DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-125 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on April 17, 2012, and assigned it to staff mem-
ber J. Andrews to prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
bers who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 1, 2013, is signed by the three duly appointed mem-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant, who served as a watertender second class (WT2c) in the Coast Guard dur-
ing World War II and died on June 15, 2012, after submitting his application to the Board, asked 
the Board to correct his record to show that he received a Purple Heart Award for a head injury 
he received when his  ship, the USS MENGES, was torpedoed on May  3, 1944.  The applicant 
stated that he hit his head against the hull of the ship, which cracked his skull and knocked him 
unconscious.  The applicant admitted that he has known of this error in his record for more than 
three years but argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness 
of his application because he meets the “revised criteria for the award of the Purple Heart.”    
 
 
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a Navy citation, which 
shows that the applicant was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for his heroism on May 
3, 1944.  The citation states that after the ship was torpedoed by a German U-boat, the applicant 
“with courage and initiative, assisted in removing two badly wounded men from the wreckage in 
a compartment where the danger from fire or explosion was imminent.  In so doing, he voluntar-
ily risked his own safety and probably saved the lives of two men who were two badly injured to 
save themselves.”   
 

The  applicant  also  submitted  a  copy  of  a  newspaper  article  which  describes  how  the 
remains  of  two  torpedoed  ships,  the  USS  MENGES  and  the  USS  HOLDER,  were  welded 
together  to  create  a  new  ship.    The  article  states  that  MENGES  was  “on  convoy  duty  in  the 
Mediterranean”  when  torpedoes  launched  by  a  German  U-boat  struck  the  stern.    The  article 

 

 

reports that the explosion killed 31 crewmembers and wounded 20 others and that the applicant 
and one other crewmember received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for heroism. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted for three years in the Coast Guard Reserve on July 21, 1942, and 
immediately  began  serving  on  active  duty.    He  underwent  training  and  served  at  various  shore 
units  until  he  was  assigned  to  the  USS MENGES  on  October  26,  1943.   He  served  aboard  the 
MENGES  until  he  was  permanently  transferred  to  Manhattan  Beach  Station  in  Brooklyn,  New 
York, on September 8, 1944. 
 
 
The applicant’s military medical records contain no documentation of medical treatment 
for a head injury incurred in May 1944 but show that on March 27, 1945, he was diagnosed with 
“reactive depression” at a Naval Hospital on Long Island, New York.  A report of this hospital 
stay notes that the applicant “had been on ship that was torpedoed, lost a buddy, became upset 
after  that.    Depressed  since  May  3,  1944.    Gets  nervous,  flares  up  at  times.    Weight  was  206, 
down to 180.  Has been at Manhattan Beach since then.  Hit over head sufficiently hard to flatten 
out his helmet (steel), dazed, but unconsciousness was questionable, was just on deck again and a 
second torpedo hit and threw him up against overhead.” 
 
 
On April 21, 1945, a Medical  Board of Survey issued a report stating that the applicant 
“was first seen 1 March 1945 with complaints of mental depression, insomnia, and startle reac-
tion.”  The applicant told his doctors that the “[s]ymptoms appeared soon after [the] torpedoing 
of his ship, the USS MENGES, in May 44.”  He was “hospitalized at the U.S. Naval Hospital, St. 
Albans, New York, from 27 March 45 to 17 April 45 for psychiatric rehabilitation.”  The doctors 
reported  that  he  remained  depressed,  was  unfit  for  duty,  and  should  be  medically  discharged 
because “treatment under conditions of service will be difficult due to slow development of hos-
tility.”    They  noted  that  he  had  “been  informed  of  the  Board’s  findings  and  does  not  desire  to 
submit a statement in rebuttal.” 
 
On May 9, 1945, the Commander of the 3rd Naval District issued orders for the applicant 
 
to  be discharged  “by reason of physical  disability  incident  to  service”  pursuant  to  the report of 
the Medical Board of Survey.  The applicant was honorably discharged on May 17, 1945.  His 
Notice of Separation and other military records show that he was awarded the Navy and Marine 
Corps Medal  for heroism and is also entitled to wear the American Area Campaign Medal  and 
the European-African-Middle Eastern Area Campaign Medal with one star. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On September 28, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for a Purple 
Heart but instead award him a Combat Action Ribbon.     

 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  application  is  untimely.    Although  the  applicant  referred  to  a 
recent revision of the criteria for a Purple Heart, the JAG alleged that the criteria were last mate-
rially altered in 1962.   

 

 

 

The  JAG  noted  that  the  applicant’s  medical  records  for  March  27,  1945,  state  that  on 
May 3, 1944, he was hit hard enough on the head to flatten his steel helmet and daze him.  How-
ever, the JAG stated, one of the criteria for a Purple Heart is that the wound received in combat 
must have required “treatment by a medical authority,” and there are no medical records support-
ing the applicant’s claim that when the ship was torpedoed, he suffered a cracked skull that was 
treated in a hospital, although there is evidence that the torpedoing of his ship caused the appli-
cant to suffer from “reactive depression.”   

