DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-050 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J.  
 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on 
February  10,  2006,  upon  receipt of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  military 
records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  28,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  former  store  keeper  second  class  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve, 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  discharge  form,  DD  Form  214,  to  show  that  he  was 
discharged in 1976 since his enlistment expired in 1976.   He also  alleged that the DD 
Form 214 was erroneous in failing to document his active duty training periods in 1973, 
1974, and 1975.  The applicant alleged that he did not discover the errors until recently. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On  March  15,  1968,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  for  six 
years, through March 14, 1974.  From March 16 to August 15, 1968, the applicant per-
formed initial active duty for training (ADT).  A DD Form 214 and DD Form 215 cover-
ing this period show that he performed exactly five months of active duty and had one 
day of prior inactive service when he was released from active duty on August 15, 1968. 

 

 The  applicant’s  record  shows  that  as  a  reservist  he  drilled  regularly  and  per-
formed  annual  ADT  during  his  anniversary  years  ending  on  March  14  of  1970,  1971, 
1972, and 1973.  An Administrative Remarks page in his record dated January 16, 1974, 
indicates that upon the applicant’s request, the Commandant waived his annual ADT 
requirement for his anniversary year ending on March 14, 1974.  On February 24, 1974, 
the applicant extended his enlistment for one year, through March 14, 1975.   

 
On November 17, 1974, the applicant extended his enlistment for a second year, 
through  March  14,  1976.    Another  Administrative  Remarks  page  indicates  that  in 
December 1974, the applicant again requested a waiver of the annual ADT requirement 
due to problems with his business.  On January 3, 1975, the Commandant granted the 
waiver for the applicant’s ADT requirement for the anniversary year ending on March 
14, 1975.  

 
ADT  orders  in  the  applicant’s  record  indicate  that  in  June  1975,  he  performed 
annual ADT for his anniversary year ending on March 14, 1976, by attending advanced 
storekeeper school.  An Administrative Remarks entry indicates that he completed the 
course.   

 
On  March  14,  1976,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Reserve 
upon the expiration of his enlistment as extended.  He reenlisted for another three years 
on March 15, 1976.  However, there is no evidence of further Reserve participation in 
his  record.    The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Reserve  upon  the 
expiration of his enlistment on March 14, 1979. 

 
On  May  8,  2001,  the  National  Personnel  Records  Center  sent  the  applicant  a 
Certification of Military Service, which reflects his five months of initial ADT and his 
four periods of ADT for his anniversary years ending on March 14 of 1970, 1971, 1972, 
and 1973.  The certificate does not mention the applicant’s ADT in June 1975. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 26, 2006, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request 
based on an attached memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC. 
 
 
CGPC pointed out that the application was untimely.  CGPC further stated that 
in accordance with the DD Form 214 Instruction, COMDTINST M1900.4, DD Form 214s 
are  issued  only  for  continuous  periods  of  active  duty  of  at  least  90  days.    Therefore, 
CGPC alleged, the applicant’s record is correct in reflecting only one DD Form 214 for 
his initial ADT since that was his only period of active duty of at least 90 continuous 
days.  CGPC stated that the applicant’s subsequent periods of ADT cannot properly be 
reflected on a DD Form 214 because they were for periods of less than 90 days. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 27, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code. 

 
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 was 
discharged  in  1979  and  knew  or  should  have  known  at  that  time  that  his  periods  of 
annual ADT were not reflected in his record on a DD Form 214.  Therefore, the Board 
finds that his application was 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, 
164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice sup-
ports 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."    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."  Id. at 164, 165.   

 
4. 

The  applicant  stated  only  that  he  had  discovered  the  alleged  errors 
recently and did not provide any explanation as to why he did not submit an applica-
tion sooner. 

 
5. 

As CGPC stated, under COMDTINST M1900.4, DD Form 214s are issued 
only to document periods of active duty of at least 90 consecutive days.  The applicant’s 
record includes only one such period, his initial ADT in 1968, and it was documented 
correctly with a DD Form 214 and DD Form 215.  The applicant is not entitled to have 
his  short  periods  of  annual  ADT  documented  on  a  DD  Form  214.    Furthermore,  the 
applicant’s  record  properly  reflects  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  on  March  14, 
1976, upon the expiration of his enlistment as twice extended, and again on March 14, 
1979. 

 

6. 

The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) has issued the applicant a 
Certification  of  Military  Service,  which  reflects  his  five  months  of  initial  ADT  in  1968 
and his four periods of annual ADT for his  anniversary years ending on March 14 of 
1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973, but omits his ADT at advanced storekeeper school in 1975.  
However,  the  applicant  has  not  asked  the  Board  to  remove  this  document  from  his 
record.   

 
7. 

Accordingly,  due  to  the  lack  of  a  persuasive  reason  for  the  applicant’s 
delay in filing his application and to the probable lack of success on the merits of his 
claim, the Board finds it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations 
in this case, and it should be denied because it is untimely and it lacks merit. 

The application of former SK2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction 

of his military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 H. Lee Einsel, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger