DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-080 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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.  It was dock-
eted on March 31, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  13,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxxx  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  from 
November 24, 196x, to February 1, 196x, asked the Board to correct his discharge 
form, DD 214, to show that he performed active duty. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that he performed active duty for the Coast Guard 
in 196x but that it was not reflected in block 19 on his DD 214.  He alleged that 
because his active duty was not shown on his DD 214, he is being denied veter-
ans’ benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 
 
 
Concerning  the  lateness  of  his  application,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he 
knew of the error on his DD 214 all along but did not understand its importance 
with respect to veterans’ benefits.  He thought that other documents evidencing 
his work in the Coast Guard would suffice.  He alleged that he discovered the 
effect of the error on February 19, 1999. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 28, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the requested 
relief. 
 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Board should deny relief because  the 
applicant “failed to provide sufficient evidence to merit the waiver of the Statute 
of  Limitations.”    He  argued  that  “[t]here  is  no  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed error by classifying his service as “active duty for training.”  Because 
the  applicant  admitted  that  he  knew  the  contents  of  his  DD  214  when  it  was 
issued to him, the Chief Counsel argued that the application to the Board arrived 
more than xx years after the statute of limitations on his claim expired.  The Chief 
Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant  had  failed  to  show  that  it  would  be  in  the 
interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute of limitations and that, there-
fore, the Board should dismiss the case with prejudice. 
 
 
Should the Board decide to waive the statute of limitations, however, the 
Chief Counsel argued that the applicant’s request should be denied because the 
record  proves  there  is  no  error  on  his  DD  214.    The  applicant,  he  explained, 
enlisted  under  the  “RL-2”  enlistment  program.    Participants  in  this  program 
received  nine  months  of  “active  duty  for  training,”  which  included  recruit 
training followed by attendance at a Class “A” school, and then completed their 
six-year obligation performing inactive duty training (drills).  The Chief Counsel 
argued  that  the  applicant’s  record  clearly  shows  that  the  RL-2  program  was 
explained  to  him  and  that  he  knew  the  program  “required  nine  (9)  months  of 
active duty for training, not nine (9) months of active duty.” 

 
 
The Chief Counsel further explained that, although the applicant enlisted 
in the RL-2 program, he did not attend Class “A” school for medical reasons. He 
fell ill with mononucleosis.  Therefore, on March 26, 196x, his “basic orders were 
amended  to  indicate  that  he  was  being  retained  as  an  RL-2  and  assigned  in 
accordance  with  assignment  policies  for  RL-1  personnel.”    RL-1  personnel,  the 
Chief  Counsel  explained,  performed  five  months  of  active  duty  for  training, 
which  included  “recruit  training  and/or  on-the-job  training,”  and  performed 
inactive duty training drills for the remainder of their six-year terms.  The Chief 
Counsel alleged that this amendment was made because the applicant chose not 
to extend his nine-month commitment in order to complete “A” school after he 
was well.  While still technically in the RL-2 program and obligated to train for 
nine months, the applicant was assigned under the RL-1 program to the xxxx for 
“on-the-job training.” 
 

 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant failed to prove that the Coast 
Guard committed any error or injustice in his case.  “Applicant clearly enlisted in 
the CG Reserve and was serving in an active duty for training status while he 
received on-the-job training in accordance with the [March 26, 196x] agreement 
between Applicant and the Coast Guard.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel  stated that “active duty for training” is not the same 
thing as “active duty,” although it is “active service.”  The applicant’s enlistment 
documents  and  other  records  clearly  show  that  he  knew  his  service  was  to  be 
classified  as  “active  duty  for  training.”    Therefore,  there  is  no  error  on  his  DD 
214. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on November 2, 196x, 
for a term of six years.  Block 11 of his enlistment contract (form CG-3301) indi-
cates that he would be required to perform nine months of active duty for train-
ing.    Block  12  of  the  contract  indicates  that  his  service  would  be  considered 
“inactive duty.”   
 
