DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-191 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 

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 June 1, 2010, 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  March  10,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was honorably discharged on December 7, 1995, alleged that three 
dates in block 12 of his discharge form DD 214 are erroneous and should be fixed.  He alleged 
that the date of entry on active duty in block 12a, which now shows December 10, 1992, should 
instead be August 29, 1983; that the “net active service this period” in block 12c, which now 
shows 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service, should be 12 years, 3 months, and 9 
days; and that his “effective date of pay grade” in block 12h, which now shows August 29, 1983, 
should  be  December  10,  1992.    He  also  complained  that  he  could  not  understand  block  12d, 
which shows that he had 9 years, 3 months, and 11 days of prior active duty, and that the first 
name of his nearest relative in block 19b should be Barbara, rather than Barbvara.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the alleged errors on May 7, 2010, because he 
failed to review his DD 214 when he received it.  He argued that it is in the interest of justice for 
the  Board  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  his  application  because  the  errors  affect  his  possible 
retirement date from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where he now works. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  June  16,  2010,  in  response  to  the  application,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service 
Center issued the applicant a DD 215, the form that corrects a DD 214.  The DD 215 changes the 
effective date of pay grade in block 12h of the DD 214 from August 29, 1983, to June 1, 1994, 
which is not the date the applicant alleged is correct.  The DD 215 also corrects the spelling of 

the first name of the applicant’s nearest relative in block 19b from Barbvara to Barbara.  The 
Coast Guard alleged that no other corrections are warranted and recommended that the Board 
administratively close the case. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE 

 
 
In response to the Coast Guard, the applicant repeated his allegations of error.  He alleged 
that he never had a break in service and that because of the erroneous DD 214, the U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management believes that he served only 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active 
duty.  He submitted a copy of a Military Service History printout from a database, which shows 
that he served from August 29, 1983, to December 7, 1995, but also shows that his total active 
service is just 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

  On  August  29,  1983,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years.    He 
remained on continuous active duty and extended his first enlistment several times. On Decem-
ber 10, 1992, while still a BM3, he reenlisted for three years by signing a “Discharge and Reen-
listment Contract.”  There is no DD 214 in the applicant’s record to document his first enlist-
ment, which extended from August 29, 1983, to December 9, 1992. 

 
On December 7, 1995, the applicant was discharged from active duty and issued a DD 
214.  The DD 214, as corrected by the DD 215 dated June 16, 2010, shows the following, in per-
tinent part: 

DD 214 
92/12/10 
95/12/07 
02/11/28 
09/03/11 

83/08/29 

DD 215 
No change 
No change 
No change 
No change 

94/06/01 

Barbara 

Applicant’s Request 

83/08/29 
No change 
12/03/09 
00/00/00 

92/12/10 

Barbara 

 

DD 214 Entry  & Description 
12a 
12b 
12c 
12d 

Date entered active duty this period 
Separation date this period 
Net active service this period 
Total prior active service 

Effective date of pay grade 

Nearest relative 

[uncontested entries omitted] 

[uncontested entries omitted] 

Barbvara 

The DD 214 also contains the following remarks in block 18: 

12h 

19b 

 
 
 

… This DD-214 covers multiple enlistments/reenlistments as reflected in blocks 12A, 12B, and 
12C.  The following information applies regarding each enlistment/reenlistment: 

Period of Service              RE CODE             SPD                TL 
83 08 29 to 92 12 09             RE-1                MBK               NONE 
92 12 10 to 95 12 07             RE-1                KBK                NONE 

 
 
With regard to the applicant’s date of pay grade as a BM2/E-5, the record shows that he 
enlisted as a seaman recruit (SR/E-1); graduated from “A” School and advanced to BM3/E-4 on 
September 20, 1985; and was still a BM3 when he signed his reenlistment contract on December 
10, 1992.  The performance evaluations he received in 1993 and on March 31, 1994, show that 
his rate was BM3/E-4.  The earliest documentation of his advancement to BM2/E-5 in the record 

supplied  by  the  National  Personnel  Record  Center  is  his  semi-annual  performance  evaluation 
dated October 31, 1994.  His date of rank as a BM2 is not noted on the Achievement Sheet in his 
record. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

DD 214s are completed in accordance with a manual, COMDTINST M1900.4D, which 

 
provides the following pertinent regulations:  
 
 
Under Chapter 1.A., a DD 214 is normally issued upon a member’s discharge to civilian 
status  from  a  continuous  period  of  active  duty  of  at  least  90  days.    However,  Chapter  1.B.6. 
states that DD 214s are not normally issued to members who are discharged for the purpose of 
immediate reenlistment. 
 
