DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-170 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 July 25, 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  April  16,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that the year of active service 
she performed from January 29, 1965, to January 28, 1966, was a year of active duty (AD) as 
opposed to a year of active duty for training (ADT).  The applicant alleged that she was led to 
believe that her year of active service made her eligible for medical benefits from the Depart-
ment of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  Therefore, she thought that when her husband retired and she 
lost his health care coverage, she could turn to the DVA.  However, she alleged, the DVA has 
turned her down because of a handwritten phrase in block 11.a. of her discharge form, DD 214.   
 

Block  11.a.  on  a  DD  214  is  supposed  to  show  the  “Type  of  Transfer  or  Discharge.”  
Block 11.a. on the copy of the DD 214 submitted by the applicant bears the typewritten phrase, 
“Released  from  active  military  service.”    However,  the  words  “military  service”  have  been 
struck out, and the words “duty tra[ining]” have been added by hand so that block 11.a. appears 
to state “Released from active duty tra[ining].” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that she spent her year of active service working at the mail desk at 
the Customs House in New York City and in the payroll office when members came for their 
pay.  She stated, “I knew what to do [and] did it.  It was not training [and] I was not supervised at 
all.”  The applicant stated that the handwritten notation of training in block 11.a. of her DD 214 
is  preventing  her  from  being  eligible  for  DVA  medical  benefits,  and  she  asked  the  Board  to 

remove the word “training” from that block.  She alleged that she discovered the error in January 
2008. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On December 17, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 

an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.   

 
The JAG noted that the application was not timely filed and that the applicant provided 
no  explanation  for  her  42-year  delay  in  seeking  the  requested  correction.    He  argued  that  the 
application should be denied for untimeliness.  He further stated that the applicant enlisted in the 
Reserve in the women’s “SPAR 12 x 3 program,” which required a three-year total Reserve obli-
gation, starting with 12 months of ADT.  He argued that she had submitted insufficient evidence 
to support her allegations. 

 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant 
enlisted in the Reserve on January 26, 1965, for a term of three years “with an initial term of 12 
months ACDU/ACDUTRA,” as shown in block 11 of her enlistment contract.  CGPC stated that 
the  applicant  was  ordered  to  begin  12  months  of  ADT  on  January  29,  1965,  and  assigned  to 
“Reserve Category and Pay Group JF.”  On January 26, 1966, the applicant was issued orders 
stating that she had completed her year of ADT and would be released from active duty on Janu-
ary 28, 1966.  She was released from active military service on January 28, 1966, and discharged 
from the Reserve on January 25, 1968. 

 
CGPC  noted  that  the  applicant  failed  to  submit  any  evidence  that  she  is  being  denied 
DVA entitlements, as she asserted.  CGPC further stated that her claim that her year of active 
service was AD, as opposed to ADT is without merit.  However, CGPC noted that the copy of 
the DD 214 submitted by the applicant is not the same as the DD 214 in her official military 
record,  which  does  not  include  any  handwriting  in  block  11.a.    Therefore,  CGPC  stated,  the 
applicant should be provided a copy of the DD 214 in her military record.  (A photocopy of the 
original DD 214, with no handwritten corrections, was enclosed with the Coast Guard’s advisory 
opinion and so was forwarded to the applicant with the views of the Coast Guard.) 

 
In support of these allegations, CGPC submitted copies of the following documents from 

the applicant’s official military record: 

•  A Page 7 (form CG-3307) entry dated January 26, 1965, shows that she enlisted in the 
Reserve and would be assigned to a Reserve unit in Troy, New York, “upon completion 
of ACDUTRA.”  Another entry on the same Page 7 shows that the applicant acknowl-

 

 

•  Her enlistment contract, dated January 26, 1965, shows that she enlisted in the Reserve 

for three years with an “initial term of ACDU/ACDUTRA” of 12 months. 

•  Her Reserve Training Agreement, dated January 26, 1965, shows that she requested the 

“SPAR 12 x 3 Program.” 
 

edged by signature that she would “not become entitled to basic allowances for quarters 
for dependents while on active duty for training unless quarters in kind for myself are not 
furnished.” 

•  “Initial  Active  Duty  for  Training  Orders,”  issued  on  January  22,  1965,  shows  that  the 
applicant  was  to  report  to  a  U.S.  Naval  Training  Center  in  Bainbridge,  Maryland,  on 
January 29, 1965, and that she would begin storekeeper “A” School in Groton, Connecti-
cut, on April 23, 1965. 

•  A  second  Page  7  shows  that  on  January  29,  1965,  the  applicant  was  “[o]rdered  to 
TWELVE months Active Duty for Training.  Assigned Reserve Category and Pay Group 
JF.”  In addition, the Page 7 shows that she reported for training in Bainbridge on January 
29,  1965,  and  that  she  departed  the  training  center  for  storekeeper  training  in  Groton, 
Connecticut, on April 9, 1965. 

•  An  endorsement  on  travel  orders  dated  January  26,  1966,  states  that  the  applicant  had 
completed her “Active Duty for Training Orders” and was directed to report to the U.S. 
Customs House in New York City on January 28, 1965, “for processing and subsequent 
release from active duty. 

•  A third Page 7, dated January 28, 1966, states that the applicant had completed exactly 
one  year  of  ADT  and  was  released  to  inactive  duty  to  complete  the  remainder  of  her 
three-year obligation.   

 

 

 

 

 

 
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  her  record.  10  U.S.C.  

•  Her DD 214 shows that she was “[r]eleased from active military service” on January 28, 
1966,  and  that  her  “Source  of  Entry”  on  January  29,  1965,  was  not  an  enlistment  or 
reenlistment but the fact that she was “[o]rdered for 12 mon. ACDUTRA.”  The DD 214 
is signed by the applicant. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Guard and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 

On December 22, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a  copy of the views of the Coast 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 
The applicant has exhausted her administrative remedies, as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b), 
because there is no other currently available procedure provided by the Coast Guard for correct-
ing the alleged error or injustice. 

§ 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22.  The applicant is seeking correction of her DD 214.  She was dis-
charged on January 28, 1966, and knew or should have known the contents of her DD 214 when 
she signed it.  Therefore, her application is untimely. 

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 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).   

Regarding the delay of her application, the applicant stated that she did not realize 
that the handwritten notation in block 11.a. of her DD 214 would cause her to be denied veter-
ans’ benefits until January 2008. 

A  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  this  case  shows  that  it  lacks  potential  merit.  
Although the photocopy of the DD 214 submitted by the applicant bears a handwritten notation 
in block 11.a., the DD 214 in the applicant’s official military record bears no such notation and 
correctly indicates that she was “[r]eleased from active military service” on January 28, 1966.  
Although the applicant alleged that her year of active military service was AD instead of ADT, 
her military records—from her Reserve enlistment contract, to her orders, to her discharge papers 
—show that her year of active service was a year (12 months) of ADT (sometimes denoted as 
ACDUTRA).    These  documents  are  presumptively  correct  under  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).    The 
Board  has  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  her  original,  unaltered  DD  214,  as  recommended  by 
CGPC.  Her claim that she served on AD, rather than ADT, from January 29, 1965, to January 
28, 1966, cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

ORDER 

 

of her military record is denied.   
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Diane Donley 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger