DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-157 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  18,  2009,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 

 
This final decision, dated February 25, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a former seaman (SN) who was honorably discharged on January 7, 2000, 
asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD 214, by adding 20 days of service so that it 
will reflect his “full active duty obligation of two years.”  The applicant alleged that a chief yeo-
man completed the DD 214 incorrectly so that it does not reflect his two-year obligation.  He 
alleged that he completed his two-year obligation but took accrued leave during the last 20 days, 
which should count as active duty time.  The applicant alleged that he discovered this error in 
2008 and that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness of his appli-
cation because he did fulfill his two-year obligation and the DD 214 is inaccurate. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 27, 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for two years.  His record 
contains  numerous  Page  7s  documenting  excellent  performance  during  the  enlistment.    The 
applicant’s DD 214 states that he was released from active duty on January 7, 2000, having com-
pleted 1 year, 11 months, and 11 days of active duty.  The applicant’s Leave and Earnings State-
ments  (LESes)  for  November  and  December  1999  and  January  2000  were  received  from  the 
Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (CGPSC) and show the following: 
 

•  His November 1999 LES “reflects transactions processed as of 19 NOV 99.”  It shows 
that his total pay and allowances for the month amounted to $1,976.41 and that he started 

the month with 26 days of leave, earned 2.5 days of leave during the month, and ended 
the month with 28.5 days of leave because he had not used any.  In addition, a note at the 
bottom of the LES states, “Your statement of intent has processed showing your intention 
to be released from active duty on 07 JAN 00.” 

•  The  December  1999  LES  reflects  transactions  processed  from  November  20  through 
December 20, 1999.  It shows that his total pay and allowances for the month amounted 
to $2,156.41 (the increase was due to a $172.50 payment for “LVRATS”) and that he 
started the month with 28.5 days of leave, earned 2.5 days, and ended the month with a 
leave balance of just 8.0 days because he had used 23.0 days of leave since November 20, 
1999. 

•  The January 2000 LES reflects transactions processed from December 21, 1999, through 
February 17, 2000.  It shows that his total pay and allowances for the month amounted to 
$624.31 and that he began the month with 8.0 days of leave, earned 1.0 day of leave, and 
ended the month with a zero leave balance because he had used 7.0 days of leave and 
sold 2.0 days of leave upon his release from active duty on January 7, 2000.  The LES 
further shows that all pay and allowances were stopped on January 7, 2000. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 28, 2009, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board deny relief based on the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum submitted by 
the CGPSC.  
 
CGPSC alleged that the applicant’s LESes show that he was released from active duty on 
 
January 7, 2000, at which time he sold just two days of accrued, unused leave.  CGPSC stated 
that under Article 12.B.7.b. and 12.B.8.a. of the Personnel Manual, members may be separated 
prior  to  the  end  of  their  enlistments,  and  such  early  separation  is  often  authorized.    CGPSC 
argued that the applicant’s LESes and DD 214 are presumptively correct and that the applicant 
has  not  submitted  any  evidence  to  refute  the  information  therein.    Therefore,  CGPSC  recom-
mended 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 respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

 

 

 

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 of the date the appli-
cant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error in his record.1  Although 
the applicant claimed that he discovered the allegedly erroneous date of separation on his DD 
214 in 2008, the Board finds that he knew or should have known the date of his separation in 
2000  because  he  received  pay  and  allowances  for  only  the  first  seven  days  of  January  2000.  
Therefore, his application was 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 (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.”2  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.”3   
 
 
correction of his DD 214. 

The applicant did not explain or justify his long  delay in seeking the requested 

4. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant’s allegation 
that he was not released from active duty on January 7, 2000, but was on leave from January 8 to 
26, 2000, has no merit.  His LESes show that the applicant had requested early separation from 
active duty and that his request to be separated on January 7, 2000, was approved and processed.  
His LESes further show that upon his release from active duty on January 7, 2000, he had a zero 
leave balance because he had recently used most of his accrued leave and sold the remaining 2.0 
days of accrued leave that he had not used.  In addition, he was paid for only seven days of ser-
vice in January 2000.  In light of the information in the LESes, the Board finds that the appli-
cant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

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

 
3. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

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

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
2 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 
3 Id. at 164-65; see Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal