DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2011-163
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The Chair docketed the application upon
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on May 5, 2011, and subsequently prepared the
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 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 ALLEGATION
The applicant asked the Board to correct his July 31, 2002 DD 214 to show that he
entered active duty on April 7, 1980 instead of June 6, 1989. He alleges that the date is incorrect.
The applicant’s military record shows that he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve
Delayed Entry Program on April 7, 1980 and was discharged from that Program on July 21, 1980
for immediate enlistment in the regular Coast Guard. An administrative remarks page dated July
21, 1980 explains that the time in the Delayed Entry Program does not count toward active
service.
The applicant’s military record shows that he began active duty on July 21, 1980, and
retired from active service on July 31, 2002. He received two DD 214s covering his active duty
service. The first DD 214 covered his first active duty enlistment from July 21, 1980 to July 5,
1989. It shows that at the expiration of that enlistment, the applicant had 8 years, 10 months, and
15 days on active duty.
A second DD 214 covered his reenlistments from July 6, 1989 to July 31, 2002 for a total
of 13 years, 1 month, 25 days of active duty. Block 18 of the DD 214 states that it “covers the
following multiple enlistments/ reenlistments as reflected in blocks 12a, 12b, and 12 c.: . . . June
6, 1989 to June 3, 1993, June 4, 1993 to June 1, 1997, June 2, 1997 to May 2, 2000, and [May 3],
2000 to July 31, 2002.”
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum
submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).
PSC recommended that the application be denied because it was untimely and because
the applicant’s military record is correct. The Coast Guard stated that it found no errors on the
DD 214. PSC stated that the Coast Guard is presumed to have correctly prepared the applicant’s
DD 214 and he has not shown otherwise.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
applicant for a response. The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.
On August 26, 2011, the Board sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's
1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law:
of the United States Code.
2. The application was not timely. To be timely, an application for correction of a
military record must be submitted within three years after the applicant discovered the alleged
error or injustice. See 33 CFR 52.22. The applicant alleged that he discovered the error on
February 9, 2010. However, his signature on the DD 214 proves that he was aware (or should
have been aware) on the date of his separation for retirement in 2002 that the DD 214 showed
June 6, 1989 as the date he began that period of active duty.. If he had questions about this date,
he should have raised them within three years of receipt of the DD 214. He did not file an
application with the Board until April 1, 2011.
4. Although the application is untimely, the Board must still perform at least a cursory
review of the merits to determine whether it is the interest of justice to waive the statute of
limitations. In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that in
assessing 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 stated 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.
5. A cursory examination of the merits indicates that the applicant is not likely to prevail
because his record is correct. April 7, 1980 is the date the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard
Reserve and was assigned to the Delayed Entry Program. He was not on active duty while in the
Delayed Entry Program; therefore that period is not counted as active duty. The DD 214 records
a member’s active duty service. See COMDTISNT M1900.4D. In addition, the 2002 DD 214
properly records the applicant’s continuous periods of active duty from June 6, 1989 to July 31,
2002. The 1989 DD 214 accurately reflects the applicant’s active duty from July 21, 1980 to
June 5, 1989.
6. The application should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for correction of his military record is
ORDER
Katia Cervoni
Lillian Cheng
Ashley A. Darbo
denied.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-046
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 8, 1991, and was honorably discharged on September 15, 1992 because of unsuitability, 1 with a JMJ2 separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. Excerpts from the Applicant’s Military Record On June 4, 1992, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that he had initiated action to discharge her from the Coast Guard due to misconduct because she had refused to provide a urine sample for drug testing. On August 14,...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-160
He also acknowledged that satisfactory participation in the SELRES required that he complete at least 48 drills per year and at least 12 days of active duty training each anniversary year and that he was obligated to keep his commanding officer informed of his address at all times. On May 31, 1992, the CO recommended to the Commandant, through the Eighth Coast District, that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard because of misconduct (shirking) with a general discharge. The...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-093
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On July 27, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief. In this regard, the JAG argued that the application was submitted 14 years beyond the statute of limitations, that the applicant did not state a reason for the delay, and that the applicant was not likely to prevail on the merits because he submitted no evidence to support his claim that he was eligible for an honorable...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-232
This final decision, dated May 19, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct her record by changing her RE-3B1 (parenthood) reenlistment code to RE-1 (eligible to reenlist) so that she can return to the Service. Applicant’s Discharge from the Coast Guard On March 6, 1995, the applicant requested to be discharged from the Coast Guard due to dependency. With respect to the merits, the Board notes that the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-019
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant was discharged on May 19, 1967. His DD 214 showed that he received a general discharge and separation code 264.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-107
He stated that although his retired pay was corrected at the time he received the letter, it is in the interest of justice to correct his DD 214 to show his correct pay grade and rank for his family and himself. To be timely, an application for correction of a military record must be submitted within three years after the applicant discovered the alleged error or injustice. In this case, the applicant’s CWO appointment was terminated by his discharge from active duty on May 31, 1991 and he...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-124
There is no evidence that the applicant served on active duty while enrolled in the Temporary Reserve. He stated that it is in the interest of justice to excuse his untimeliness because “I just want my recorded time of service corrected—the time served should be from [August 4, 1942] changed to [December 6, 1942].” VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On September 6, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in...
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2009-136
This final decision, dated January 14, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he earned the Good Conduct Medal for his service that ended on December 31, 1975. PSC stated that the application should be denied because it was untimely. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-104
On July 27, 1995, the Commandant approved the applicant’s honorable discharge from the Coast Guard by reason of misconduct due to a civil court conviction under Article 12.B.18 of the Personnel Manual. On August 17, 1995, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard with an honorable discharge, by reason of misconduct due to a civilian conviction, with a JKB separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code. The JAG also argued that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-260
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. 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...