DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2009-143 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 

 

 

                                                                                              
SHIP OR STATION 
Sub-Recruiting Office (SRO), Chicago, IL 
Manhattan Beach Training Station (MBTS) 
USMH Ellis Island, NY (hospitalized for pneumonia) 
Manhattan Beach Training Station (MBTS) 
Training Station, Curtis Bay, MD 
Training Station, Manning Section, Alameda, CA 
ADM. C. F. HUGHES (AP-124)  

DATE 

1-12-45 
1-13-45 
3-12-45 
4-11-45 
1-23-45 
8-16-45 
8-27-45 

DATE 

1-12-45 
2-22-45 
4-6-45 
6-23-45 
8-10-45 
8-27-45 
12-5-45 

ATTACHED 

DETACHED 

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on May 8, 2009, 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 February 25, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

The  applicant,  who  was  honorably  discharged  from  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve on May 13, 1946, asked the Board to correct his record by “add[ing] Lenord L. Wood 
(AKA 141) and (PF15) to USS Annapolis.”  The applicant alleged that he discovered the errors 
in  2000  and  that  the  requested  correction  would  help  him  to  get  the  Department  of  Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) to reclassify his benefits.  He alleged that his “troop train was close to the atom 
bomb test” and that he has had three malignant melanomas. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On  January  12,  1945,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve.    Following 
training, he advanced to water tender third class (WT3c).  An “Abstract of Service” and travel 
orders in his record list the following duty stations: 

 

 

Training Station, Manning Section, Alameda, CA 
USS ANNAPOLIS (PF-15) 
Operation Base, Recruiting Unit, Seattle, WA 
PSC #9, St. Louis, Missouri 

12-6-45 
12-11-45 
5-3-46 
5-9-46 

12-8-45 
5-3-46 
5-6-46 
5-13-46 

 
A  Termination  of  Service  form  in  the  applicant’s  record  shows  that  he  was  separated 
from the Reserve at Personnel Separation Center (PSC) #9 in St. Louis, Missouri on May 13, 
1946, with one year, four months, and two days of service.  His Notice of Separation includes the 
following information in block 24, which is entitled “Service Vessels and Stations Served On”: 

 
MBTS  Brooklyn,  N.Y.;  TS  Curtis  Bay,  Md.;  TS  Alameda,  Calif.;  ADM.  C.  F. 
HUGHES (AP-124); USS ANNAPOLIS, OB, Seattle, Wash.; PSC #9, St. Louis, 
Mo. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 28, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 

The JAG stated that the applicant is asking the Board to change block 24 of his Notice of 
Separation, in which a member’s duty stations were listed, by adding a ship designation (PF 15) 
after  the  USS  ANNAPOLIS  and  by  adding the ship USS LEONARD L. WOOD (AKA 141).  
The JAG noted that the application was not timely submitted and may be denied on that basis.  
Moreover, the JAG stated that the applicant has not submitted any evidence of his allegations, 
and so the Board should deny relief. 
 
 
The JAG attached to the advisory opinion a memorandum on the case prepared by the 
Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (CGPSC).  CGPSC stated that the lack of the amplifier 
(PF  15)  after  the  name  of  the  USS  ANNAPOLIS  in  block  24  of  the  applicant’s  Notice  of 
Separation is not a substantive error requiring correction.  In addition, CGPSC stated, there is no 
evidence  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  he  ever  served  on  the  USS  LEONARD  L.  WOOD.  
Therefore, CGPSC recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 29, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

invited him to submit a response within 30 days.  No response was received.   

 

 

 

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 over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a). 

2. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  allegedly  inaccurate  and  incomplete 
information on his May 13, 1946, Notice of Separation from the Coast Guard Reserve.  Under 10 
U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board must be filed within three 

3. 

years  after  the  applicant  discovers,  or  reasonably  should  have  discovered,  the  alleged  error  or 
injustice.    The  applicant  was  discharged  in  1946  and  presumably  reviewed  his  Notice  of 
Separation  and  knew  what  duty  stations  were  listed  in  block  24  at  that  time.    Therefore,  his 
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.”1   

Regarding the delay of his application, the applicant explained that he is trying to 
get the DVA to reclassify his benefits.  The Board finds that the applicant’s explanation for his 
delay  is  not  compelling  because  he  failed  to  show  that  anything  prevented  him  from  seeking 
correction of the alleged errors more promptly. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant’s allega-
tions of error are not supported by substantial evidence.  The record before the Board contains no 
evidence whatsoever supporting his claim that he served on the USS LEONARD WOOD (APA-
12).2  The applicant’s official military records show that he served on two ships while on active 
duty in the Coast Guard Reserve—the USS ADMIRAL C. F. HUGHES (AP-124) and the USS 
ANNAPOLIS  (PF-15)—and  these  records  are  presumptively  correct.3    On  his  Notice  of 
Separation, the first ship is denoted as the “ADM. C. F. HUGHES (AP-124) and the second ship 
as  the  “USS ANNAPOLIS.”  Neither of these entries  is erroneous or incomplete as they both 
positively identify the vessels on which the applicant served.  Although (PF-15) is not appended 
to  the  entry  for  the  USS  ANNAPOLIS,  there  was  only  one  USS ANNAPOLIS  in  operation 
during World War II and the applicant’s enlistment from January 12, 1945, to May 13, 1946.4  
Therefore, the designation (PF-15) is not necessary to identify the vessel on which the applicant 
served.    Because  the  information  in  block  24  of  the  Notice  of  Separation  is  not  erroneous, 
incomplete, or confusing, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

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

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 
 
                                                 
1 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995).   
2 The applicant stated that this ship was the “AKA [presumably he meant APA] 141.”  However, (APA-141) was the 
designation of the USS BUCKINGHAM. 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United 
States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979),  for  the  required  presumption,  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that 
Government officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”). 
4  There  have  been  four  vessels  named  the  USS  ANNAPOLIS.    The  first,  designated  (PG-10),  was  a  gunboat 
commissioned in 1897, which was scrapped in 1940.  The second, designated (PF-15), was a frigate commissioned 
in 1943, decommissioned on May 29, 1946, and sold to the Mexican government in 1947.  The third, designated 
(AGMR-1), had previously been named the USS GILBERT ISLANDS, but was renamed the USS ANNAPOLIS in 
1963, decommissioned in 1976, and scrapped in 1979.  The fourth, designated (SSN-760), is a submarine that was 
commissioned in 1992 and is still in operation. 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 
record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal