Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2001-124
Original file (2001-124.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2001-124 

  FINAL DECISION 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  20,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was commenced on June 18, 2001, upon the 
Board's  receipt  of  the  applicant's  complete  application  for  correction  of  her  military 
record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The applicant, a former petty officer second class (pay grade E-5) requested that 
her DD Form 214 (discharge document) be corrected to show that she had served for six 
or eight years on inactive duty in the Coast Guard Reserve.  She stated that she needs 
her DD Form 214 to show this inactive duty time so that she can join the Air National 
Guard.  The applicant claimed that she discovered the alleged error or injustice in April 
or May 2001.  She failed, however, to explain why she could not have discovered the 
alleged error any earlier. 
 
 
On October 23, 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for six years.  The 
applicant’s  enlistment  contract  stated  that  four  of  her  six  years  of  obligated  service 
would be spent on active duty in the regular Coast Guard and two would be spent in 
the Reserve, unless sooner discharged.   
 

At her request, she was discharged from active duty on July 8, 1982.1   Upon her 
discharge, the applicant received a DD Form 214, which indicated that she had served 

                                                 
1   The applicant was honorably discharged by reason of convenience of the government due to 
“parenthood and custody of minor children.”  She was given the corresponding RE-3B reenlistment code.   
 
 
 

On  December  31,  2001,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard  views  was  mailed  to  the 

Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
applicant for a reply. She did not submit a response.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

on active duty from October 23, 1978 until July 8, 1982.  There was no mention of any 
time served on inactive duty.  A discharge severs all ties with the military.   
 
 
 
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On December 27, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the board deny relief in this case.  The 
Chief Counsel stated that the application should be dismissed because it was not timely. 
Alternatively,  he  argued  that  the  application  should  be  denied  because  the  applicant 
failed  to  allege  an  error  or  injustice  or  submit  any  evidence  establishing  an  error  or 
injustice in her record.   

 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  submissions  and  military  record,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
10, United States Code.  The application was not timely. 
 
 
2.  To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a  military  record  must  be 
submitted within three years after the alleged error or injustice was or should have been 
discovered.  See 33 CFR 52.22.  The applicant was discharged approximately 19 years 
before she filed her application with the Board.  She was given a DD Form 214 at that 
time which contained no mention of inactive duty credit.  She should have discovered 
the alleged error at that time.   
 
 
3.  The Board may still consider the application on the merits, however, if it finds 
it is in the interest of justice to do so.  The interest of justice is determined by taking into 
consideration the reasons for and the length of the delay and the likelihood of success 
on the merits of the claim. See Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp 158 (D.D.C. 1992). 
 
 
4.  Although  the  applicant  claimed  that  she  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error 
until April or May 2001, she did not state why she could not have discovered the allege 
error sooner.  She merely stated that she needed her DD Form 214 to show six or eight 

6.   Therefore, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the 

years of inactive duty so she could join the Air National Guard.  The applicant has not 
provided a persuasive reason for not filing her application sooner.   
 
 
5.  In addition, after a review of the merits of her claim, the Board finds that the 
applicant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her DD Form 
214 contains an error or injustice.  In fact, she presented no evidence showing that the 
DD  Form  214  was  in  error  or  unjust.    Without  such  evidence,  the  applicant  had  no 
chance of success on the merits of her claim.   
  
 
three-year statute of limitations in this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  for  the  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
Murray A. Bloom 

 

 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-061

    Original file (2009-061.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s discharge was approved and she was discharged from the Coast Guard with an honorable discharge by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder, with a JMB separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. A medical entry dated July 25, 1991, shows that the deltoid strain had resolved and that processing her for discharge should continue.2 The applicant asserted that the medical documentation that she submitted verifies that she was informed that her discharged was due...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-151

    Original file (2002-151.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx FINAL DECISION BCMR Docket No. He stated that she was discharged on July 18, 2001, under the Care of Newborn Children program, and that she was enlisted in the IRR the next day even though she never signed an agreement to do so. As there is no documentation supporting her enlistment, her record should be corrected by voiding it.

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2007-080

    Original file (2007-080.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated February 21, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, a LCDR retired by reason of physical disability, asked the Board to correct her record to show that she was retained on active duty until she became eligible for retirement by reason of longevity (20 years of active service), at which time she then retired with a 60% disability rating in accordance with the findings of the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB).2 This...

  • CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2001-076

    Original file (2001-076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Chief Counsel stated that according to the Personnel Manual, a member with eight years or more of military service is entitled to a hearing before an ADB, if the Coast Guard intends to discharge the member involuntarily prior to the end of that member’s enlistment. The only evidence of any previous military service in her Coast Guard record is a comment in the alcohol evaluation report that she had served in the Army for six years, not eight. If the applicant had wanted to remain in...

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2007-029

    Original file (2007-029.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve on April 21, 1982. the following points while in the Coast Guard Reserve: The applicant’s retirement points statement dated October 4, 1978 shows that he earned This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. Therefore, the Board finds that the 1995 Medals and Awards Manual is more applicable to the applicant’s case. 3 Article 4-A-1 of the Reserve and Administration...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2004-177

    Original file (2004-177.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 5, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record to show that she was discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of physical disability with a 100% disability rating due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rather than having been discharged by reason of unsuitability due to personality disorder. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Records On January 21, 1994, approximately...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-096

    Original file (2011-096.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated November 18, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant was medically retired from the Coast Guard on December 20, 1979, with a 50% disability rating for acute depression. 2007-080, the applicant had been medically retired with a 60% disability rating and 19 years and 29 days of active duty after the CPEB reported that she did not meet the standards for retention until her 20th active duty anniversary. ...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2001-067

    Original file (2001-067.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from the hospital on January 13, 1978 fit for light duty. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United “you have been examined and found physically fit for separation from active duty. The fact that the applicant has received a disability rating from the DVA approximately three years after his discharge from the Coast Guard does not mean that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by discharging the applicant due...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-229

    Original file (2010-229.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-229

    Original file (2010-229.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...