately four years from November 3, 1969 to November 2, 1973 but received an NJP on 
August  10,  1970.    Therefore,  he  was  not  eligible  for  the  GCM  during  his  period  of  service 
because he did not serve for four consecutive years without an NJP.        

 
7.  In addition, the applicant’s military record does not support the applicant’s claim that 
he  is  entitled  to  the  Expert  Pistol  Medal  and  he  has  not  presented  sufficient  evidence  to  prove 
otherwise.   Nor is  the applicant  entitled to  an  award for serving as  a Ceremonial  Honor Guard 
because no such award exists.   

 
8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request  should be denied because it is  untimely and 

because it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness.   
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

 

The  application  of  former  EN3  XXXXXXXXX,  xxx  xxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

Coast Guard military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

 
Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 
Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 
Barbara Walthers