Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2000-063
Original file (2000-063.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-063 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on 
February  3,  2000,  when  the  application  was  completed  by  the  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 16, 2000, is signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former xxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct block 13 on 
his DD Form 214 to show that he contributed to wartime action.  He alleged that, 
as  a  hospital  corpsman  assigned  to  the  Coast  Guard  Immunization  Clinic,  he 
“was  in  charge  of  the  vaccination  of  ready  forces  prior  to  and  during  the 
Grenada conflict.”  He alleged that he “administered vaccinations to the Special 
Forces,  National  Guard  and  other  servicemen  going  over to  that conflict.”    He 
stated  that  he  worked  “in  the  Physical  Examination  Office,  where  an  ancillary 
responsibility was supervising all vaccinations/ immunizations.”   
 

The applicant indicated that he is seeking this correction because the State 
of xxxxxx “issues tuition waivers for veterans with wartime service.”  He argued 
that the Board should waive the statute of limitations because it would be “fair” 
and because he did not learn about the tuition waiver until September 1999. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  December  31,  1978.    After 
serving  on  the  cutter  xxxxxx,  he  attended  health  services  technician  school  in 
1980.    He  served  at  the  Coast  Guard  xxxxxxxx  in  xxxxxxxx,  from  May  1980 
through  June  1983.    From  July  1,  1983,  until  he  was  honorably  discharged  on 
November 22, 1985, he was assigned to the hospital at the xxxxxxx.  His DD 214 
indicates that the awards he received during his service include a Coast Guard 
Meritorious Unit Commendation and a Good Conduct Medal for his service at 
the training center, as well as a Pistol Marksman Ribbon.  
  

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 
Commandant Instruction M1900.4B governed the preparation of DD 214s 
 
at the time of the applicant’s discharge in 1985.  Under Article 1-C of the instruc-
tion, block 13 is supposed to include “all decorations, medals, badges, commen-
dations, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized for all periods of 
service,” as well as Good Conduct Awards, Purple Hearts, and Navy or Armed 
Forces Expeditionary Medals. 
 
 
COMDTINST  M1650.25B,  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  issued  on 
March 29, 1995, does not provide for any campaign or service awards concerning 
contributions toward the invasion of Grenada. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 28, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the requested relief.   
 

The Chief Counsel argued that the application should be denied because it 
“is untimely by approximately 10 years.”  He argued that the applicant knew or 
should have known the contents of block 13 on his DD 214 at the time of his dis-
charge and that the applicant failed to justify the delay in filing his application.   

 
The Chief Counsel also argued that the applicant’s service “does not enti-
tle him to any award for participation in any military action or campaign.”  He 
alleged that the applicant “has failed to prove that a campaign or service award 
applicable  to  Coast  Guard  personnel  was  even  issued  as  a  result  of  military 
action in Grenada, much less his entitlement to such a possible award.” 
 

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 the 
day the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552. The 
applicant was discharged in 1985 and knew or should have known of the content 
of block 13 at that time.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant filed his 
application  more  than  11  years  after  the  Board’s  statute  of  limitations  expired.  
Thus, his application was untimely. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

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 conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.  Allen v. Card, 799 F. 
Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 

The  Coast  Guard’s  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  COMDTINST 
M1650.25B, does not list any campaign or service awards authorized for mem-
bers whose work supported the invasion forces in Grenada.  Nor has the appli-
cant submitted any evidence indicating that such an award exists.  Therefore, the 
Board’s cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that block 13 on the 
applicant’s  DD  214  is  neither  incomplete  or  erroneous  in  this  respect.    See 
COMDTINST M1900.4B, Article 1-C. 

 
 Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice 
to waive the statute of limitations in this case, and the applicant’s request should 
be denied for untimeliness.  
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 

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

military record, is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
Robert C. Ashby 

 

 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 
Mark A. Tomicich 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1997-097

    Original file (1997-097.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    How- ever, the Coast Guard does not agree with Applicant’s request as to her ACIP entitlement.” The Chief Counsel stated that, [i]f the Board directs the restoration of Applicant’s designator, the Coast Guard would then evaluate Applicant’s status under COMDTINST 7220.39 to determine what ACIP back pay, if any, is due.” and one-half years of operational flying time. She alleged that the Coast Guard could only remove aeronautical designators pursuant to Article 6.A.1. The applicant also...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2000-018

    Original file (2000-018.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard had treated him unjustly by (a) refusing to process him for a medical retirement due to his disability; (b) dis- charging him before October 1, 1996, while his medical condition was still unsta- ble and thereby denying him the chance to continue serving until he could earn a 20-year retirement; and (c) issuing retroactive discharge orders that denied him pay and allowances for his last two weeks on active duty. He alleged that the applicant was not...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-067

    Original file (1998-067.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated December 17, 1998, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a xxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by removing a special officer evaluation report (disputed OER) received while serving as the xxxxxxxxx at the xxxxxxxx.1 The applicant also requested that the Board remove from his record any other documents referring to his removal as xxxxxxxxx. “The xxxx” was the xxx of the Xxxxxxxxx of the Xxxxxx. ...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2000-104

    Original file (2000-104.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also asked the Board to correct block 14 to show that he attended two educational programs while on active duty: “Covey Training Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” and “Covey Leadership Training—Principle-Centered Leadership.” In support of his application, he submitted a copy of the citation for the medal and copies of two certificates from the Covey Leadership Center indicating that he successfully completed the courses. The form corrected the appli- cant’s DD 214 to show that he...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-135

    Original file (1999-135.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On January 14, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board “grant relief” not by awarding the applicant the promised bonus but by giving her a choice of three options: • Correct her enlistment contract to show that she entered a rating that qualifies her for a bonus under ALDIST 224/98 (she would...

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-230

    Original file (2011-230.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1998-052

    Original file (1998-052.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and that she had been charged with filing false claims. On June 22, 1999, Coast Guard Investigations forwarded a copy of the report of the investigation of the filing of false claims by recruiters in the xxxx office to the BCMR. On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and...

  • CG | BCMR | Discrimination and Retaliation | 1999-185

    Original file (1999-185.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He alleged that, because he responded, “I can solve society’s problem,” he was deemed suicidal and discharged for “unsuitability.” He alleged that he was not SUMMARY OF THE RECORD actually suicidal but “went along with” the recommendation for discharge because he thought he wanted out of the Coast Guard. The Chief Counsel stated that the record proves that the Coast Guard followed all proper procedures with respect VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD to the applicant’s medical evaluations and...

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2005-031

    Original file (2005-031.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. On December 7, 1968, the Commander of Coast Guard Activities, Vietnam, recommended that the applicant receive a Bronze Star medal for his heroic service on March 1, 1968. of the Coast Guard Medals and Awards Manual provides that “only one award of a personal military decoration will be made for the same act achievement, or period of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-121

    Original file (1999-121.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On January 14, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board “grant relief” not by awarding the applicant the promised bonus but by giving him a choice of three options: • Correct his enlistment contract to show that he entered a rating that quali- fies him for a bonus under ALDIST 072/98 (he would also have to attend “A” School in the new rating). The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant’s recruiter promised him a bonus upon enlistment...