DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-070 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 

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  8,  2008,  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 30, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged from the Reserve on April 5, 1961, asked 
the Board to correct his military record to show that his rate upon discharge was ESG2 (second 
class petty officer), rather than ESG3 (third class petty officer).  The applicant alleged that he 
was advanced from ESG3 to ESG2 in February or March 1961, prior to his discharge, but that 
the advancement is not reflected on his discharge papers and other military records.  The appli-
cant alleged that he discovered this error on November 11, 2005. 
 

 

 
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On April 6, 1953, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as a seaman recruit.  
He had prior military service in the Army and the Navy.  In the Reserve, he advanced to seaman 
apprentice in 1954, to seaman in 1955, and to ESG3 in 1956, and his record contains documenta-
tion of examinations and recommendations for those advancements.  All of his enlisted perform-
ance  marks,  orders  for  active  duty  training,  and  other  military  records  dated  from  December 
1956 until his discharge in 1961 indicate that he remained an ESG3. 

 
In a letter dated February 20, 1961, the applicant asked the District Commander, via his 
commanding officer, for a waiver of the annual training requirement.  He noted his own rate as 
ESG3.  In a message dated March 22, 1961, the Commandant approved the applicant’s request.  
The applicant’s rate on this message is noted as ESG3. 

 
On April 5, 1961, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Reserve.  His “Record 
of Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Death” form dated April 5, 1961, shows his rate as 
ESG3.  His final performance marks dated April 5, 1961, which were signed by an officer at his 
unit, show that he was evaluated as an ESG3. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 25, 2008, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  He argued that the 
application should be denied because of its untimeliness and lack of supporting evidence.  The 
JAG stated that the applicant knew or should have known about the rate shown on his discharge 
papers in 1961 and that, even if the Board found that the application was timely, the case should 
be barred under the doctrine of laches because the applicant’s long delay in filing his application 
has prejudiced the Coast Guard’s ability to investigate his claim.  The JAG further noted that the 
applicant submitted no evidence to support his claim and so has not overcome the presumption 
of regularity accorded his official military records. 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum 
by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that a comprehensive review of 
the applicant’s military record revealed no support for his claim that he was advanced to ESG2 
prior to his discharge. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 23, 2008, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He disagreed 
 
and stated that he received his discharge certificate while he was packing to move from Cleve-
land to Sandusky, Ohio, and although he opened the envelope to verify that the certificate was 
inside, he did not stop to read it.  Later, he mislaid the certificate during a subsequent household 
move and did not find it for many  years, at which point he read it and noticed the error.  He 
stated that the records of his Reserve unit, ORTUPS 09-163, or the testing unit that scored his 
examination should reveal that he passed the test and was advanced to ESG2.  He alleged that he 
remembers being called into his lieutenant’s office, being told of his advancement, and being told 
to obtain and wear his new insignia to a meeting the following week. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

1. 
 
2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three  years after the applicant 
discovers  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  his  record.  10  U.S.C.  § 
1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22.  Although the applicant claims to have discovered the alleged error 

in November 2005, the Board finds that he reasonably should have discovered the alleged error 
upon receipt of his discharge certificate in 1961.  Therefore, his application was untimely. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of an applica-
tion 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 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).   

The applicant’s excuse for not filing his application sooner is not compelling.   

The  applicant  is  asking  the  Board  to  change  his  records  to  show  that  he  was 
advanced from ESG3 to ESG2 in 1961 based upon his own memory and word.  His application 
and official military record contain no evidence whatsoever in support of his claim.  Under the 
Board’s rules at 33 C.F.R. § 52.24, the Board begins every case presuming that an applicant’s 
official military record is correct, and the applicant bears the burden of finding and submitting 
sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his record is erroneous or 
unjust.   Although  the  applicant  believes  that  there  may  still  be  records  in  existence—perhaps 
somewhere in the National Archives—to prove his case, he has not submitted any such records.  
Neither the Coast Guard nor the Board is required to do this research for him. 

Given the lack of any evidence supporting the applicant’s allegation, the Board 
finds that his case cannot prevail upon the merits.  Accordingly, the Board should not waive the 
statute of limitations in this case.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
3. 

 
4. 
 
5. 

 
6. 

 

 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

        

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Janice Williams-Jones