DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-119 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy 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 docketed on July 21, 2003, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application, including his military record. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 18, 2004, is signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his 1944 discharge papers.  He alleged 
that it was unjust for his papers to show that he was discharged under Article 588 of the 
regulations  in  effect  at  the  time;  to  show  the  words  “Character  of  service  excellent” 
crossed  out;  and  to  have  no  entries  for  his  final  marks  in  conduct  and  proficiency  in 
rating (PIR).  
 
 
The applicant stated that in 1942, while working as a fireman in xxxxxxxxxxx, he 
was approached by a Coast Guard recruiter, who said the service needed him to work 
on  a  fireboat  and  promised  him  the  rank  of  second  class  petty  officer.    When  the 
applicant enlisted, he was made a second class machinist mate without ever attending 
boot  camp.    For  a  short  time,  he  was  assigned  to  maintaining  private  boats  that  the 
Coast Guard had leased for the duration of the war, but then he was transferred to a 
cutter for convoy duty out of xxxxxxxx.  On the cutter, he learned how to maintain the 
twin diesel engines and controls.  When his commanding officer (CO) told him that he 
would  be  advanced  from  second  to  first  class,  he  told  his  CO  about  the  recruiter’s 
promise that he would work on a fireboat.  Thereafter, he was transferred for a short 
time to work on a fireboat in xxxxxxx and then performed shore patrols with a Marine 

unit.  When his wife became pregnant, he was made a port security specialist first class 
and transferred to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
 
The  applicant  further  stated  that  in  the  middle  of  the  night  about  two  months 
 
after his son was born, he was suddenly told that he had been assigned to a cutter and 
would be shipping out the next day.  On the cutter, the head of his detail was ill and 
could not tell him what his duties were, but the applicant familiarized himself with the 
equipment and drilled the crew on fire control.  One night when the sea was rough, the 
applicant stated, he was told to take a deck watch on the rear of the ship.  He stated that 
he  does  not  remember  what  happened  next  except  that  he  landed  in  sickbay  in 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, where he was treated at length by a psychiatrist.  He alleged that one 
day, after the psychiatrist “got [him] to cry,” he was told he would be sent home. 
 
 
The applicant stated that “I have lived with this experience all these years.  I have 
been  told  that  the  middle  of  the  night  visit  leaving  a  wife  and  a  two-month  son  in  a 
strange  city  was  a  traumatic  experience  that  could  cause  problems.  …  I  can  only  say 
that I tried to do my best with a very hectic experience.  I hope you can confirm these 
facts.  I would like to know that I wasn’t a failure to my country.”  Regarding why the 
Board should consider his case despite his delay in filing his application, he stated that 
it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his case because he has been “liv-
ing with this since [his] discharge until now.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 

On May 26, 1942, at the age of 21, the applicant enlisted as a machinist mate sec-
ond class in the Reserve at the Coast Guard recruiting office in xxxxxxxxxxxxx.  At the 
time, he was married and had been living and working as a fireman in xxxxxxxx.  He 
served  at  xxxxxxxxxxuntil  August  13,  1942,  when  he  was  transferred  to  a  cutter.    On 
November  1,  1942,  his  CO  changed  his  rating  to  port  security  specialist  second  class.  
On November 17, 1942, he was transferred to xxxxxxx, where he served for six months. 

 
On  June  29,  1943,  the  applicant  was  transferred  to  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  where  he 
was  advanced  to  port  security  specialist  first  class  on October 16, 1943.  On March 9, 
1944, he was transferred to xxxxxxx. 

 
On April 5, 1944, the applicant was transferred to another cutter.  However, three 
weeks later, on April 28, 1944, he was transferred from the cutter to a Navy hospital in 
xxxxxxxxxxxx, where a psychiatrist diagnosed him with “psychoneurosis, hysteria.”  A 
medical history of his admittance to the hospital states that the applicant had suffered 
from  seasickness  during  his  prior  tour  on  a  cutter  and,  to  avoid  seasickness,  had 
refrained  from  eating  when  he  was  assigned  to  his  new  cutter.    He  had  twice  fallen 
unconscious while on watch and reported having “bizarre symptoms” including twitch-
ing of his facial muscles and numbness in his arms. 

