DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-048 
 

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 December 7, 2009, 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  October  8,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to place her on the Inactive Status List (ISL) as of the date 
of her discharge from active duty in 2007 and to reverse the decision that removed her from the 
ISL and returned her to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) just three weeks before the Reserve 
lieutenant commander (LCDR) selection board met in 2009.  She also asked the Board to remove 
her failures of selection for promotion in 2008 and 2009. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  left  active  duty  on  November  30,  2007,  as  a  LCDR  with 
more than 15 years of active duty.  She did so because she wanted to be geographically stable for 
her  family  and  because  her  parenting  plan  states  that  she  “is  active  duty,  should  she  elect  to 
accept  orders  out  of  state,  all  parenting  rights  and  responsibilities  revert  to  father.”    When  she 
joined  the  Reserves  in  March  2008,  she  was  offered  a  commission  as  a  lieutenant  (LT),  which 
she accepted, and the date of commission was backdated to December 1, 2007, so that she would 
have no break in service.  However, she was never attached to a command or given any advice 
about how to proceed.   
 
 
The applicant stated that following her discharge, she became a federal civilian employee 
and as such had a one-year probationary period.  Therefore, she told the Reserve Personnel Man-
agement Division (PSC-rpm) of the Personnel Command that she would be inactive as a reservist 
for at least a year.  The applicant stated that when her “probationary year” ended on January 15, 
2009, she “initiated the process to begin drilling in the CG Reserves.” 
 

 

 

The applicant stated that in 2008 and early 2009, she had no idea that she was in the IRR 
 
and not the ISL.  She “had no idea what those terms even meant until after months of trying to 
get my physical straightened, spending thousands of unreimbursed dollars on dental, so that [she] 
could  accept  orders,  [she]  learned  that  [she]  needed  to  be  in  the  SELRES  [Selected  Reserve], 
another term [she] had no idea of its meaning.”  She also alleged that during this period she sup-
ported her prior unit as a volunteer for no points or pay, but “was under the impression that [she] 
was in the SELRES.”  She alleged that “there was absolutely no reason for [her] to doubt that the 
process would catch up and everything would be sorted out.”  However, she was finally told that 
she could not drill for points in the ISL and needed to be in the IRR.  The applicant alleged that 
she made calls and sent emails about her situation but received no response.  Because she did not 
belong to a particular unit, she had no advocate. 
 
 
The applicant stated that after she was finally offered a deployable billet in July 2009, she 
learned  that  she  “did  not  have  to  go  through  all  of  the  headache  and  expense  that  [she]  had 
endured for the last 7 months, [and] that [she] just needed to be in the IRR and [she] could drill 
for  points.”    Then  in  August  2009,  she  was  stunned  to  learn  from  the  PSC-rpm  that  she  was 
being  discharged  because  she  had  failed  of  selection  for  promotion  in  the  Reserve  twice.    She 
stated  that  for  Reserve  officers,  such  discharges  are  discretionary,  not  mandated  by  statute  or 
regulation, and that the decision to discharge her for twice failing of selection was unfair. 
 
 
The applicant asked why she was not assigned to a Reserve unit upon her discharge from 
active duty, why no one gave her transition advice about joining the Reserve since the Reserve is 
a “far more foreign place” than the civilian world, and why no one gave her career advice when 
she joined the Reserve.  The applicant stated that she was not even issued an ID card so that she 
could access a base to talk to someone.  The applicant argued that if failing of selection twice as 
a Reserve officer can result in discharge, she should have been warned of this.  She stated that 
when she was promoted to LCDR in the regular Coast Guard, she was told that she was  “safe” 
and would be able to retire with at least 20 years of service even if she was not selected for pro-
motion  to  commander.    She  asked  why  her  switch  to  the  Reserve  changed  her  status  in  this 
regard and why she was not warned that it would.  She asked whether her loss of protection was 
caused by her acceptance of a commission as a LT.  She asked why she was not offered  a com-
mission as a LCDR—her rank in the regular Coast Guard—and argued that her Reserve commis-
sion as a LT was unfair. 
 
 
The applicant asked why she was not moved from the IRR to the ISL immediately upon 
joining  the  Reserve.    She  alleged  that  she  “had  advised  everyone  [she]  encountered  that  [she] 
needed to wait one year before [she] became an active reservist,” and yet she was unjustly “left 
in the IRR from MAR 2008 till OCT 2009.”  She alleged that a lieutenant erroneously advised 
her to join the IRR so that she could drill for pay and points, but then she was placed in the IRR 
just three weeks before the selection board convened.  She asked why there was not a minimum 
time for an officer to be in the IRR before they could be considered and passed over for promo-
tion.  In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted copies of  “email strings,” which are 
summarized below. 
 
 

 

 

 

Emails Concerning the Applicant’s Reserve Commission 
 
 
On March 11, 2008, the applicant submitted an Oath of Office to a chief  warrant officer 
at PSC-rpm.  On March 12th, he asked her to resend it in a different kind of electronic file.  When 
she did, he told her he would forward it and let her know “when the accession in Direct Access 
[database]  has  taken  place  into  the  Individual  Ready  Reserve  (IRR).”    He  provided  a  link  to 
information about the IRR on the PSC-rpm website. 
 
 
On  March  13,  2008,  the  applicant  informed  Ms.  H  at  the  Integrated  Support  Command 
(ISC) in Seattle that she had accepted the commission as follows:  “I went ahead and did it.  I’m 
trusting  you!!!!!!”   Ms.  H responded,  “You should  be fine.   Got the  confirmation of  IRR from 
[the  PSC-rpm  CWO].”    On  March  14th,  the  applicant  responded,  “What’s  next  now?”    Ms.  H 
replied on March 20th, “Take a look at the CGPC-rpm website and familiarize yourself with the 
IRR tab.  It gives all the information you should need.  You are under their control now; I think 
you may need to do some correspondence courses, etc., to keep your point levels up to 50 for a 
good year towards retirement.” 
 
Emails Concerning the Applicant’s Transfer from the IRR to the ISL and Back 
 
 
On October 24, 2008, the PSC-rpm sent the applicant a memorandum notifying her that a 
Reserve Mobilization Disposition Board had decided to transfer her to the ISL as of December 1, 
2008.  She was advised that she could request a waiver.  
 
 
On January 21, 2009, the applicant submitted a request to be transferred from the IRR to 
the SELRES, although she was in the ISL.  In March 2009, she traded emails with PSC-rpm per-
sonnel about  updating her physical evaluation.  On April 2, 2009, LT M at PSC-rpm noted that 
the  applicant  was  working  with  the  ISC  in  Seattle  to  get  a  qualifying  physical  examination  to 
return to the SELRES because her last physical had occurred in June 2007.  On May 14, 2009, 
the applicant advised the PSC-rpm that she was finally physically qualified.  She noted that she 
had had to pay almost $2,000 for dental work to become qualified.  In addition, she asked for a 
SELRES billet in the Seattle area so that she could begin drilling.  LT M replied the same day, 
reporting that the Direct Access database did not yet indicate that the applicant was fit for duty.  
However,  he  advised  Ms.  H  to  transfer  the  applicant  to  the  SELRES  as  soon  as  the  database 
showed her as fit for duty. 
 
 
Also on May 14, 2009, Ms. H noted that when the regular active duty junior officer (JO) 
assignment  process  ended,  they  would  “see  what  is  left  unfilled.”    The  applicant  responded  by 
asking  Ms.  H,  “Is  there  anything  even  left  at  this  point,  or  rather,  when  is  the  JO  closeout 
expected to be done?”  Ms. H replied, “Hope to have assignment results by 29 May; will keep 
you advised of gapped positions at that time.” 
 
 
On June 1, 2009, the applicant requested an update on a possible SELRES billet because 
she was anxious to start drilling.  On June 2, 2009, LT M noted that the database still showed the 
applicant’s last physical as occurring in June 2007. 
 

