DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2010-249 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on September 7, 2010, 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). 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated June 3, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was honorably  retired from the Coast Guard on October 31, 1992, 
asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD 214, to show that in 1974 he received a Gold 
or Silver Lifesaving Medal, in lieu of a Coast Guard Commendation Medal.  The applicant stated 
that he was eligible for the higher award because he was on liberty when he saved the life of a 
child who was caught in a rip tide in 6’ to 8’ surf.  The applicant stated that he reached the child, 
told her to take a deep breath, and dove under the waves with her.  In support of his request for a 
Lifesaving  Medal,  the  applicant  submitted  several  documents  from  his  record,  which  are 
included in the summary below.  The applicant also provided the current telephone numbers of 
the child he saved and her father. 

 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error on August 13, 2010, when he was look-
ing at the Board’s on-line reading room and read a case concerning a request for a Gold or Silver 
Lifesaving Medal.  
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
The applicant, who enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 25, 1972, was a seaman 
assigned to a Loran Station in xxxxxxxxxxxxx, in 1974.  On June 12, 1974, a civilian wrote a 
letter to the applicant’s command stating that on June 3rd, the applicant had rescued his 10-year-
old daughter from heavy surf.  The civilian stated that his daughter had gone swimming without 
his knowledge.  When he realized she was missing and went to the beach, he found the applicant 

bringing her in.  His daughter told him that she had exhausted herself trying to swim to shore and 
called for help; that she did not believe she would have survived if the applicant had not reached 
her; and that because the surf was so heavy, the applicant had almost lost hold of her a couple of 
times.  The civilian stated that the surf was heavy that day and that his daughter would have died 
but for the applicant’s alertness.  The civilian later signed a sworn statement affirming the facts 
in his letter to be true. 

 
On June 20, 1974, the Group Commander sent the District Commander a recommenda-
tion that the applicant receive a Gold Lifesaving Medal.  He sent with this recommendation state-
ments from the child’s father and the applicant. 

 
On  January  28,  1975,  the  applicant  received  a  Commendation  Medal,  the  citation  for 

which states the following: 
 

[The applicant] is cited for heroism on the afternoon of 3 June 1974, while serving aboard U.S. 
Coast Guard Loran Station, xxxxxxxxxxx.  [The applicant]  was on liberty, bodysurfing  at xxxx 
xxxxxx xxxx xxxx, when he saw a little girl’s head bobbing in the water and heard her calling for 
help.  [He] quickly studied the situation and began the 80-yard swim to go to the aid of the little 
girl.  Upon arriving on scene, he found the girl very calm and cooperative.  Currents around the 
rocks  and  underwater  valleys  interfered  with  their  swim  back  to  safety.    However,  the  waves 
subsided and the current weakened to enable [the applicant] to assist the little girl to safety.  [His] 
quick response, unselfish actions, and disregard for his own safety undoubtedly averted a possible 
drowning.  [His] immediate response to a crisis saved the life of a young girl and is in keeping 
with the highest traditions of the United States Coast Guard. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 5, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The 
JAG stated that the application is untimely and that the applicant failed to provide “any relevant 
documentation or rationale to support his position.  Based on the information of record, there is 
no error or injustice.”   

 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by 
the Personnel Service Center (PSC).  The PSC stated that the record shows that although the Dis-
trict Commander recommended that the applicant receive a Gold Lifesaving Medal, a Commen-
dation  Medal  was  awarded,  instead.   The  PSC  submitted  an  email  exchange  in  which  a  PSC 
employee  asked  a  District  X  employee  if  the  District  had  retained  the  records  of  the  District 
Awards  Board  that  had  reviewed  the  Group  Commander’s  recommendation.    In  response,  the 
District X employee stated the following: 

 
I have record of the minutes.  On July 22, 1974, the D14 Awards Board reviewed the recommen-
dation for a Gold Lifesaving Medal for [the applicant] for rescuing [the girl], age 10, from heavy 
surf  at  xxxxxxxxxxxxx  in  xxxxxxxx.    The  minutes  state  that  the  Board  disapproved  the  award 
because they felt that a military award was appropriate and therefore recommended the CGC.  The 
minutes were approved by then CAPT [X] who was the secretary of the Awards Board on July 28, 
1974.   
 
The PSC stated that although the applicant believes he should have received a Gold or 
Silver Lifesaving Medal because he was on liberty on June 3, 1974, being on leave or liberty “is 

not  tantamount  to  automatic  entitlement  of  a  Lifesaving  Medal.    Rather,  being  in  a  leave  or 
liberty status simply allows one to be recommended for such an award—which the applicant was. 
… Although very heroic and in keeping with the strong humanitarian spirit of the Coast Guard, 
the Awards Board felt that the applicant’s actions were not to the level of a Lifesaving Medal and 
thus granted the CG Commendation Medal.”  

 
The PSC noted that under Chapter 1.G.2. of the Medals and Awards Manual, the level of 
a medal awarded may only be reconsidered upon presentation of new and relevant evidence that 
was not previously considered by the Awards Board.1  The PSC stated that because the applicant 
“has not presented any new, relevant, or compelling material evidence to call into question the 
validity of the Board’s decision to award a CG Commendation Medal vice a Lifesaving Medal, it 
is strongly urged that the decision of the Board be preserved.” 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On January 18, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s views and 

 
invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

COMDTINST  M1650.25D,  the  Coast  Guard’s  current  Medals  and  Awards  Manual 
(MAM), contains the rules governing the eligibility of Coast Guard members for various medals 
and awards.  In the order of precedence in Enclosure (22) of the MAM, a Coast Guard Commen-
dation Medal ranks below a Coast Guard Medal, a Meritorious Service Medal, and Gold and Sil-
ver Lifesaving Medals, but above a Certificate of Valor, all of which may be awarded for acts of 
heroism.   

 
Chapter 2.A.14.a. of the MAM states that a Coast Guard Commendation Medal 
 
[m]ay  be  awarded  to  a  person  who,  while  serving  in  any  capacity  with  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard, 
including  foreign  military  personnel,  distinguishes  him  or  herself  by  heroic  or  meritorious 
achievement or service.  To merit this award, the acts or services must be accomplished or per-
formed  in  a  manner  above  that  normally  expected  and  sufficient  to  distinguish  the  individual 
above others of comparable grade or rating performing similar services, as set forth in the follow-
ing: 
 

(1) For acts of heroism worthy of special recognition but not to the degree required for 
the Bronze Star Medal when combat is involved; or the Coast Guard Medal[2] or MSM[3] when 
combat is not involved; … 
                                                 
1  Chapter  1.G.2. of  the  MAM,  COMDTINST  M1650.25D,  states  that  “[r]ecommendations  for  awards  previously 
disapproved  by  an  awarding  authority  may  be  reconsidered  only  upon  presentation  of  new  and  relevant  material 
evidence that was not available at the time of the original recommendation. One-time reconsideration by the award-
ing authority will be conclusive.” 
2 Chapter 2.A.9. of the MAM states that a Coast Guard Medal “[m]ay be awarded to a person who, while serving in 
any capacity  with the Coast Guard, distinguishes him or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an 
enemy.  To justify this decoration, individuals must have performed a voluntary act of heroism in the face of great 
danger  to  themselves  and  such  as  to  stand  out  distinctly  above  normal  expectations.    For  acts  of  lifesaving  or 
attempted lifesaving, the Coast Guard Medal requirements parallel those of the Gold Lifesaving Medal in that one 
displays extreme and heroic daring at the risk of one’s own life.  See Chapter 4 for additional guidance on lifesaving 
medals.” 

 
Chapter  4  of  the  MAM  provides  the  eligibility  criteria  for  lifesaving  medals.    Chapter 

4.A.1.a. provides the following eligibility criteria for a Gold or Silver Lifesaving Medal: 

 
The Gold Lifesaving Medal or the Silver Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to any person who 
rescues or endeavors to rescue any other person from drowning, shipwreck, or other perils of the 
water. The rescue or attempted rescue must either take place in waters within the U.S. or subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof, or one or the other of the parties must be a citizen of the U.S. or from a 
vessel or aircraft owned or operated by citizens of the U.S. 
 

(1) The Gold Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to an individual who performed a rescue 
or attempted rescue at the risk of his or her own life, and demonstrates extreme and heroic daring. 
 