  

On May 27, 1944, following further treatment, a psychiatrist noted that the appli-

cant had “no disease” but a “maladjustment to [Coast Guard] service.” 

 
On  June  1,  1944,  the  applicant  was  examined  pursuant  to  a  Medical  Survey 
Board, which found him unfit for service due to a “psychoneurosis, mixed type, existing 
prior to service” and recommended that he be discharged.  The board also noted that 
the applicant had recuperated and was “reacting at or near his preenlistment social and 
emotional  level.”    The  board  held  that  the  applicant’s  condition  preexisted  his  enlist-
ment, was not a result of misconduct, and was not aggravated by his service.   

 
On  June  19,  1944,  the  applicant  signed  a  form  #10,  which  informed  him  of  the 
diagnosis of psychoneurosis and of the recommendation that he be discharged because 
of a disability that existed prior to his enlistment and that was not aggravated by his 
service.  He was also informed of his right to submit a rebuttal.  On this form, the appli-
cant indicated that he did not desire to rebut the findings and recommendation of the 
Medical Survey Board. 

 
On June 27, 1944, the District Commander forwarded the report of the Medical 
Survey Board to the Commandant, recommending approval.  On July 1, 1944, the Com-
mandant approved the applicant’s discharge. 

 
On July 12, 1944, the Commandant ordered that the applicant be honorably dis-
charged “by reason of physical disability existing prior to service,” under the authority 
of Article 588 of the Coast Guard’s regulations.  The Commandant further specified that 
the “[c]haracter of service, whether or not recommended for reenlistment, final average, 
or reason for discharge will not be shown on the discharge certificate.  Spaces provided 
for these entries will be ruled in such a manner as to prevent subsequent entries.” The 
Commandant  also  specified  that  Article  588  should  be  cited  as  both  the  cause  and 
authority for discharge. 

 
On July 27, 1944, the applicant received an honorable discharge from the Reserve 
under the authority of Article 588.  He had served two years, two months, and two days 
on active duty.  His final average marks, on a 4.0 scale, were 4.0 in conduct and 3.0 in 
proficiency in rating (PIR).  However, the spaces for these marks and the character of 
service  on  his  discharge  form  were  ruled  out  in  accordance  with  the  Commandant’s 
order. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On December 3, 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  He specified that the recommendation “is in no way meant to denigrate the 
good and faithful service” rendered by the applicant, who “served the Coast Guard and 
our nation honorably during a time of tremendous stress and danger.  Far from being a 

failure to his country, [the applicant] answered his country’s call when it needed him 
most.”  The Judge Advocate General thanked the applicant for his selfless service. 
 
The Judge Advocate General stated that the Board should deny the application 
 
because of its untimeliness since the applicant has failed to show why it would be in the 
interest of justice to excuse the delay.  He argued that the applicant had not shown good 
cause for the delay. 
 
 
The  Judge  Advocate  General  also  argued  that  a  review  of  the  record  indicates 
that the allegations of error and injustice lack merit.  He stated that his review “shows 
that  the  Coast  Guard  acted  completely  properly  in  this  case  and  there  is  no  error  or 
injustice to be corrected.”  He stated that the record indicates that the applicant’s dis-
charge  form  “was  completed  in  accordance  with  the  Commandant’s  specific  instruc-
tions in accordance with regulations in effect at that time.”  He stated that at the time, 
there were no reenlistment codes, and striking out certain information on the discharge 
form was how members were made ineligible for reenlistment.  He stated that despite 
the stricken lines, the applicant should be assured that his service was honorable and 
good, as proved by his honorable discharge.  The Judge Advocate General pointed out 
that the applicant had submitted no evidence to support his allegation of injustice. 
 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On December 9, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Judge Advocate 
General’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  On January 28, 
2004, the applicant responded, stating that he took exception to the statement that he 
suffered  from  a  psychoneurosis  that  pre-existed  his  enlistment.    He  pointed  out  that 
prior to his enlistment, he had worked for the xxxxxxx Fire Department Rescue Squad, 
which was “a test of my endurance treating all types of injuries and rescue work.”  He 
also pointed out that he had overcome growing up during the Great Depression.  He 
alleged  that  at  one  point  during  his  service,  he  had  been  asked to consider attending 
Officer Candidate School. 
 
 
The  applicant  also  objected  to  the  Judge  Advocate  General’s  statement  that  he 
had acknowledged that the alleged psychoneurosis pre-existed his enlistment and was 
not aggravated by his service.  He stated that, in the hospital, the psychiatrist harassed 
him and the other patients on a daily basis and was intent on wearing them down until 
they broke down.  He stated that only he and the other patients who were there would 
understand  what  the  psychiatrist  really  did.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  could  not 
accept the psychiatrist’s interpretation of his condition.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 588 of the 1940 Regulations for the United States Coast Guard states that 
“[t]he  Commandant, upon recommendation of a medical board of survey, may direct 

the discharge of an enlisted man for physical or mental disability.  The character of the 
discharge to be issued shall depend upon whether or not the physical or mental disease 
was due to the man’s own misconduct, and also upon the record of the man during his 
current  enlistment.    A  man  discharged  by  authority  of  his  article  shall  be  not  recom-
mended for reenlistment.”  

 
Article  584(4)  of  the  1940  Regulations  for  the  United  States  Coast  Guard 
provided that honorable discharges were awarded under any of five conditions:  expi-
ration  of  enlistment;  convenience  of  the  government;  hardship;  minority  (age);  and 
disability  not  the  result  of  own  misconduct.    A  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions could be awarded “for the same [five] reasons as an honorable discharge and 
issued  to  individuals  whose  conduct  and  performance  of  duty  have  been  satisfactory 
but not sufficiently deserving or meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.”   

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

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

 

 
3. 

1. 
§ 1552.  
 

2. 

An  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record. 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The applicant knew 
about  the  nature  of  his  discharge  and  the  stricken  information  on  his  discharge  form 
when he was discharged in 1944.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year stat-
ute 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 cur-
sory review of the merits of the case and consider the reasons for the delay. Dickson v. 
Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 
1992).  The applicant did not explain why he had delayed applying to the Board, but he 
argued  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations 
because he has been “living with” the injustice for so long.   
 

4. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  it  was  unjust  for  his  discharge  form  to  show 
that he was discharged under Article 588 of the regulations in effect in 1944.  However, 
a review of the record indicates that the applicant was hospitalized for several weeks 
prior to his discharge, was evaluated by a Medical Survey Board, and was discharged 
by the Commandant based on the recommendation of that board, in accordance with 
his authority under Article 588.  Although the applicant now states that he never had a 

5. 

6. 

psychoneurosis,  he  did  not  object  to  his  pending  medical  discharge  when  given  the 
opportunity on June 19, 1944.   
 
The applicant alleged that it was unjust for his discharge form to show the 
 
words “Character of service excellent” crossed out and to have no entries for his final 
marks in conduct and proficiency in rating (PIR).  However, the record shows that his 
discharge form was completed properly in accordance with the order of the Comman-
dant.  The Judge Advocate General has explained that, during World War II, the dis-
charge forms of all members separated because of medical disabilities that would pro-
hibit further military service were completed in this way merely to show that they were 
not  eligible  for  reenlistment—not  to  indicate  that  the  members’  service  had  been 
unmeritorious.  Although it was an unfortunate means for denoting ineligibility for fur-
ther military service, the Board finds that the applicant’s discharge form was completed 
properly  in  accordance  with  the  rules  in  effect  at  the  time,  and  the  applicant  has  not 
proved that his discharge form or the rules themselves were unjust. 
  
  
The applicant apparently believes that his discharge form somehow indi-
cates  that  he  “failed  [his]  country.”    However,  his  record  clearly  indicates  that  he 
received an honorable discharge in accordance with the strict standards of Article 584(4) 
of the 1940 regulations.  If his conduct and performance of duty had been merely satis-
factory but not particularly deserving or meritorious, he would have received a general 
discharge under honorable conditions, instead of an honorable discharge.  Although the 
psychiatrist’s  diagnosis  cut  short  his  military  service,  his  commanding  officer  clearly 
believed  his  service  to  have  been  sufficiently  meritorious  to  earn  an  honorable  dis-
charge. 
 
7. 

Accordingly, the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice on 
the  applicant’s  discharge  form,  and  it  will  not  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  in  this 
case.   
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

military record is denied. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 

ORDER