DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

__________________________ 
                                      
Application for Correction            
of Coast Guard Record of:                                                      
                                                                                                                            BCMR Docket 
  
  No. 2001-015  
  
 
__________________________ 

FINAL DECISION 

 
JOOST, Chairman:  
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.   It was docketed on December 29, 2000, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated  to serve  as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 25, 2001, is signed  by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 

 

 
The applicant, according to his military record, enlisted as a Seaman Recruit in 
 
the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  (“Treasury-USCGR-SR”)  on                ,  1960.    He  applied  for 
correction  of  his  DD-214  (discharge  document)  on  the  ground  that  it  was  in  error  or 
unjust.    The  applicant  claimed  that  he  was  erroneously  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard Reserve because they put an “R” after  USCG. 
 
 
1960,  after serving one month and 23  days on active duty. 
 

The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged    from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  on        

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  April    6,  2001,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  to  the 
 
Board  that  it  accept  his  comments  and  the  February  1,  2001  comments  of  the  Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) as the advisory opinion of the Coast Guard.  Both 
sets of comments recommended that relief be denied to the applicant. 
 
 
CGPC said that the applicant was enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserves.  It noted 
that  he  might  have  confused  his  active  duty  in  basic  training with his reserve status.  

The Chief Counsel found that the applicant had failed to prove error in his status.  He 
said that “the record . . . clearly documents that Applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard 
Reserve.” 
 
 
On            , 1960, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard by reason of 
unsuitability.  On that date, he was issued a Form DD-214 (discharge  document) and 
signed  a  Form  CG-3309  (record  of  discharge).    According  to  the  Form  3309,  the 
“Discharge certificate [was] mailed to the above address..”. On November 25, 1991, the 
applicant  requested a copy of his Form DD 214 because  the original “Document was 
stolen.“  On December 17, 1991, he received a copy of his DD-214.  This document gave 
him actual notice of his 1960 discharge.   
 
 
The applicant did not file an application for correction until December 29, 2000, 
approximately 40 years after he was discharged and approximately eight years after   he 
received the replacement DD-214.   
 
 
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 CFR § 52.22, an application must be filed within 
three  years  of  the  date  the  alleged  error  or  injustice  was,  or  should  have  been, 
discovered.   The Chief  Counsel stated that the applicant did not set forth any reason 
why the timeliness requirement should be waived in the interest of justice. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  current application be dismissed for 
untimeliness.  He also stated that the applicant did  not meet his burden of proof.  He 
said  that  the  applicant has the burden of producing sufficient substantial evidence to 
establish prima facie proof of  the alleged errors and injustices.  In  fact, according to the 
Chief  Counsel,  the  applicant  produced  no  evidence  to  rebut  the  presumption  of 
regularity afforded by  the enlistment documents in his record, i.e. Enlistment Contract 
and Certificate of Obligated  Service dated            , 1960. 
 
 

 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

 
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: 
 
 
title 10 of the United States Code. 
 
 
2.  The  application  for  correction  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application 
must be submitted within three years after the alleged error or injustice is discovered, 
or  reasonably  should  have  been  discovered,  unless  the  Board  waives  delay  in  the 
interest of justice.  10 U.S.C.. 1552(b). 

                                                     

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 
 
3. The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard approximately 40 years 
before he filed this application with the Board and for approximately nine years after he 
received a copy of the DD-214 issued to him in 1960 to replace the one that he reported 
stolen.           
 
 
4. Untimeliness can be waived if the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice 
to do so.   The standard for determining whether waiver is in the interest of justice is set 
forth in Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992).  In that case the court said 
"the BCMR in assessing whether the interest of justice supports a waiver of the statute 
of limitations should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of 
the claim based on a cursory review." 
 
5. The applicant has not provided the Board with any reasons rfor his failure to 
 
apply for relief within  the three-year limitations period, and the Board cannot find a 
reason in the record.   
 
 
 6.    The  Board  has  conducted  a  cursory  review  of  the  potential  merits  of  this 
application and has concluded that the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard 
committed  any  error  or  injustice.    All  of  his  enlistment  and  discharge  documents   
clearly show that he enlisted and served in the Coast Guard Reserve. 
 
 
application.  The application should therefore be denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7. Accordingly, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness of the 

[ORDER AND  S IGNATURES  ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

The application of                         , USCGR, for correction of his military record, is 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
Robert H. Joost 

 

 

 
Mark A. Tomicich 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
denied.