DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-018 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxx, McMM3c(R) (former)  
   

 

 

PI:  For the past 19 months patient was aboard a DE as motor man and there has 
been  increasing  deafness  with  tightness  in  his  ears  becoming  worse  during  the 
past six months.  He would always feel better just before going on watch. 
 
FS:  One brother hard of hearing; 
 
COURSE&TREATMENT:    .  .  .  Penicillin  instilled  in  Pretz  position  daily  and 
hearing  has  returned  until  whispered  voice  is  15/15  in  each  ear.   Audiogram  is 
normal. 
 
6-30-45 DIAGNOSIS CHANGED TO:  SALPINGITIS, EUSTACHIAN, ACUTE 
BILATERAL . . .   

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Ulmer, D. 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to 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 October 30, 
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  June  13,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  an  entry  on  a  medical  report  in  his  military 
record dated June 17, 1945, stating that “One brother is hard of hearing.”  The applicant stated 
that he does not now, nor has he ever had a brother.  He argued that the entry implies that his 
“hearing disability is hereditary and this is not the case.”   
 
 
“deafness bilaterally.”  The medical report further stated, as follows: 
 

The  medical  report  shows  that  on  June  17,  1945,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with 

REASON:  Error . . .  
  
7-3-45 Discharged to duty, well. 
 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that  he  did  not  discover  the  alleged  error  until  September 
2006.   His Coast Guard record contains a March 12, 2003, letter to his congressperson seeking 
help in obtaining the Purple Heart.  The applicant wrote that “During the 1970’s, the VFW had 
attempted  to  procure  the  medal  for  me  however  the  medical  records  could  not  be  found.  
Apparently  they  were  moved  to  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  a  fire  occurred,  and  the  records, 
subsequently, were destroyed.”  Earlier in 1991, the Department of Veterans Affairs sought the 
applicant’s medical records to process the applicant’s claim for compensation and disability due 
to  a  hearing  loss.      There  is  no  indication  in  the  Coast  Guard  record  whether  the  applicant 
personally reviewed his medical record at this time, although NPRC apparently forwarded the 
medical records to the DVA, as requested. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 12, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG 
attached  a  memorandum  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  as 
Enclosure (1) and asked the Board to accept it as part of the advisory opinion.   
 

CGPC stated that the application was untimely and should be denied on that basis.  In this 
regard, CGPC stated that the applicant has not provided any documentation, except for his own 
statement, that the entry “One brother hard of hearing” is erroneous.   CGPC argued that the fact 
that the applicant’s military record makes no mention of a sibling does not verify his claim that 
he never had a brother.   

 
CGPC noted the applicant’s contention that the alleged erroneous entry made it appear 
that his hearing loss was hereditary.  However, CGPC stated that the medical report indicates that 
the applicant responded to treatment and was discharged from the hospital with normal hearing.   

 
CGPC argued that even if the entry is erroneous, the applicant’s medical records should 
not be changed because the entry was the objective observation of qualified medical personnel at 
the time of examination.  CGPC further stated “given that this entry  was made more than 61 
years ago and represents an immaterial element, a change is not justified or warranted.” 

 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s written statement presented to the BCMR along with the 
BCMR final decision in this case should be made a part of his Coast Guard record to document 
his disagreement with the entry.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  January  17,  2007,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 
 
Guard to the address of record and invited him to respond.  The Board did not receive a response 
from the applicant. 

 

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 section 1552 of title 

10 of the United States Code.   
 
 
2.  The Board finds that the application is timely because the applicant did not discover 
the alleged error until September 2006.   To be timely, an application for correction of a military 
record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  should  have 
discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.    Although  the  application  was 
submitted  on  October  30,  2006,  approximately  58  years  beyond  the  statute  of  limitations,  the 
Board accepts the applicant’s claim that he did not discover the alleged error until September 
2006,  because  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  to  suggest  that  he  ever  saw  or  knew  of  the 
contested medical report prior to his discharge on November 24, 1945 or that he was aware of it 
earlier  than  September  2006.    Military  records  are  the  property  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  are 
maintained by the Coast Guard upon a member’s separation.  There is no evidence in the record 
that the applicant was provided with a copy of his medical record upon discharge from which to 
learn of the alleged erroneous entry.  
 
 
3.  Further, the Board notes in a March 12, 2003, letter to his congressperson for help in 
obtaining the Purple Heart, the applicant suggested that his records had been destroyed.  In this 
regard, the applicant wrote “During the 1970’s, the VFW had attempted to procure the [Purple 
Heart] for me, however the medical records could not be found.  Apparently they were moved to 
St. Louis, Missouri, a fire occurred, and the records, subsequently, were destroyed.”    Although, 
it appears from the record that the Department of Veterans Affairs sought the applicant’s medical 
records  in  1991  to  process  a  claim  for  compensation  and  disability  due  to  a  hearing  loss,  the 
Coast Guard record does not establish that the applicant personally reviewed his medical record, 
at that time or  any time thereafter until September 2006.      In light of  the lack of persuasive 
evidence  to  the  contrary  and  his  sworn  statement  under  penalty  of  perjury  on  his  DD  149 
application, the Board accepts the applicant’s assertion that he did not discover the alleged error 
until September 2006.   
 
 
 4.    With  respect  to  the  merits  of  his  claim,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  present  any 
corroborating  evidence  that  he  never  had  a  brother.    Absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
government  officials  are  presumed  to  have  carried  out  their  duties  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in 
good faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  The applicant has the burden of 
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he never had a brother and therefore, the entry is 
erroneous and/or unjust.  Otherwise, the Coast Guard is entitled to the presumption of regularity.  
Further, the Board presumes that the physician writing the medical entry in 1945 had a basis for 
stating that the applicant’s brother was hard of hearing.  The applicant has presented insufficient 
to prove the contested entry to be in error or unjust.   
 

 
5.    The  Board  notes  that  it  should  not  be  that  difficult  for  the  applicant  to  submit 
sufficient evidence to prove that he never had a brother.  Affidavits from family and friends who 
have  known  the  applicant  and  his  family  most  of  their  lives  should  be  easily  obtainable  to 
corroborate the applicant’s claim that he never had a brother.   
 
 
6.    If  the  applicant  presents  such  evidence  as  described  in  Finding  6,  above,  with  a 
statement explaining how he is prejudiced by the entry, within six months from the date of this 
decision, the Board would be amenable to a further review of this application.   
 

7.  Accordingly, the application should be denied subject to Findings 5. and 6. above.   

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  former  McMM3c  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

correction of his military record is denied.