 
The JAG argued that the evidence of record is insufficient to warrant waiving the Board’s 
three-year statute of limitations.  Moreover, if the Board opts to waive the statute of limitations 
in this case, the JAG recommended that the applicant’s request be denied because, although there 
is evidence that he hit his head during battle, there is no evidence that he incurred a wound dur-
ing the torpedoing of the USS MENGES that required medical treatment.  In this regard, the JAG 
noted that in Executive Order 9277, the President authorized the Purple Heart Award for coast-
guardsmen who were wounded in action against the enemy or as a result of enemy action “pro-
vided such wound necessitates treatment by a medical officer.”1  The JAG argued that the appli-
cant has not proved that he met this criterion for a Purple Heart. 

 
However,  the  JAG  stated  that  the  Board  should  award  the  applicant  a  Combat  Action 
Ribbon  because  he  meets  the  criteria  for  the  ribbon  in  the  Coast  Guard  Medals  and  Awards 
Manual.  Although the ribbon was established in 1969, under SECNAVINST 1650.1H, the Sec-
retary of the Navy allows it to be awarded retroactively to December 7, 1941. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
In response to  the advisory  opinion of the Coast Guard, the  applicant’s son advised the 
 
Board that during his father’s recent seven-month stay in a veterans’ hospital, a representative of 
the Purple Heart Veterans Service Organization (VSO) told them that the eligibility criteria had 
been  revised  two  years  previously  to  include  veterans  who  suffered  PTSD-like  emotional  and 
mental  symptoms  that  were  service  connected.2    The  applicant’s  son  also  stated  that  his  father 
told his family many times that he was offered the Purple Heart after his ship was torpedoed but 
“turned it down as he felt the shipmates who were lost that day and those who sustained more 
serious physical injuries were more deserving.”   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Purple Heart 
 

On December 3, 1942, the President signed Executive Order 9277, authorizing the Secre-
tary of the Navy “to award the Purple Heart in the name of the President of the United States to 

                                                 
1 Exec.Order 9277, 7 Fed. Reg. 10125 (Dec. 3, 1942). 
2 Currently, the Purple Heart may not be awarded for PTSD, but the matter has recently been under consideration by 
Congress.  See David F. Burrelli, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress (Congressional Research 
Service, Dec. 31, 2012), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42704.pdf.  
 
 
 

 

 

persons who, while heretofore or hereafter serving in any capacity with the Navy, Marine Corps 
or  Coast  Guard  of  the  United  States,  are  wounded  in  action  against  an  enemy  of  the  United 
States, or as a result of an act of such enemy, provided such wound necessitates treatment by a 
medical officer.”  In 1944 and 1945, the Coast Guard was operating as part of the Navy pursuant 
to 14 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3.3     
 

Section 230.9 of SECNAVINST 1650.1H states that the Purple Heart is awarded to mem-
bers  of  the Armed  Forces  who  have  been  wounded  in  action  against  an  enemy  of  the  United 
States.  Paragraph d of this section states that “the wound for which the award is made must have 
required  treatment  by  a  medical  officer  at  the  time  of  injury,”  unless  the  wound  was  received 
while the member was a prisoner of war.  It also states that Chapter 8 of the instruction “contains 
information regarding eligibility determinations for prior service personnel.” 
 

Paragraph a of section 831.1 of SECNAVINST 1650.1H states that to be entitled to a Pur-
ple Heart for service “[d]uring World War I, World War 11, and the Korean War, an individual 
must have been wounded as a direct  result of enemy  action.” Paragraph  d states that “[i]f ade-
quate documentation is  not  available due to  the  complete or partial loss  of an individual’s rec-
ords, two sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses to the injury, who were present at the time of the 
injury and have personal knowledge of the circumstances under which the injury occurred, may 
be submitted for consideration. … ” 

 
 
Chapter 2.A.11.a. of the current Coast Guard Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, states that the Commandant may award the Purple Heart  and “[a] visible injury is 
not required, provided it was a direct result of any action listed above, and required treatment by 
a medical authority (except in the case of a prisoner of war).”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Combat Action Ribbon 
 
 
Ribbon may be  
 

Paragraph b of Section 230.14 of SECNAVINST 1650.1H states that the Combat Action 

(1) Awarded to members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard (when the Coast Guard, or 
units  thereof,  operate  under  the  control  of  the  Navy)  in  the  grade  of  captain/colonel  and  junior 
thereto, who have actively participated in ground or surface combat. 
(2) The principal eligibility criterion is, regardless of military occupational specialty or rating, the 
individual  must  have  rendered  satisfactory  performance  under  enemy  fire  while  actively  partici-
pating in a ground or surface engagement. 

•   •   • 

(e) Under Public Law 106-65, the CR may be awarded retroactively to 7 December 1941. 

 
See Chapter 8 for information regarding retroactive eligibility determinations 
 
Paragraph a of section 831.3 states that “[i]n addition to the criteria in Chapter 2, from 7 
December 1941 through 24 May 2006 the following criteria also apply: … (3) Personnel aboard 
a  ship  are  eligible  when  the  safety  of  the  ship  and  the  crew  was  endangered  by  enemy  attack, 
such as a ship hit by a mine or a ship engaged by shore, surface, air, or sub-surface elements.” 
 

                                                 
3  The  Coast  Guard  continued  to  function  as  part  of  the  Navy  until  January  1,  1946.    Exec.  Order  No.  9666 
(December 28, 1945). 

 

 

Chapter 2.A.19. of the Coast Guard Medals and Awards Manual provides that the Com-
 
mandant may award the Combat Action Ribbon to a servicemember “when the U.S. Coast Guard 
or units thereof operate  under the control of the  U.S.  Navy, in  the  grade  of captain  and junior, 
who have actively participated in ground or surface combat. … The principal eligibility criteria 
is  that  the  individual  must  have  participated  in  a  ground  or  surface  combat  firefight  or  action 
during which the individual was under enemy fire and performance while under fire must have 
been satisfactory.  The Combat Action Ribbon is intended to be restrictive and awarded only in 
bona fide cases of combat and not as a campaign ribbon.” 
 

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 submission and applicable law: 

 
1. 

 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

2. 

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 in his or her military record.  The 
applicant  was  discharged  without  having  received  a  Purple  Heart  in  1945.    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 (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.”4  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     

 
4. 

Regarding  the  delay  of  his  application,  the  applicant  explained  that  he  was 
recently told that  he is  eligible for a Purple Heart  because the criteria  for the award have been 
revised  to  include  PTSD  and  “PTSD-like  emotional  and  mental  symptoms.”    However,  the 
applicant  is  mistaken.    The  criteria  for  a  Purple  Heart  have  not  recently  been  revised,  and 
awarding the Purple Heart for PTSD and prior equivalent diagnoses has been considered but not 
authorized by Congress.6   

 
5. 

A cursory review of the merits of the applicant’s request for a Purple Heart shows 
that his claim cannot prevail.  There is no evidence  in the applicant’s military and medical rec-
ords or in his application showing that he sought medical treatment for a wound or injury after 
his ship was torpedoed on May 3, 1944, but needing medical treatment for a wound or injury was 
and is one of the criteria for a Purple Heart.7  Although there is evidence that the applicant suf-

                                                 
4 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
5 Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 
6 See David F. Burrelli, The Purple Heart: Background and Issues for Congress  (Congressional Research Service, 
Dec. 31, 2012), available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42704.pdf.  
7  Exec.Order  9277,  7  Fed.  Reg.  10125  (Dec.  3,  1942);  SECNAVINST  1650.1H,  §  230.9;  COMDTINST 
M1650.25D, Chapt. 2.A.11.a. 

 

 

fered from PTSD-like symptoms and was diagnosed with “reactive depression” as a result of the 
torpedoing of his ship, the Purple Heart is not authorized for these conditions.8   

 
6. 

The  Coast  Guard,  however,  has  noted  that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  a  Combat 
Action Ribbon, which was established in 1969 but may be awarded retroactively to December 7, 
1941.  The Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the applicant is clearly entitled to a Combat 
Action  Ribbon  because  he  “rendered  satisfactory  performance  under  enemy  fire  while  actively 
participating  in  a  ground  or  surface  engagement”  and  he  was  a  member  of  a  crew  that  “was 
endangered by enemy attack, such as a ship hit by a mine or a ship  engaged by shore, surface, 
air, or sub-surface elements.”9  In fact, the record shows that his performance was so “satisfac-
tory” after his  ship  was  torpedoed on May 3, 1944, that he  was awarded the Navy and Marine 
Corps Medal for heroism. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, although the applicant’s request for a Purple Heart should be denied 
because it is untimely and cannot be granted under current law, the Board will waive the statute 
of limitations for the purpose of granting alternative relief in the form of a Combat Action Rib-
bon.  If the Purple Heart is ever authorized for PTSD, the applicant’s next of kin should promptly 
apply for reconsideration of his request for that award. 

 

    

 

  

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
8 See Burrelli, note 6 above. 
9 SECNAVINST 1650.1H, §§ 230.14 and 831.3; COMDTINST M1650.25D, Chapt. 2.A.19. 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 
The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record by the addition of a Purple Heart Award is denied, but the Coast Guard shall correct his 
record  to  show  that  he  has  been  awarded  a  Combat  Action  Ribbon  because  he  performed 
heroically as a crewmember of the USS MENGES when it was torpedoed on May 3, 1944.   

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard