DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2012-072
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of
title 10 of the United States Code. The applicant asked the Board to correct a Discharge
Hospital Summary report by changing “Cape May” to “U.S. Naval Base Staten Island” in
the first sentence of the second paragraph of that document. The paragraph reads as
follows, with the sentence to be corrected underlined.
The patient says he has been extremely tense since he was at Cape May.
While there on one occasion on his anxiety reached panic state and he
tried to drive his car out of the base against orders. He was stopped at the
gate and put in the brig “until I cooled off.”
The applicant stated that he went to recruit training at Cape May where recruits
were not allowed to have cars. Therefore, the events discussed in the above paragraph
could not have occurred at Cape May. He stated that the events occurred at U.S. Naval
Base Staten Island. The applicant did not state why he needed the change, but a
document in the record suggests that he is seeking benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
On April 20, 2012, the Coast Guard sought advice from the Chair on how to make
the correction requested by the applicant. The Chair advised the Coast Guard that the
correction should be made on the document by whiting or crossing out “Cape May” and
writing in “U.S. Naval Base, Staten Island,” with an asterisk that explains that the
correction is made pursuant to BCMR No. 2012-072. However, apparently there was a
miscommunication between the Chair and the Coast Guard. The Chair believed that the
Coast Guard was seeking advice on how to make the recommendation for correction to
the Board in an advisory opinion. Instead, the Coast Guard made the correction and sent
a copy of the correction to the applicant and the Board with a letter stating that it had
made the correction and recommending that the application be administratively closed.
The applicant has not objected to the Coast Guard’s action. However, a problem exists
because there is no BCMR order in the military record ordering the correction as
referenced by the Coast Guard on the Discharge Summary. To rectify this anomaly, the
Board issues the following order ratifying the action taken by the Coast Guard in
correcting the February 28, 1961 Discharge Summary.
ORDER
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, for correction of his
military record is granted in accordance with the correction made by the Coast Guard that
changed “Cape May” to “U.S. Naval Base Staten Island,” in the first sentence of the
second paragraph on the February 28, 1961, (Hospital) Discharge Summary.
No other relief was or is granted.
July 18, 2012
Date
Julia Andrews
Dorothy J. Ulmer
*
*The third member of the Board was unavailable. However, pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
§ 52.11(b), two designated members constitute a quorum of the Board.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-116
On December 23, 1970, a chief warrant officer (CWO) reported that the day before, he had been advised that the applicant had told someone that he had a date that night even though he was restricted to Base. The Board finds that the application was untimely because it was submitted approximately 40 years after the applicant received his general discharge for unfitness. His military records support the reason for and character of his discharge, and he was afforded the due process then...
CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-012
In this regard, the PSC noted that the criteria for a Sea Service ribbon include 12 months of sea duty, which the applicant did not have, and that the list of units authorized to wear the Arctic Service medal does not include any unit to which the applicant was assigned for the period the medal was authorized. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that the Sea Service Ribbon was authorized on March 3, 1984, and is “[a]warded to active and inactive duty members of the Coast Guard and Coast...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On January 14, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board “grant relief” not by awarding the applicant the promised bonus but by giving him a choice of three options: • Correct his enlistment contract to show that he entered a rating that quali- fies him for a bonus under ALDIST 072/98 (he would also have to attend “A” School in the new rating). The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant’s recruiter promised him a bonus upon enlistment...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-096
On August 20, 1999, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard pursuant to Article 12.B.18. On May 10, 2005, the DRB denied the applicant's request, stating that his discharge had been carried out in accordance with Coast Guard policy and that his character of service and reenlistment code were proper. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 21, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings of the Coast...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2007-009
She also asked the Board to correct the date of birth listed on her DD 214.1 Although she went AWOL (absent without leave) three times and stated that she had “no intention of returning,” she argued that she should not have received an RE-4 reenlistment code because: 1. In a June 16, 1983, memorandum to the Commandant, the Commander, USCG Group Cape Hatteras, recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard. the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, endorsed On July 21,...
This final decision, dated April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that on February 14, 1982, he extended his enlistment for six years so that he could receive a Zone A1 selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of four, pursuant to ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82. Furthermore, the Deputy Gen- eral Counsel has held that “Coast...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-132
PSC recommended the following alternative relief: The applicant’s home address should have been entered into “Direct Access” to show [his Florida address] on February 1, 2009 to coincide with applicant’s move [to Florida]. PSC stated that on March 6, 2012, the applicant’s home address was corrected to the Florida address in “Direct Access.” PSC stated that although the applicant lived in Florida, he received BAH at the Michigan rate until March 6, 2012. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF...
The Chief Counsel stated that, on the date of his reenlistment, the applicant was eligible for a Level I bonus pursuant to ALDIST 072/98 and the Selected Reserve Reen- listment/Extension Bonus Program. He alleged that neither COMDTINST 7220.1A nor any other regulation required the Coast Guard to advise Reserve members of their eligibility for bonuses. Because Article 8-B-2 of the Reserve Policy Manual expressly makes the terms of Article 12-B-4 applicable to the Selected Reserve, the Board...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-124
The JAG admitted that the record “does document that Applicant was advised in an Annex “T” form (CG-3301T) dated 13 May 2007, that he was eligible for a $6,000 enlistment bonus for college credit.” However, the JAG alleged, the Annex “T” was “invalid, erroneous, and unauthorized” because Article 3.A.2.3. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. Although the JAG recommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-126
His DD Form 214, which he signed, shows that he received an honorable discharge and that his reason for discharge was “Hardship – (Code 227)” pursuant to Article 12- B-7 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual. However, it noted that the Coast Guard’s actions in response to the applicant’s requests for hardship transfer or discharge “closely align with current service policy” as set forth in the current Military Separations Manual, and it can “be inferred that the Coast Guard followed the...