DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-259 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 September 21, 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  June  16,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct block 12.g. on his discharge form DD 214 to 
show that he performed sea service.  His DD 214 currently reflects zero days of sea service.  The 
applicant alleged that he served on two cutters, the POINT LEDGE1 and the CAPE CARTER,2 
for  a  total  of  at  least  six  months.    He  alleged  that  he  discovered  the  error  on  his  DD  214  on 
August 23, 2010, and that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider his application 
because he is applying for a captain’s license. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 5, 1979.  His military record shows 
that  upon  graduating  from  boot  camp,  he  was  assigned  to  a  shore  unit,  Coast  Guard  Station 
Humboldt Bay.  Following a series of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the 
applicant  was  reassigned  to  Group  Humboldt  Bay,  and  he  was  still  working  there  when  he 
received a general discharge for unsuitability on November 26, 1980, based on misconduct and a 
psychological evaluation showing that he was unable to adjust to military service.  Although the 

                                                 
1 From 1962 to 1994, the USCGC POINT LEDGE, a 82’ vessel, was homeported at Fort Bragg, California, which is 
approximately 100 miles south of Coast Guard Station Humboldt Bay. 
2  From  1961  to  1982,  the  USCGC  CAPE  CARTER,  a  95’  vessel,  was  homeported  at  Crescent  City,  California, 
which is approximately 50 miles north of Coast Guard Station Humboldt Bay. 

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 months, 00 days [of] 
sea duty this enlistment.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, the manual for preparing DD 214s, provides 

 
 
the following instructions for completing block 12.g. on a DD 214: 
 

Block 12g. Sea Service. Enter the years, months, and days of sea service from the date entered in 
block 12a through the date entered in block 12b. The sea service computation entered in this block 
will be sea service performed which qualifies the member for payment under the Career Sea Pay 
Law. (See Chapter 4, Section B, CG PAYMAN, COMDTINST M7220.29 (series)). 

Chapter 4.B. of COMDTINST M7220.29, the Pay Manual, states the following regarding 

 
 
“sea service” that qualifies a member for sea pay: 
 

1. Authority. Career Sea Pay (CSEAPAY) is authorized for eligible officer and enlisted  personnel 
by Title 37 USC section 305a. 
 
2. Definition of Career Sea Pay. CSEAPAY is a special pay authorized for all members in pay-
grades E1 through 06. Eligible members must be permanently or temporarily assigned for duty to 
a vessel, ship-based staff (including a mobile unit) or ship-based aviation unit pursuant to orders 
issued  by  competent  authority  and  the  vessels/units  primary  mission  must  be  accomplished 
underway. … 
 
3. Definition of a Vessel. 

a. The term “vessel,” “ship,” “cutter,” or “ship contracted by the U. S. Coast Guard for 
the performance of operational missions,” means a self-propelled vessel at least 65 feet in length 
in an active status, in commission, in service, or under contract, and equipped with Government 
operated or contractor furnished berthing and Government operated or contract furnished messing 
facilities which are regularly used for the intended purpose (65 foot cutters are considered career 
sea pay eligible vessels even though a government-operated or contractor-furnished messing facil-
ity is not provided.) All Coast Guard vessels of 65 feet or more in length, perform their primary 
missions underway. … 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On December 9, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request and adopting the 

                                                 
3 “Boats” are usually less that 65’ long and include powerboats, small boats, barges, and yachts.  “Boats” do not 
have  permanently  assigned  crews,  whereas  any  vessel  called  a  “cutter”  is  usually  at  least  65’  long  and  has  a 
permanently assigned crew. COMDTINST M5440.2, Chapter 1.A (definitions); COMDTINST M7220.29, Chapter 
4.B. (definition of “cutter”); COMDTINST M16114.32, Chapter 1.B. (types of “boats”). 
4  In  the  glossary  of  terms  in  Chapter  4  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual,  “sea  duty”  is  defined  as  an 
“assignment to a floating unit; a unit listed in Operating Facilities (OPFAC) of the U.S. Coast Guard, COMDTINST 
M5440.2 (series); a unit 65 feet or longer; and all tugs (excluding barges) during which the member is entitled to sea 
pay in accordance with the CG Pay Manual, COMDTINST M7220.29 (series).” 

findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Service 
Center (PSC). 

 
The PSC noted that the application is not timely filed and argued that it should be denied 
for untimeliness.  The PSC stated that it reviewed the applicant’s record in its entirety and found 
that he was never assigned to or officially served aboard a Coast Guard cutter.  Therefore, the 
PSC recommended that the Board deny relief. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

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

On December 14, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a  copy of the views of the Coast 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

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 over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.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 his record.6  Although the 
applicant  claimed  that  he  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  his  record  on  August  23,  2010,  he 
signed two documents upon his discharge in 1980 showing that he had not been credited with 
any sea service.  Therefore, although he may have forgotten in the interim that he had not been 
credited with sea service, the Board finds that he knew in 1980 that he had not been credited with 
sea service, and so his application is untimely. 

3. 

 

 
4. 

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.”7   
                                                 
5 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
6 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 
7 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). 

The applicant did not provide any compelling reason for failing to apply for cor-
rection  of  the  alleged  error  in  his  record  sooner.    However,  he  explained  that  the  correction 
would be useful to him because he is applying for a captain’s license. 

The  Board’s  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  the  case  shows  that  the  applicant 
never performed any sea service or sea duty that can be documented in block 12.g. of a DD 214 
even though he qualified as a boat crewmember.  Only “sea service performed which qualifies 
the member for payment under the Career Sea Pay Law” may be documented in block 12.g. of a 
DD 214.8  To be entitled to Career Sea Pay, a member must receive transfer orders either perma-
nently or temporarily assigning him to a vessel that is at least 65’ long, has berthing, and has a 
primary mission that is accomplished underway.9  According to his military record, the applicant 
was  never  assigned  to  the  POINT  LEDGE,  the  CAPE  CARTER,  or  any  other  Coast  Guard 
cutter.    These  records  are  presumptively  correct,10  and  the  applicant  has  submitted  nothing to 
rebut them.  Therefore, his 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.  

 
5. 

 
6. 

7. 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

                                                 
8 COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chapter 1.E. 
9 COMDTINST M7220.29, Chapter 4.B. 
10 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (noting that absent evidence to 
the contrary, Government officials are presumed to have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith”).  

 

The application of former SR xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction 

 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

of his military record is denied.