 
Also on November 2, 196x, the applicant signed a “Certificate of Obligated 
Service upon Enlistment in Coast Guard Reserve for 6 Years,” which is incorpo-
rated by reference into his enlistment contract.  The certificate explains the vari-
ous ways in which the applicant may fulfill his six-year obligation.  One of the 
options is for the applicant to perform “a 9 months initial period of active duty 
for  training  plus  service  in  the  Ready  Reserve,  such  that  the  total  service  is  6 
years.”  The certificate states that the benefits, obligations, and responsibilities of 
his  enlistment  have  been  explained  to  him and  that  he  understands  he  will  be 
ordered to perform nine months of “active duty for training” starting within 90 
days of his enlistment.  The certificate also states that the applicant is “subject to 
the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  while  on  active  duty  or  active  duty  for 
training.” 
 
On November 2, 196x, the applicant also signed a form that explained his 
 
obligations under the RL-2 program.  The form indicates that after his active duty 
for  training,  he  would  have  to  perform  48  scheduled  drills  and  two  weeks  of 
active duty for training every year.  The form also stated that he was “liable for 
active duty under the provisions of the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952” and 
that  he  was  “liable  for  active  duty  in  time  of  war,  national  emergency  …,  or 
when otherwise authorized by law.” 
 

An  “Administrative  Remarks”  entry  in  the  applicant’s  record  dated 
November  2,  196x,  states  that  he  is  “[g]uaranteed  enrollment  in  Class  “A”  xx 

School  upon  satisfactory  completion  of  recruit  training”  and  that  his  recruit 
training will begin on November 24, 196x, at the Coast Guard Receiving Center 
in xxxxxxxx. 
 
 
On November 24, 196x, the applicant received his “Initial Active Duty for 
Training Orders” at the Receiving Center in xxxxxx.  The orders, which he signed 
to indicate his acceptance, indicated his status as “SR-RL-2, USCGR.”  The orders 
indicated that he would soon be sent to the Training Station in xxxx, xxxx, for 
recruit  training  and  that,  upon  completion  of  recruit  training,  he  would  be 
assigned to attend xxxxxxxx [Class “A”] school, which was tentatively scheduled 
to begin after recruit training on March 8, 196x.  The orders also indicated that 
upon completion of school, the applicant would continue to perform “active duty 
for training” until the end of his nine-month obligation.   
 

On  February  8,  196x, the  applicant  received  orders  indicating  that  upon 
completion of xxxxxxx school, he should report to the xxxx Coast Guard District 
in xxxx to finish his nine months of “active duty for training.”  On March 2, 196x, 
the applicant was hospitalized and diagnosed with “infectious mononucleosis.”  
He was discharged from the hospital on March 9, 196x, and instructed to return 
for out-patient treatment.  On March 12, 196x, the applicant completed “recruit 
training” and was promoted to seaman apprentice. 
 

An “Administrative Remarks” entry in the applicant’s record dated March 
26, 196x, states that the applicant would be retained as an RL-2 but assigned in 
accordance with  policies for RL-1 personnel  because he “was held over [at the 
Training Station] after graduation from Recruit Training due to medical reasons 
and  at  this  time  he  does  not  desire  to  voluntarily  extend  his  Active  Duty  for 
Training in order to have the required time for attendance and completion of xx 
School.”  On March 29, 196x, the applicant’s “Active Duty for Training Orders” 
were amended so that he would report to the xxxx in xxxxx no later than April 3, 
196x.  His service record card indicates that on April 3, 196x, he reported to the 
U.S. cutter xxxxx in xxxxxx for more active duty for training.  On August 2, 196x, 
he was transferred to Coast Guard xxxxxxx, for further active duty for training. 
 

The applicant’s DD 214 indicates in blocks 11a. and 11d. that on August 
23,  196x,  he  was  “release[d]  from  active  military  service,”  having  served  nine 
months and completed his active duty for training.  Block 19 of the DD 214 indi-
cates that his source of entry into active service was not induction or enlistment 
but instead “Other:  ordered to nine mo. ADTNG.”  Under “Remarks” in block 
32, it indicates “RFA 1955 nine months ADTNG.”   
 
 
After his release from active service, the applicant was obligated to per-
form training drills through the end of his  six-year obligation on November 1, 

197x.  However, the applicant was honorably discharged and was issued a dis-
charge certificate on February 1, 196x, due to a physical disability after having 
been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis.  He had served 3 years, 2 months, and 
29 days in the Reserve.   
 
 
In  support  of  his  claim,  the  applicant  submitted  several  documents.    A 
letter from his member of Congress states that the applicant told him that, during 
the nine-month training period reflected on his DD 214, he helped to recondition 
the U.S.S. xxxxxx for use in the Coast Guard and that such work should be con-
sidered active duty, rather than a training exercise. 
 
 
A letter from the DVA dated February 19, 1999, states that the applicant’s 
service was characterized as “active duty for training,” which “does not qualify a 
veteran for a VA pension.”  The DVA  informed him of his right  to appeal the 
decision. 
 
 
Coast Guard service number.  
 

The applicant also submitted a photocopy of his dog tag, which shows his 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
According to 10 U.S.C. § 101(22) (1964), “active duty” is defined as “full-
time duty in the active military service of the United States.  It includes duty on 
the  active  list,  full-time  training  duty,  annual  training  duty,  and  attendance, 
while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by 
law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned.”   
 
 
Title 38 U.S.C. § 101(21) (1964) defines “active duty” as “full-time duty in 
the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training.”  “Active duty for train-
ing” is described as “full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves 
for training purposes.”  38 U.S.C. § 101(22).  Only veterans who served on “active 
duty” for more than 180 days were “eligible veterans” for the purpose of certain 
benefits.  38 U.S.C. § 1652(a)(1). 
 
 
duty” for various purposes in 10 U.S.C. § 269(e) (1964) and 37 U.S.C. § 204(g)(1). 
 
 
Article 1 of the 1964 Administrative Manual for the Coast Guard Reserve 
included the definitions of various terms.  “Active duty” was defined as “[f]ull 
time duty in the active military service of the United States other than active duty 
for training.” [Emphasis added.]  “Active duty for training” is defined as “full 
time  duty  in  the  active  military  service  of  the  United  States  for  training  pur-
poses.”  The “RL-2” program is defined as “nine months ACDUTRA consisting 

Congress  further  distinguished  “active  duty  for  training”  from  “active 

of  recruit  training  –  Class  “A”  school  for  which  preselected;  remainder  of  six 
years  INACDUTRA.”    The  “RL-1”  program  is  defined  as  “five  months  initial 
ACDUTRA  consisting  of  recruit  training  –  school  and/or  on-the-job  training; 
remainder of six years INACDUTRA.” 
 

According to Article 1-H-4 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual in effect 
in  196x,  the  RL-2  program  “is  offered  to  personnel  who  qualify  for  and  desire 
specialty training which requires more ACDU time than is provided in the RL-1 
program [six months].  After successful completion of recruit training, the trainee 
will attend a Class A school, followed by approximately 2 months of operational 
experience.”    The  RL-1  program  “is  available  to  personnel  who  do  not  qualify 
for,  and/or  do  not  desire  to  participate  in,  one  of  the  training  programs  men-
tioned  below.    It  is  the  standard  program,  and  consists  of  6  months’  initial 
ACDUTRA.”   
 
 
According  to  Article  13-A-1(b)  of  the  Personnel  Manual,    DD  214s  were 
issued to “all personnel at the time of separation from active service including 
active duty for training of 90 days or more.”  Article 13-A-1 (b)(4) specified that, 
for  Reserve  “RL  Trainees,”  “members  of  the  Reserve  serving  in  a  program 
requiring an initial period of active duty for training of 4 months or more will be 
issued  a  DD  Form  214  upon  release  from  this  initial  training  duty.”  However, 
Article 13-A-1(f) of the Personnel Manual specified that, while copies of the DD 
214s of members who had been on active duty should be forwarded to the Selec-
tive Service Administration and the Veterans Administration, copies of the DD 
214s of personnel released from active duty for training should not be forwarded 
to those agencies. 
 
 
Article 13-A-1(e) of the Personnel Manual governed preparation of mem-
bers DD 214s.  It specifies that in block 19a. of the form, “[f]or ACDUTRA per-
sonnel,  check  “Other”  and  enter  “Ordered  for  (six,  nine,  or  twelve)  months 
ACDUTRA.”  
 

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 Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.   
 

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  of 
when  the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.  10  U.S.C.  §  1552.  

The applicant admitted that he knew the content of his DD 214 in 196x. Thus, his 
application was untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board may waive the three-year 
statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    To  determine 
whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board 
should consider the reason for the delay and conduct at least a cursory review of 
the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).   

   
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The applicant alleged that, although he knew the content of his DD 
214, he did not discover the effect of the language in block 19 until February 19, 
1999, when he  received a letter from the DVA denying his claim for veterans’ 
benefits.  The effect of the language in block 19, which is to make the applicant 
ineligible for veterans’ benefits, is not readily apparent on the face of the DD 214.  
In addition, the applicant’s DD 214 indicates that he performed nine months of 
“active military service.”  Therefore, the cause of the delay of the application is 
reasonable,  and  the  Board  finds  that  it  is  in  the  interest of  justice  to  waive the 
statute of limitations in this case. 

The  record  shows  that  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve’s RL-2 training program in November 196x.  Both the enlistment docu-
ments  he  signed  and  the  Coast  Guard  regulations  governing  the  RL  program 
clearly indicated that his service was considered “active duty for training” rather 
than  “active  duty.”    The  Personnel  Manual  and  38  U.S.C.  §  101  clearly  distin-
guished “active duty for training” from “active duty,” and the Reserve’s Admin-
istrative Manual stated that “active duty for training” does not count as “active 
duty.”  Furthermore, in 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 and1652(a)(1), Congress made members 
who have performed “active duty for training” rather than “active duty” ineligi-
ble for certain veterans’ benefits. 

The  RL-2  training  program  was  supposed  to  consist  of  nine 
months’ active duty for training, during which time the trainees were to undergo 
recruit  training,  attend  “A”  school,  and  receive  approximately  two  months  of 
operational experience, which amounts to on-the-job training.  Personnel Manual 
(1965), Article 1-H-4.  Due to a serious illness, the applicant was not able to begin 
the “A” school component of the RL-2 training program on time with his fellow 
trainees.    The  record  indicates  that  the  Coast  Guard  gave  him  the  option  of 
extending his active duty for training commitment to complete “A” school at a 
later date, but the applicant rejected this proposal.  Therefore, the Coast Guard 
assigned  the  applicant  to  perform  on-the-job  training  in  accordance  with  the 
basic RL-1 program for the remainder of his nine-month obligation.  
 

7. 

 
The applicant argued that the work he did helping to refurbish the 
xxxxxx  instead  of  attending  “A”  school  should  not  be  considered  training  but 
active duty.  However, the record indicates that on-the-job training is an integral 
part of “active duty for training” in the RL program, in which the applicant vol-
untarily enlisted.  The applicant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that the Coast Guard committed error or injustice when it assigned him to 
complete  the  remainder  of  his  Reserve  training  obligation  doing  on-the-job 
training after his illness prevented him from attending “A” school. 
 

Article 13-A-1(e) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 196x specified 
that, for members being released from an active duty for training program, block 
19a.  on  the  DD  214  should  indicate  “Other”  and  “Ordered  for  (six,  nine,  or 
twelve) months ACDUTRA.”  This is the entry made in block 19a. on the appli-
cant’s DD 214.  He has failed to prove that it is in error or unjust. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

8. 

 
9. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 

ORDER 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

USCGR, is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
John A. Kern 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter