DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2007-201 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on August 30, 2007, upon receipt 
of  the  applicant’s  completed  application,  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  May  29,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 to show that he was retired from the 
Coast Guard in 1997 as a chief quartermaster (QMC) in pay grade E-7, rather than a quarter-
master  first  class  (QM1)  in  pay  grade  E-6.      He  alleged  that  his  record  shows  his  rank  upon 
retirement  incorrectly  as  E-6.    In  support  of  this  allegation,  he  submitted  a  copy  of  a  United 
States Uniformed Services Identification Card with the notations “Coast Guard Retired,” “CPO/ 
E7,” his name, and his Social Security number.  In addition, he submitted a copy of his address 
on an envelope sent to him from the Coast Guard Personnel Services Center, which addresses 
him as “QMC [name].”  He stated that he first noticed the error on his DD 214 in May 2007. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On June 5, 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard as a seaman recruit.  He was 
discharged on May 10, 1977, as a QM2 and served in the Reserve until he reenlisted in the regu-
lar  Coast  Guard  on  January  8,  1982.    He  continued  to  serve  on  active  duty  and  by  1991  had 
advanced to the rate of chief quartermaster (QMC). 
 
 
On August 7, 1996, the applicant was tried by general court-martial for numerous viola-
tions  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    He  was  convicted  of  (1)  twenty-six 
specifications  of  forgery,  in  violation  of  UCMJ Article  123,  by  issuing  fraudulent  checks;  (2) 
four specifications of theft, in violation of Article 121, including the theft of $400 from the Chief 

Petty Officer’s Association; (3) eleven specifications of violating general orders and dereliction 
of duty, in violation of Article 92, by having inappropriate relationships with subordinates in his 
command, by directing subordinates to work on his personal vehicle during their work day, by 
failing to report complaints of sexual harassment, by failing to take action against members using 
racial epithets in his presence, by using racial epithets himself, etc.; (4) one specification of using 
indecent  language  on  divers  occasions,  in  violation  of  Article  134;  (5)  one  specification  of 
making a false official statement with intent to deceive, in violation of Article 107; and (6) one 
specification of submitting a false claim for reimbursement, in violation of Article 132. 
 
 
On March 23, 1996, the applicant was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-6; to pay a 
fine of $1,200.00; and to be confined for one year.  On August 7, 1996, the District Commander, 
who was the Convening Authority, ordered the sentence executed except for the fine, which he 
ordered remitted.  As a result of the sentence, the applicant was imprisoned from April 2, 1996, 
through January 18, 1997. 
 
 
On January 7, 1997, the applicant submitted a request to retire from the Service.  On Jan-
uary 15, 1997, the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) sent the applicant his active duty 
retirement orders, authorizing his retirement as of February 1, 1997.  The letter addresses the 
applicant as a QM1. 
 
 
January 31, 1997, as a QM1/E-6.  
 

The applicant’s DD 214 shows that he was honorably retired from the Coast Guard on 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 15, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
 
in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared 
by CGPC.  CGPC recommended that the Board deny the requested relief because of the applica-
tion’s untimeliness and lack of merit.  Regarding the merits of the case, CGPC noted that Article 
12.C.15.e. of the Personnel Manual states the following: 
 

Any enlisted member who retires under any provision of 14 U.S.C. retires from active service with 
the highest grade or rate he or she held while on active duty in which, as Commander, (CGPC-
epm-1) or the Commandant, as appropriate, determines he or she performed duty satisfactorily, but 
not lower than his or her permanent grade or rate with retired pay of the grade or rate at which 
retired (14 U.S.C. 362). 
 
In cases where a member has been reduced in grade by a court-martial, the highest grade satisfac-
torily held shall be no higher than the grade to which the member has been reduced by the court-
martial, unless the member subsequently advances or is again reduced. Where a member subse-
quently advances or is again reduced following a reduction by a court-martial, the highest grade 
satisfactorily held shall be no higher than the pay grade to which the member advanced or was 
reduced to following the court-martial. 

 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s pay grade was reduced from E-7 to E-6 by a general 
court-martial  on  August  7,  1996,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  ever  re-advanced  to 
QMC/E-7 prior to his retirement from the Service.  CGPC noted that it is also highly unlikely 
that the applicant would have been advanced while in confinement.  CGPC stated that the appli-

cant was still an E-6 on the date of his retirement and so his final DD 214 correctly reflects his 
pay grade.  CGPC stated that since a retiree’s identification card is supposed to be issued based 
on the DD 214, the applicant’s identification card is erroneous. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 17, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

and invited him to respond 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: 
 

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

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers or reasonably should have discov-
ered the alleged error in his record.  The applicant’s DD 214 was issued on January 31, 1997, and 
he knew or should have known his pay grade at that time.  Thus, the application was untimely.   

 

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

  
4. 

 
5. 

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 applicant did not explain his long delay in applying for the requested relief 

except to allege that he did not discover the purported error on his DD 214 until May 2007.   

Article 12.C.15.e. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1997 stated that when “a 
member has been reduced in grade by a court-martial, the highest grade satisfactorily held [for 
retirement purposes] shall be no higher than the grade to which the member has been reduced by 
the court-martial, unless the member subsequently advances or is again reduced.”  The record 
shows that in 1996 the applicant was reduced from QMC/E-7 to QM1/E-6 pursuant to the sen-
tence  of  a  general  court-martial  following  his  conviction  for  numerous  offenses  against  the 
UCMJ.    The  applicant  was  also  imprisoned  pursuant  to  that  sentence  from  April  2,  1996,  to 
January  18,  1997,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  ever  re-advanced  to  E-7  prior  to  his 
retirement on February 1, 1997.  Therefore, the applicant’s DD 214 appears to correctly reflect 
his pay grade upon retirement as E-6, and the identification card and envelope address he sub-
mitted are insufficient to prove that the DD 214 is erroneous.  The Board’s review reveals no 
merit whatsoever to his claim. 
 

Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the 

6. 

statute of limitations and the applicant’s request should be denied.   

his military record is denied.   

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Diane L. Donley 

 

 

 
 
 Richard Walter 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (retired),  for  correction  of 

ORDER