(2) The Silver Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to an individual who performed a res-
cue or attempted rescue where the circumstances do not sufficiently distinguish the individual to 
deserve the medal of gold, but demonstrate such extraordinary effort as to merit recognition. 

 
(3) Military personnel serving on active duty  would normally not be recommended for 
Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals; however, military personnel may be recommended for a Life-
saving Medal if the act of heroism was performed while the individual was in a leave or liberty 
status. In all other circumstances, a military award should be considered.  For military personnel, a 
determination of extraordinary heroism will be made in accordance with Chapter 1.B.5.[4] 

 

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. 

1. 
 
2. 

 

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 or injustice.  Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged 
error in his record on August 13, 2010, the Board finds that he knew that he had been awarded a 
Commendation Medal, instead of one of the higher awards for heroism, when he received the 
award in January 1975.  Therefore, his application is untimely. 

                                                                                                                                                             
3 Chapter 2.A.12.a. of the MAM states that a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) “[m]ay be awarded to persons who 
have distinguished themselves by outstanding noncombat meritorious achievement or service to the United States. 
To justify  this decoration, the acts or service rendered  must  have been comparable to that required for the  LOM 
[Legion of Merit] but in a duty of lesser, though considerable, responsibility. This should not be interpreted to pre-
clude the award to any individual regardless of rank or rate, whose outstanding meritorious achievement or service 
meet the requirements. The MSM is the noncombat counterpart of the Bronze Star Medal and the nonaerial counter-
part of the Air Medal. Therefore, acts of heroism of lesser degree than the Coast Guard Medal, and single acts of 
merit under operational conditions may justify this award. For Coast Guard personnel in a leave or liberty status, if 
deemed appropriate, the Silver Lifesaving Medal (SLM) is the counterpart in cases of heroic acts involving the sav-
ing of life from perils of the water. When the degree of meritorious achievement or service rendered is not sufficient 
to warrant the award of the MSM, the Coast Guard Commendation Medal (CGCM) should be considered.” 
4 Chapter 1.B.5. of the MAM notes that under 14 U.S.C. § 357(i), any enlisted person who retires after 20 years of 
service who has been cited for extraordinary heroism in the line of duty, as determined by the Secretary, is entitled 
to an increase of 10 percent in retired pay and that only awards higher than the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, 
including the Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals, will receive consideration for this added distinction.  

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  164-65;  see  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

The applicant did not justify his long delay in seeking a higher award for his act 
of heroism on June 3, 1974.  The fact that he was unaware or had forgotten by August 2010 that 
Coast Guard members may be recommended for a Gold or Silver Lifesaving Award—instead of 
a  purely  military  medal,  such  as  a  Coast  Guard  Medal,  Meritorious  Service  Medal,  or  Coast 
Guard Commendation Medal—if their acts of heroism are performed while on leave or liberty 
does not explain why he failed to seek a higher award sooner if he felt his Coast Guard Com-
mendation Medal was insufficient. 

The  Board’s  cursory  review  of  the  merits  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  request 
cannot prevail.  While on liberty on June 3, 1974, the applicant was bodysurfing at xxxxxxxx 
xxxxxx when he heard a child calling for help and swam 80 yards in heavy surf to save her.  His 
Group  Commander  recommended  that  he  receive  a  Gold  Lifesaving  Medal,  but  the  District 
Awards  Board  disapproved  that  recommendation  and  approved  a  Coast  Guard  Commendation 
Medal,  instead.   The  citation  for  this  medal  shows  that  the Awards  Board  was  aware  that  the 
applicant was on liberty when he saved the child’s life but still chose to award him a Commenda-
tion Medal instead of a Coast Guard Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, or Gold or Silver Life-
saving  Medal.    The  record  contains  no  evidence  that  the Awards  Board  was  unaware  of  the 
eligibility criteria for a Gold or Silver Lifesaving Medal or that the decision of the Awards Board 
was based on a mistaken belief that the applicant was on duty when he saved the child’s life.  
Nor  is  there  any  evidence  in  the  record  now  that  was  unknown  to  the Awards  Board  when  it 
made its decision, and the Awards Board was clearly better placed to know what happened on 
June 3, 1974, and to assess which medal for heroism was appropriate to award. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Retired),  for  correction  of  his  Coast 

ORDER 

 

Guard military record is denied. 

   

 
 
 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer