DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-161 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application  on  April  28,  2011,  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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  26,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the year of active service 
he performed from September 23, 1964, to  November  16, 1965,  was active duty in  the regular 
Coast Guard instead of active duty for training in the Coast Guard Reserve.  He stated that it is in 
the  interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  in  his  case  to 
“restore [his] eligibility for VA benefits.”   

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for six years on September 23, 1964.  
His enlistment  documents show that he was to  attend basic training and then drill  at  a Reserve 
unit but that he was also “guaranteed ‘A’ School’” for training as a boatswain’s mate (BM).  On 
September 30, 1964, the applicant’s assignment to the drilling unit was “cancelled effective 16 
November  1964  due  to  departure  on  twelve  months  training  duty.    Assigned  to  Category  (JF), 
Administrative  Reserve  Unit.    Ordered  to  active  duty  for  training  to  report  to  Commanding 
Officer, CG Receiving Center, Cape May, New Jersey prior to 2400 on 17 November 1964 for 
twelve months training duty.”  During his year of active service, he served on various cutters and 
attended BM “A” School. 

 
The  applicant’s  DD  214  shows  that  he  was  “released  from  active  military  service”  on 
November 16, 1965, upon the “expiration of term of active obligated service.”  His character of 
service  was  honorable.    The  DD  214  also  shows  that  the  “source  of  entry”  for  that  period  of 

 

 

active  service  was  not  induction,  enlistment,  or  reenlistment,  but  “OTHER:    Ordered  to  12 
months ADTRA.”  The applicant signed the DD 214. 

 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant  ever  enlisted  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard.    As  a 
reservist  he  drilled,  performed  annual  training,  and  advanced  to  BM2/E-5.    He  was  honorably 
discharged  from  the  Reserve  on  September  22,  1970,  at  the  end  of  his  six-year  Reserve  enlist-
ment. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 

 
 
in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  application  should  be  denied  because  of  its  untimeliness  and 
because there is no documentation or other evidence supporting the applicant’s claim.  The JAG 
argued  that  “due  to  the  length  of  the  delay,  the  lack  of  compelling  reasons  for  not  filing  his 
application sooner,  and the probable lack of success  on the merits of the  applicant’s claim,  the 
Board should find that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  12,  2011,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to submit a response within thirty 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: 
 

1. 

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

 

2. 

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.    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 hear-
ing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”).  

 
3. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years  after  the  applicant  discovers  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  in  his  record.    The  applicant 
signed and received his DD 214 in 1965 and therefore presumably knew that it characterized his 
service as active duty training at that time.  Therefore, his application is not timely. 
 

4. 

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.”  Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

 
5. 

Regarding  the  delay  of  his  application,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  is  being 
denied  veterans’  benefits  for  which  he  would  be  eligible  if  his  DD  214  showed  that  he  had 
served on regular active duty.  He did not submit evidence to support this allegation.  

 
6. 

A  cursory  review  of  the  merits  of  this  case  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  request 
lacks merit.  The  record  shows that  the applicant  enlisted in  the Reserve  and, upon completing 
basic training, served a year of active duty training.  There are no documents in his record indi-
cating that he ever enlisted in the regular Coast Guard.  His military records are  presumptively 
correct under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Based on the record before it, the Board finds that the appli-
cant’s request cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
7. 

lacks merit. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request  should be denied because it is  untimely and 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

  

 
 
 Katia Cervoni 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Ashley A. Darbo