DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-165 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 May 5, 2011, 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  February  9,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  discharge  form  DD  214  to  show  in  block 
12.c.  that  he  completed  4  years,  0  months,  and  0  days  of  active  duty  instead  of  3  years,  11 
months, and 28 days of active duty.  The applicant stated that his DD 214 should reflect 4 full 
years  of  active  duty  because  he  honorably  completed  his  4-year  enlistment  contract  and  never 
had any “time lost”—i.e., unauthorized absences or periods of confinement. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error on April 1, 2011, and also that it is in 
the interest of justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness of his application because he is a 
municipal firefighter and because of the error, he is “unable to buy back 4 years of active duty 
service for my current pension in order to use my military service for retirement accrual with my 
current employer.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE 

 
The  applicant  enlisted  for  4  years  on  July  16,  1996.    His  military  records  show  that  he 
 
was  honorably  released  from  active  duty  into  the  Reserve  on  July  13,  2000,  a  Thursday.    The 
separation authority noted on his DD 214 is Article 12.B.11. of the Personnel Manual.  His DD 
214, which he signed, also shows in blocks 23 through 28 that he was honorably released from 
active duty due to “completion of required active service” and, in block 29, that he had no “time 
lost.”  Block 12 contains the following entries, in pertinent part: 
 

 

 

 

12. RECORD OF SERVICE 

Year(s)  Month(s) 

Day(s) 

a.   Date Entered AD [Active Duty] This Period 
b.   Separation Date This Period 
c.   Net Active Service This Period 

96 
00 
03 

07 
07 
11 

16 
13 
28 

Upon  his  release  from  active  duty,  the  applicant  entered  the  Individual  Ready  Reserve 
(IRR).  There is no evidence in the record before the Board that he performed any active service 
while in the IRR. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   In so doing, he 
adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  in  a  memorandum  provided  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center 
(PSC). 
 
 
The PSC alleged that the applicant is not timely and should be denied due to its untime-
liness.  The PSC noted that the applicant does not contest his dates of enlistment or discharge and 
alleged that the calculation of his time net active service in block 12.c. of the DD 214 is correct.  
The PSC stated that there is no indication in the record of why the applicant was discharged two 
days  before  his  enlistment  contract  ended,  but  his  military  records  are  presumptively  correct.  
Therefore, the PSC recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 26, 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.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 

Article 12.B.11. of the Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2000 governed the  separa-

tion of members due to the end of their enlistment.  Article 12.B.11.a. stated the following: 
 

Unless  a  member  voluntarily  or  involuntarily  remains  beyond  the  normal  enlistment  expiration 
date as provided in this Article or by other instructions the Commandant issues, a member shall be 
discharged or released from active duty and transferred to the Reserve to fulfill any remaining ser-
vice obligation on the day before the applicable enlistment anniversary date.  [See] Article 12.B.7. 
for conditions allowing early separation within three months of the date service normally expires. 
… Members whose normal enlistment expiration date falls on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or a holi-
day shall not be separated more than seven days before the normal separation date. 

 

DD 214s are completed in accordance with a manual, COMDTINST M1900.4D.  Chap-
ter 1.E. of the manual provides the following instructions for completing block 12 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). … 
 
Appendix C of the Personnel and Pay Procedures Manual requires creditable active ser-
vice to be calculated as follows:  the date of separation minus the date of entry plus one “inclu-
sive” day.  
  

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. 

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 on July 13, 2000, and therefore presumably knew the date of his 
discharge and the net service reflected in block 12.c. at that time.  Therefore, his application is 
not timely. 
 

3. 

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).   

 
4. 

Regarding the delay of  his  application, the applicant  stated that he only  recently 
discovered that he would not be able to “buy back” four full years of military service as credita-
ble service for retirement purposes with his current civilian employer.   

 
5. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant’s claim can-
not prevail.  His military records clearly show that the applicant was discharged because he had 
completed  his  military  obligation  but  also  that  he  was  discharged  on  Thursday,  July  13,  2000, 
two days shy of the date he would have accumulated exactly four years of service.  These mili-
tary records are presumptively correct under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b), and he has submitted no evi-
dence to rebut them.  While the reason for his early discharge cannot now be determined, it may 
have  occurred  because  his  discharge  date  would  otherwise  have  been  a  Saturday,  rather  than  a 
regular work day.  Article 12.B.11.a. of the Personnel Manual then in effect allowed members to 
be discharged up to a week early if their ends of enlistment occurred on a weekend or holiday.  

 
6. 

DD  214s  are  prepared  in  accordance  with  military  regulations,  and  Chapter  1.E. 
of COMDTINST M1900.4D requires the entry in block 12.c. of a DD 214 to equal the time from 

 

 

the date of entry up in block 12.a. up to and including the date of discharge in block 12.b.  The 
applicant’s DD 214 is correct in this regard.   

 
7. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  is  not  alone  in  having  his  DD  214  reflect 
almost, but not quite, four full years of service because a substantial proportion of military mem-
bers’ enlistment periods end on a date that happens to be a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday and so 
they are discharged a day or two early.  The Coast Guard could in theory have a policy of refus-
ing to discharge members a day or two before a weekend or of crediting such members with four 
full  years  of  service,  but  it  does  not.    It  is  extremely  unfortunate  if  the  applicant’s  civilian 
employer does not recognize that a substantial proportion of military members are discharged a 
day  or two shy of their  end of  enlistment  because of  weekends  and holidays  and take that  fact 
into account in drafting its retirement policy.  However, the applicant has not even submitted his 
employer’s  retirement  policy to  show that he has been prejudiced by the Coast  Guard’s policy.  
Without such evidence of prejudice, there is no basis for finding that the applicant’s release from 
active duty two days early was unjust or currently constitutes an injustice. 

 
8. 

The Board concludes that the applicant’s request should be denied but that further 
consideration should be  granted if the applicant  submits his  employer’s  policy showing that  he 
has been substantially prejudiced by the Coast Guard’s decision to release him with 3 years, 11 
months, and 28 days of active duty, instead of 4 full years of active duty. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is denied, but the Board will grant further consideration if, within 180 days of the 
date  of  this  decision,  he  submits  his  employer’s  policy  showing  that  he  has  been  substantially 
prejudiced by the Coast Guard’s decision to release him with 3 years, 11 months, and 28 days of 
active duty instead of 4 full years of active duty.  

  

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 Dana Ledger 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis