DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
_____________________________________________________________________________
Application for Correction
of the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2009-041
XXXXXXXXX.
xxxxxxxxxx, PS2 (former)
______________________________________________________________________________
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 December 5, 2008, upon
receipt of the applicant's completed application, and subsequently prepared the final 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 July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly
RELIEF REQUESTED
The applicant, who was a member of the Reserve, asked the Board to correct his record to
show that he received a DD 214 for several two-week periods of active duty for training between
May 20, 1979 and May 19, 1983. During this period the applicant served on active duty for
training on three different occasions. The first and third period covered 12 days each and the
second period covered 13 days. He stated that the DD 214 is needed for government
employment and for retirement buy back. In support of his application, the applicant submitted
copies of his retirement points statements.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On April 9, 2009, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the Judge
Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard. He recommended that the Board deny relief to the
applicant. In this regard, the JAG stated that the application was not timely and that the applicant
had not provided any documentation to support his allegations. The JAG concurred with the
comments provided by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), which were attached as
an enclosure to the advisory opinion.
PSC noted that the applicant had provided no justification for not filing his application
within three years. Moreover, PSC stated that Chapter 1.B.10. of COMDTINST M1900.4D
prohibits the issuance of a DD 214 for “reservist released from continuous active duty training
(ADT) less than 90 days.” PSC stated that based upon a review of the applicant’s reserve
retirement points statements there were no periods of service that satisfied the requirement for
the issuance of a DD 214.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On April 10, 2009, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard views and
invited him to submit a reply. The Board did not receive a response from the applicant. .
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
2.
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law.
States Code. The application was not timely.
1. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United
Under 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board must be filed within three
years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error or
injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error on August 10, 2008,
he should have discovered it sooner. He was aware of the existence of DD 214s as early as
November 3, 1978, because he received one at that time for an earlier period of active duty. The
two-week ADT periods about which he complained occurred between May 20, 1979 and May
19, 1983. Therefore, he should have been aware at the end of each ADT period that he had not
received a DD 214. If the applicant believed he was entitled to a DD 214 for each ADT period,
he should have raised the matter with the Board within three years of the termination date of each
ADT period.
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 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.
4. With respect to the merits of this case, the applicant is not likely to prevail because
according to Article 1.B.10 of COMDTINST M1900.4D, a DD 214 will not be issued to
reservists released from active duty for training that covers a period of less than 90 days.
because it has no merit.
5. Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied because it is untimely and
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
The application of former XXXXXXXXX., xxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his
ORDER
military record is denied.
Lillian Cheng
Nancy L. Friedman
Vicki J. Ray
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-017
He contended that a person who is involuntarily recalled to active duty is entitled to a DD 214 upon his or her release from that period of active duty. He stated that it is in the interest of justice to consider his application if more than 3 years have passed since he discovered the error because “[a]s a service member, I performed my duties as required in accordance with the UCMJ and the oath I had taken upon enlistment into the armed forces.” He also stated that during “the hurricane...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-260
In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a Coast Guard Reserve identification card, which was issued to her on August 19, 2004, and which shows that she was a PO2 (petty officer, second class) in pay grade E-5. 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.1 Although the applicant claimed that she discovered the alleged error in June 2010, she must have...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-235
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The veteran’s military records show that he was female when he served in the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s request for correction of his military record should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-148
States Code. 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 2 On January 4, 2010, the Board received a DD 149 from the applicant requesting an upgrade of his discharge and reenlistment code. On January 4, 2010, the Board received a new DD 149 from the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-077
The PSC stated that although the applicant served in the Coast Guard Reserve from August 19, 1985, until his eight-year enlistment expired on August 18, 1993, he never completed more than 90 days of continuous active duty and so is not entitled to a DD 214. However, his military records, which are presumptively correct,2 show that he never performed continuous active duty for a period of 90 days or longer and so is not entitled to a DD 214.3 However, reservists without DD 214s may receive...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-078
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. He alleged that he served on active duty in the Reserve with an incorrect name (not the name on his birth certificate) and asked the Board to correct his military records, particularly his DD 214, to reflect his legal name as it appears on his birth certificate, which he submitted. The Board 8.
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-120
After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-120
After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-259
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. applicant qualified as a boat3 crewmember on April 29, 1980, there are no documents in his record indicating that he ever served sea duty or received sea pay.4 Upon his discharge on November 26, 1980, the applicant signed his DD 214, showing zero sea service, as well as an Administrative Remarks page noting that he had “completed 00 years, 00...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-061
A memorandum dated April 21, 2002, shows that a medical board evaluated the appli- cant’s condition and found that he was disqualified from active duty due to psoriasis pursuant to Chapter 3.D.33.q. A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant was prop- erly discharged for erroneous entry because (a) under the Medical Manual, a diagnosis of psoria- sis is disqualifying for enlistment; (b) the applicant failed to disclose his diagnosis of psoriasis during his...