DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-051 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx,  EM1/E-6 (former) 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Hale, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding 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 for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 19, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant,  a  former  electrician’s  mate  first  class  (EM1;  pay  grade  E-6)  who 
 
retired from the Coast Guard on October 31, 1988, asked the Board to correct his DD 
Form  214  (certificate  of  release  or  discharge  from  active  duty)  to  show  that  he 
completed  20  years  of  federal  service.    He  alleged  that  the  DD  Form  214  he  received 
upon  retirement  does  not  indicate  that  he  completed  20  years  of  federal  service,  and 
that this error, in turn, has  caused him to be “rejected from continued work with the 
Gettysburg,  PA,  NPS    [National  Park  Service].”    In  addition,  he  asked  the  Board  to 
correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  is  entitled  to  “ship-over-pay”1  for  the  last  six-year 
extension contract he signed while in the Coast Guard.  He alleged that the ship over 
pay was never offered to him for “prejudicial reasons” and “that this was a continuance 

                                                 
1 The Board presumes that the applicant is referring to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  SRBs allow 
the Coast Guard to offer a reenlistment incentive to members who possess highly desired skills at certain 
points during their career.  SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the 
number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment contract, and 
the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the 
“multiple” of the SRB authorized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an ALCOAST. 

of belittlement of veterans.”  The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his 
assertion that he is entitled to ship over pay for his last extension contract, nor did he 
provide any support for his allegation that the pay was denied for prejudicial reasons.  

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 24, 1972, after having served in 
the Marine Corps for approximately 4 years.  On May 20, 1976, the applicant reenlisted 
for a term of 3 years and received a $1633.50 reenlistment bonus.  He later extended this 
reenlistment for 8 months. 

 
On  January  17,  1980,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    He 
reenlisted on January 18, 1980, for six years and the record indicates that he received a 
$366.50 SRB for this reenlistment.  He received a DD 214 showing that he had 11 years, 9 
months, and 1 day of prior active service.  On June 5, 1980, the Coast Guard issued the 
applicant a DD Form 215 (correction to DD 214) and corrected the total active service on 
his January 17, 1980, DD 214.  The DD 215 indicates that the applicant had 11 years, 2 
months, and 2 days of total active service.  The applicant extended his January 18, 1980, 
reenlistment twice, for a total of 2 years and ten months. 

 
On  October  26,  1988,  the  Coast  Guard  prepared  a  statement  of  service  for  the 
applicant, which indicates that as of October 26, 1988, (five days prior to his retirement), 
the applicant had completed 20 years and 12 days of active service. 

 
The applicant retired from the Coast Guard on October 31, 1988.  He was issued 
a DD 214 to cover his service from January 18, 1980, through October 31, 1988.  The DD 
214 indicates that his total active prior service was 11 years, 2 months, and 19 days.  The 
narrative reason for separation on his DD 214 states “RETIREMENT AFTER 20 YEARS 
ACTIVE  FEDERAL  SERVICE,”  and  the  separation  program  designator  (SPD)  code  is 
“RBD” (sufficient service for retirement, voluntary). 

 
On April 5, 2006, in response to the applicant’s BCMR request, the Coast Guard 
issued  the  applicant  another  DD  215  to reflect  total  prior  active  service  of  11  years,  2 
months, and 29 days. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  19,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  adopted  the  findings  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  and  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.  The JAG argued that the Coast Guard already issued a DD 215 to correct the 
applicant’s total prior service listed on his October 31, 1988, DD 214.   
 

With respect to the ship over pay, the JAG stated that the applicant’s allegation 
that he was not offered and did not receive “ship over pay” is not substantiated.  The 
JAG stated that the applicant reenlisted for three years on May 20, 1976, and received a 

$1633.50  reenlistment  bonus,  and  that  there  does  not  appear  to  be  “any  discrepancy 
with regards to bonus entitlement of payment.”  Finally, the JAG stated that although 
the applicant alleges prejudice and belittlement of veterans, “there is nothing to support 
the allegation within the applicant’s statement or record.”  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
In  response  to  the  advisory  opinion,  the  applicant  expressed  thanks  for 
correcting  his  DD  214.    However,  he  stated  “Gettysburg,  PA  NPS  has  still  not 
responded to me with an apology or the need to pay equal pay for a retired veteran.”  
Addressing  the  Coast  Guard’s  response  to  his  allegation  that  he  did  not  receive  ship 
over pay, the applicant expressed thanks for “reminding me of this pay” and that “my 
own opinion was greyed by the amount others had received for their service – 20 to 30 
thousand.”  The applicant did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with 
the views of the Coast Guard.  
 

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 of the day 
the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.    10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b).    The 
applicant  was  issued  the  DD  214  that  he  claims  to  be  erroneous  on  October  31  1988, 
upon  his  retirement  from  the  Coast  Guard.    Accordingly,  he  knew  or  should  have 
known of any discrepancies on the DD 214 upon his retirement in 1988.  Therefore, the 
Board  finds  that  the  application  was  filed  more  than  14  years  after  the  statute  of 
limitations expired and is untimely. 

 
3. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
4. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may waive the three-year statute of 
limitations 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 in assessing whether the interest of justice supports 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.  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).  
 

5. 

Although  the  applicant  requested  that  his  DD  214  be  corrected  to  show 
that he retired with 20 years of service, the Board notes that the applicant’s October 31, 
1988,  DD  214  clearly  states  that  the  he  was  being  voluntarily  retired  from  the  Coast 
Guard  after  completing  20  years  of  active  service.    Specifically,  block  28,  narrative 
reason for separation, on the DD 214 states: 

“RETIREMENT AFTER 20 YEARS ACTIVE FEDERAL SERVICE” 

 
 
 
Moreover,  the  applicant’s  DD  214  contains  an  “RBD”  separation  code,  which 
indicates  that  he  voluntarily  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard  after  completing  sufficient 
service to retire. 

 
6. 

 In his application to the BCMR, the applicant also alleged that he did not 
receive  ‘ship  over  pay’  for  the  last  six-year  extension  contract  he  signed  while  in  the 
Coast Guard.  However, the applicant’s record indicates that he received a $366.50 SRB 
for the six-year reenlistment contract that he signed on January 18, 1980.  This was the 
last  six-year  contract  he  signed  before  retiring  in  1988.    As  the  JAG  noted,  “In  the 
absence  of  any  specific  supporting  documentation  presented  by  the  applicant,  there 
does not appear to be any discrepancy with regards to bonus entitlement or payment.”  
 

7. 

 Accordingly, due to the fact that the applicant’s DD 214 clearly states that 
he retired from the Coast Guard after completing 20 years of active service and the fact 
that he received an SRB for his January 18, 1980, six-year reenlistment, the Board finds 
that 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.  

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of former EM1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

correction of his military record is denied.