 
 

Chapter 1.E. provides the following instructions for filling the blocks on a DD 214: 

Block 12a. Date Entered Active Duty This Period. Enter the date of entry on active duty.  

 

 

 

Block 12b. Separation Date This Period. Enter the effective date of release/discharge. … 

Block 12c. Net Active Service This Period. Enter the years, months, and days of service creditable 
for basic pay purposes for the period from date entered active duty this period (block 12a) through 
date of separation (block 12b). … 
 
Block 12d. Total Prior Active Service. Enter the years, months, and days of service creditable for 
basic pay for all active service prior to the date entered in block 12a. … 

Block 12h. Effective Date of Pay Grade. Enter the year, month, and day as follows:  
1. Enlisted Personnel. Date of advancement. 

●  ●  ● 

●  ●  ● 

Block 18. Remarks. Entries in this block consist of information not shown elsewhere on the form. 
Only  the  entries  specified  below  or  in  supplementary  directives  will  be  made  in  this  block…. 
Enlistment/Reenlistment  Information:  Enter  the  following  statement,  inserting  the  appropriate 
Period of Service, Reenlistment (RE) Code, Separation Program Designator (SPD), and Time Lost 
(TL) during this period as shown below. "This DD-214 covers multiple enlistments/reenlistments 
as reflected in blocks 12a, 12b, and 12c. The following information applied regarding each enlist-
ment/reenlistment:"  

Period of Service   
86 02 01 to 89 03 01  
89 03 02 to 93 04 03  

RE Code 
 
RE-1  
RE-1  
 

TL  

SPD 
JBK   None  
JBK   None 

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 

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

1. 
 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

The applicant explained that he did not know of the problems with the data on his 
DD  214  until  the  U.S.  Office  of  Personnel  Management  revealed  that  his  records  show  that, 
although he served from August 29, 1983, to December 7, 1995, he has only 2 years, 11 months, 
and 28 days of active military service.  This discrepancy is apparently causing significant prob-
lems for the applicant’s retirement from federal service.  In light of this clear injustice and cer-
tain discrepancies between the information on the applicant’s DD 214 and the instructions in the 
manual for preparing DD 214s, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the 
statute of limitations.  Therefore, the statute of limitations is waived in this case. 

The purpose of a DD 214 is to document a member’s service on active duty for 
any period of at least 90 continuous days.  Under Chapter 1.A. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, the 
applicant is entitled to a DD 214 properly documenting all of his continuous service on active 
duty from August 29, 1983, to December 7, 1995.  As shown by his enlistment and extension 
contracts in his record and in block 18 of his DD 214, that period covers two separate enlist-
ments:  his first, running from August 29, 1983, to December 9, 1992; and his second, which ran 
from December 10, 1992, to December 7, 1995.  If the Coast Guard had issued the applicant a 
DD 214 upon his discharge on December 9, 1992, his second DD 214 would properly document 
only his second enlistment.  However, because he immediately reenlisted, no DD 214 was issued 
upon  the  applicant’s  discharge  on  December  9,  1992,  in  accordance  with  Chapter  1.B.6.  of 
COMDTINST M1900.4D.  Therefore, his DD 214 dated December 7, 1995, must fully docu-
ment his entire period of active duty from August 29, 1983, to December 7, 1995. 

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.1  The applicant 
contests data on his DD 214, which he reasonably should have noticed when the DD 214 was 
given to him in 1995.  Therefore, his application is 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.”2   

The instructions for block 12a in Chapter 1.e. of COMDTINST M1900.4D state 
that it should reflect the “date of entry on active duty.”  Block 12a of the applicant’s DD 214 cur-
rently shows his reenlistment date, December 10, 1992, and he argues that it should be his origi-
nal date of entry on active duty, August 29, 1983.  The instructions for block 18 state that when a 
DD 214 covers more than one period of enlistment, block 18 shall include the following nota-
tion:  “This DD-214 covers multiple enlistments/reenlistments as reflected in blocks 12a, 12b, 
and 12c.”  [Emphasis added.]  Therefore, the Board agrees with the applicant that the entry in 
block 12a of his DD 214 is erroneous because  his multiple (two) enlistments are  clearly  sup-
                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
2 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). 

posed to be “reflected in blocks 12a, 12b, and 12c.”  Therefore, block 12a of the applicant’s DD 
214 should be corrected to show that he entered active duty on August 29, 1983. 

Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D  states  that  block  12c  of  a  DD  214 
should reflect “the years, months, and days of service creditable for basic pay purposes for the 
period from date entered active duty this period (block 12a) through date of separation (block 
12b).”  Therefore, block 12c on the applicant’s DD 214 should show the years, months, and days 
of his service from August 29, 1983, to December 7, 1995.  Appendix C of the Personnel and 
Pay Procedures Manual (PPPM) requires creditable service to be calculated as follows:  the date 
of separation minus the date of entry plus one “inclusive” day.  Thus, the applicant’s creditable 
active service can be calculated by subtracting his date of entry in block 12a, August 29, 1983, 
from his date of discharge in block 12b, December 7, 1995, and adding one inclusive day:   
 

Date of separation 
Date of enlistment 
Subtotal 
 
Inclusive day   
Net active service 

 
1995  12 
        –  1983  08 
 
     xx  xx 
        +   

 

07 
29 
xx 
01 

 

 

 
 
Under Appendix C of the PPPM, because one cannot subtract 29 days from 7 days, a month of 
days (30 days) must be taken from the month column of the date of separation, which is therefore 
reduced  by  one  month,  and  added  to  the  day  column,  so  that  the  subtraction  is  performed  as 
follows: 
 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 

Date of separation 
Date of enlistment 
Subtotal 
 
Inclusive day   
Net active service 

 
1995  11 
        –  1983  08 
    12  03 
     
 
    + 
 
    12  03 

 

37 
29 
08 
01 
09 

 
Therefore, the Board agrees with the applicant that block 12c of his DD 214 should be corrected 
to show 12 years, 3 months, and 9 days of active service. 

Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D  states  that  block  12d  of  a  DD  214 
should show “the years, months, and days of service creditable for basic pay for all active service 
prior to the date entered in block 12a.”  Because the applicant did not perform active duty prior 
to his enlistment in the Coast Guard on August 29, 1983, block 12d of his DD 214 should be cor-
rected to show zero years, months, and days, as he alleged. 

Under Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, block 12h of a DD 214 is sup-
posed to show the year, month, and day of the member’s latest advancement (date of rank).  The 
applicant alleged that his effective date of pay grade in block 12h should be December 10, 1992, 
which was the day he reenlisted.  He submitted nothing to show that he advanced from BM3/E-4 
to BM2/E-5 on December 10, 1992.  Moreover, his reenlistment contract dated December 10, 
1992, clearly shows that he was still a BM3 in pay grade E-4 when he reenlisted.  In addition, his 
semi-annual  performance  evaluations  for  1993  and  March  31,  1994,  show  that  he  was  still  a 

BM3/E-4 when he received them.  The Coast Guard has stated that the applicant was advanced 
on June 1, 1994, and has corrected the applicant’s DD 214 to reflect that date.  The earliest doc-
ument in the military record provided to the Board by the National Personnel Records Center 
that shows the applicant to be a BM2/E-5 is his performance evaluation dated October 31, 1994.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the June 1, 1994, date of rank in block 12h on his DD 214, as corrected by the DD 215, is 
erroneous. 

Because the Coast Guard has already corrected the spelling of the first name of 
the applicant’s nearest relative in block 19b of the DD 214, no further correction is required in 
that block.   

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  ordering  the  Coast  Guard  to  issue 
another DD 215 to correct blocks 12a, 12c, and 12d on the applicant’s DD 214 to ensure that 
those entries reflect his entire period of active duty during two enlistments since there is no other 
DD 214 documenting his first enlistment.  Specifically, block 12a should show his date of entry 
on  active  duty  as August  29,  1983;  block  12c  should  show  his  net  active  service  during  the 
period as 12 years, 03 months, and 09 days; and block 12d should show zero prior active service.   

 
10. 

 
11. 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

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

military record is granted in part as follows:  
 

•  Block 12a of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show August 29, 1983 (83  08  29). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

•  Block 12c of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show 12 years, 03 months, and 09 days of 

 

net active service (12  03  09). 
 

•  Block 12d of his DD 214 shall be corrected to show zero prior active service (00  00  00).  

No other relief is granted. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Megan Gemunder 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis