DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-260 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 22, 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,  a  former  reservist,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  form  DD  214  dated 
September 30, 2003, to show that she was then a yeoman, second class in pay grade E-5 (YN2/E-
5) instead of a YN3/E-4.  She stated that she believes the error was simply an oversight on the 
part of the YN1 who signed the DD 214 and herself.  She alleged that she filed the DD 214 away 
and did not discover the error until June 30, 2010, when she needed the DD 214 to apply for 
educational and medical benefits.  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. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On February 28, 2003, the applicant was a reservist and was issued orders to report on 
March 3, 2003, for a period of active duty of “365 days unless released sooner.”  The orders 
indicate that she was  a  YN3.   The applicant was released from active duty on September 30, 
2003, and she signed and received her DD 214 showing that she was a YN3/E-4 on that date.  
The Coast Guard’s Direct Access database shows that she was a YN3/E-4 up through July 31, 
2004, and advanced to YN2/E-5 on August 1, 2004. 
 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 1, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recom-
mended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis 
provided in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The PSC stated that the application is untimely but “should be considered by the Board.”  
The PSC submitted a print-out from its Direct Access database, which shows that the applicant 
advanced from YN3 to YN2 on August 1, 2004.  The PSC stated that DD 214s are only issued to 
document periods of active duty longer than 90 days, and because the applicant did not serve on 
active duty for a period longer than 90 days following her advancement to YN2, there is no DD 
214 in her record showing her final rate and pay grade.  The PSC concluded that the applicant’s 
DD 214 is correct as issued and that no relief should be granted. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 6, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard by email.  
She complained that block 15 of her DD 214 erroneously cites Article 12.A.7. of the Personnel 
Manual as the authority for her release from active duty, when that article refers only to officers, 
not petty officers.  The applicant also stated that based on the documentation she attached to her 
email, which was a copy of her orders dated February 28, 2003, the Board should correct her DD 
214 to show that her rate was YN2/E-5. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D, the manual for preparing DD 214s, states that 
 
for enlisted members, blocks 4.a. and 4.b. of a DD 214 should show their rate and pay grade on 
the day they are separated from active duty. 
 

Chapter 1.B. of COMDTINST M1900.4D states, “The DD Form 214 will NOT be issued 
to members: … 10. Who are reservists released from continuous active duty for training (ADT) 
less than 90 days.” 
 

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. 
 
2. 

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

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 known that 
she was a YN3 when she was released from active duty on September 30, 2003, and so the Board 
finds that she knew or should have known that any document issued to her at that time would 
                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b); 33 C.F.R. § 52.22. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

The Board’s cursory review of the merits of this case shows that it lacks merit.  
The applicant’s DD 214 documents her active duty from March 3 through September 30, 2003, 
and was issued upon her release from active duty.  Therefore, her DD 214 properly shows, in 
accordance  with  Chapter  1.E.  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4D,  that  her  rate  and  pay  grade  on 
September  30,  2003,  were YN3/E-4.    There  is  no  evidence  that  she  had  already  advanced  to 
YN2/E-5  on  September  30,  2003,  and  the  Coast  Guard’s  database  shows  that  she  was  not 
advanced  until  August  1,  2004,  ten  months  after  her  DD  214  was  issued.    The  copy  of  the 
identification card that the applicant submitted shows that her rate and pay grade were YN2/E-4, 
but it was issued on August 19, 2004, following her advancement.   

DD 214s are issued when reservists leave active duty if they have served on active 
duty  for  a  period  of  more  than  90  days.3    DD  214s  are  intended  to  document  that  particular 
period of active duty and are not reissued or updated to reflect subsequent events, such as new 
qualifications, awards, advancements, or demotions.  The applicant’s DD 214 is presumptively 
correct,4  and  she  has  not  submitted  evidence  that  overcomes  the  presumption.   Therefore,  the 
Board finds that her claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

show  her  rate  and  pay  grade  as  YN3/E-4.    In  addition,  she  must  have  known  that  she  had 
advanced  to  YN2/E-5  when  she  was  actually  advanced  on  August  1,  2004.    Therefore,  her 
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 applicant did not explain her delay in seeking the requested correction except 
to claim that she discovered the alleged error in June 2010.  The Board finds that the applicant’s 
claim in this regard is neither persuasive nor compelling as a justification for her delay.     

The  Board  notes  that  in  her  response  to  the  advisory  opinion,  the  applicant 
complained  about  the  article  of  the  Personnel  Manual  that  was  cited  on  her  DD  214  as  the 
authority for her separation.  This is a new issue that was not raised in her application, DD 149, 
and so the Coast Guard has not had an opportunity to respond to it.  If the applicant wants the 
Board to consider this new complaint, she should submit another application. 

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

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied.  
 
                                                 
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). 
3 COMDTINST M1900.4D, Chapter 1.B.10. 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 

 

ORDER 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

her military record is denied.