DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2012-124 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  

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 April 16, 2012, 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 December 21, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  (notice  of  separation  document)  to 
show  that  he  served  in  the  Temporary  Reserve  from  August  4,  1942  to  December  6,  1942.  
According to the applicant’s military record, he enrolled in the Temporary Reserve on August 4, 
1942 and his service was terminated on December 13, 1942, with an ordinary discharge.  There 
is no evidence that the applicant served on active duty while enrolled in the Temporary Reserve.   
 
The applicant’s record also shows that he enlisted in the regular Coast Guard Reserve for 
  
three years on December 14, 1942 and began active duty the same day.  He served on active duty 
in the Reserve until his separation on December 6, 1945.   
 
The applicant did not give the date on which he discovered the alleged error.  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 accordance with a memorandum 
submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   

 

 

In  recommending  denial  of  relief,  PSC  noted  that  the  application  was  not  timely,  but  it 
 
was  in  the  applicant’s  interest  for  the  Board  to  consider  the  application.    However,  PSC  stated 
that  according  to Article  1.B.1.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual,  during  the  period  under  review, 
members of the temporary reserve were volunteers and former Auxiliary members  “whose paid 
and unpaid services were still needed in a military capacity for coastal patrols and port security 
work,” while regular reserve members served on active duty “for the duration.”1 PSC stated that 
the applicant’s separation document correctly shows that the applicant  served on active duty  in 
the Reserve from December 14, 1942, to December 6, 1945.  PSC stated that the applicant’s time 
in the Temporary Reserve was not creditable as active duty.   
 

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  September  11,  2012,  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  did  not  state  when  he  discovered  the 
alleged error, but he should have discovered it on or within three years of his December 6, 1945 
separation from active duty.  He signed his separation document at that time which showed the 
dates  he  began  and  ended  his  active  duty  service.    Therefore,  his  application  is  untimely  by 
approximately 64 years and the applicant has not persuaded the Board that it is in the interest of 
justice to excuse the untimeliness.     
 
 
3.  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. 

 

                                                 
1      See  also  Chapter  2.A.1.d.  of  the  Pay  Manual  which  states  that  full-time  active  duty  performed  as  a 
temporary member of the Coast Guard Reserve is included in calculating a members years of service to 
determine the member’s rate of pay.  However, periods during which no duty was assigned or performed 
may not be counted.   

 

 

4.  A cursory examination of the merits indicates that the applicant is not likely to prevail 
 
because he has presented no evidence that the time he spent in the Temporary Reserve was active 
duty.  The Coast Guard asserted that the time could not be counted as active duty, and therefore 
the applicant’s record is correct as it currently stands.  The applicant has presented no evidence 
that  his  record  is  incorrect,  other  than  his  own  statement.    Under  the  circumstances,  the  Coast 
Guard is entitled to the presumption of administrative regularity, which the applicant has failed 
to  rebut  with  sufficient  evidence  to  the  contrary.    (The  Board  notes  that  while  the  applicant’s 
time in  the Temporary  Reserve is  correctly  not  reflected on the document  separating him from 
active duty, such time  is recorded on other documents in his military record.)   
 
 
not in the interest of justice to excuse the untimeliness.     

5.  Accordingly, the application should be denied because it is untimely and because it is 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 
 
  

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 Katia Cervoni 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

   
 Lynda K. Pilgrim