 

 

On  June  4,  2009,  the  PSC-rpm  offered  the  applicant  a  SELRES  billet  at  a  Naval  War 
 
Command  unit  in  her  state.    She  initially  stated  that  she  was  interested.    The  Senior  Reserve 
Officer at the unit emailed her the same day, noting the one weekend each month when the unit 
drilled  and  that  their  two-week  annual  training  would  be  held  from  July  18  to  31,  2009,  on 
Whidbey Island. 
 
 
On June 5, 2009, the applicant sent an email to the PSC requesting preparation of a points 
statement.    She  noted  that  she  was  “looking  at  earning  points  in  the  IRR.”    She  received  the 
points  statement  on  June  10,  2009,  and  was  offered  a  position  in  the  Command  Center  of  the 
District Incident Management Branch. 
 
 
On June 16, 2009, the applicant asked LT M for advice.  She stated that Ms. H was only 
able  to  offer  her  a  billet  with  a  deployable  unit,  but  she  had  left  active  duty  only  because  she 
could  not  deploy.    She  stated  that  she  was  exploring  taking  a  billet  at  the  District  Command 
Center, but such a billet would not use her skills as a lawyer and she was “not operational.”  She 
knew that to have a “good year,” she needed to get 50 points—15 by “breathing” (membership 
points) and 35 by drilling.  She stated that she was willing to drill without pay as long as she did 
not have to deploy.  However, she was also told that since she had transferred to the SELRES she 
could not just drill without pay for 35 points per year.  In addition, the applicant noted that Ms. H 
had  told  her  that  if  she  rejected  the  deployable  billet,  “there  would  be  a  bias  toward  me  in  the 
next assignment cycle.  All I want to do is to serve honorably for the next 4 years without having 
to pay the price of losing custody of my children, or pushing myself over the edge with exhaus-
tion because I was forced to accept a position in a command center in another region!  I just need 
someone  to  explain  the  process  and  the  options  to  me.    Can  you  do  that?”    LT  M  replied  the 
same  day  stating  that  in  SELRES  assignments,  the  “needs  of  the  service  always  come  first.  
However, you can complete your 20 years and earn a reserve retirement in the Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR).  You are currently in the ISL and may request to join the IRR at any time with 
the  form  on  our  website.  …    I  recommend  you  read  chapter  4.A.6.  and  8.C.5.  of  the  Reserve 
Policy Manual, which outlines the specific requirements IRR members must complete.  You can 
also  drill  for no pay to  earn points.  The manual  is  located at  our website below.   Please work 
with [LT B] for any other ISL and IRR officer issues, as she relieved me today as the [Officer 
Status Manager].” 
 
 
nation that she could not take a deployable billet but wanted to drill for points. 
 
On July 2, 2009, the applicant asked LT B for an update on her request to move from the 
 
IRR to the ISL.  She stated that she wanted to begin drilling and would start looking for places to 
drill. 
 
 
On July 14, 2009, the applicant’s prior office stated that her offer to drill there was very 
welcome.  She replied that her ability to drill had “a few limitations” because of her civilian job 
required  her  to  travel  and  because  of  her  child  custody  arrangements.    She  was  told  that  she 
could  have “total  flex hours.”  The applicant  advised  LT  B that her  “old  unit has expressed an 
interest  in  allowing  me  to  drill  with  them  for  points.    I  need  to  know  if  my  move  from  the 

On June 18, 2009, the applicant submitted a request to transfer to the IRR with an expla-

 

 

SELRES  to  the  IRR  has  been  approved.    I  have  been  trying  to  reach  you  now  for  a  month  by 
both email and phone messages.  If there is something else I need to know or do, please advise!” 
 
 
On July 15, 2009, the applicant told a workforce analyst that she had “tried relentlessly to 
contact LT B and LT J [at the PSC-rpm] to no avail.  Can you help me verify my status.  [Her 
prior unit] is already putting me to work, so I want to make sure that it is counting.  Also, I need 
to get an ID card, a vehicle sticker … Once I am in the IRR, I think that I can do that.” 
 
 
On July 20, 2009, PSC-rpm sent the applicant a memorandum stating that her request to 
transfer to the IRR had been approved and was effective as of July 1, 2009.  The memorandum 
advised her that  she would  remain eligible for promotion in  the  IRR and that she could  accrue 
qualifying  years  of  service  for  retirement  purposes  by  earning  at  least  50  points  per  year  by 
drilling or completing correspondence courses.  The memorandum also stated that if she failed to 
maintain the minimum standards of the IRR, she would be transferred to the ISL, and that after 
three years on the ISL, she would be discharged unless she sooner requested return to the Ready 
Reserve,  which  consists  of  the  IRR  and  the  SELRES.    In  response  to  this  memorandum,  the 
applicant sent the Chief of PSC-rpm an email and thanked him for his assistance. 
 
Emails Concerning the Applicant’s Interest in Drilling in a Civil Rights Office 
 
 
In  August  and  September  2009,  the  applicant  traded  emails  with  a  Civil  Rights  Office 
and with Reserve detailers about the possibility of drilling at the Civil Rights Office in addition 
to her prior unit.  She asked questions about how drill points could be credited and noted that she 
had some logistical questions because she did not have a Coast Guard identity card or car sticker.  
PSC-rpm personnel responded, explaining how points were credited, referring her to the Reserve 
Policy Manual, and asking whether she had the two units’ written agreements to drill for points.  
 
Emails About the Applicant’s Auxiliary Volunteer Work 
 
On  September  15,  2009,  the  applicant  sent  someone  at  her  prior  active  duty  office  an 
 
email  about  awards she  was drafting for personnel  in  that office.  On September 17, 2009, she 
sent that office the paperwork for certain awards.  An officer replied, thanked her for the work, 
asked how her Reserve issues were evolving, and offered to “weigh in.” 
 
Emails About the Applicant’s Pending Discharge 
 
On  September  18,  2009,  CAPT  N,  the  Chief  of  PSC-rpm,  sent  the  applicant  an  email 
 
referring  to  a  telephone  conversation  on  September  15,  2009,  and  asking  when  she  would  be 
available  for  a  telephone  conference.    On  September  21,  2009,  the  applicant  sent  the  Chief  of 
PSC-rpm, CAPT N, an email thanking him for his email.  She sent him the email strings summa-
rized above and noted that they contained no reference to the time frame in which she needed to 
be selected for promotion to remain in the Reserve.  She stated,  “I have not been lazy.  If any-
thing I have been persistent and dedicated.  This means so much to me. … If you are right that I 
must be discharged, there must be some exception.  Certainly the time frames here must allow 
for some review.  Please help.” 
 

 

 

On September 22, 2009, the applicant sent CAPT N another email asking how she could 
 
be considered for promotion while in the IRR.  She stated that she did not think that someone on 
the IRR could be reviewed for promotion.  She forwarded him a memorandum dated December 
19, 2007, which is not in the record, which, she said, shows that she  
 

was advised that I would be moved to the IRR by [PSC-rpm] if I did not accept a SELRES posi-
tion.    At  that  time,  I  advised  that  I  did  not  want  an  immediate  assignment  because  I  desired  to 
focus  on  my  civilian  job  for  one  year,  until  I  passed  probation  which  occurred  on  1/15/09.    My 
actions on 1/20/09 wherein I requested a transfer from IRR to SELRES by completing the Reserve 
Drilling Request support that.  Further that 19 Dec 07 memo says that [PSC-rpm] will arrange for 
my rehire/accession into the reserve component directly to the IRR. 

 
 
The  applicant  further  asked  CAPT  N  why  she  was  considered  for  promotion  in  2008  if 
she  was  in  the  IRR.    She  noted  that  she  was  transferred  back  to  the  IRR  on  July  19,  2009, 
although she had asked for the transfer on June 18, 2009, and that before that, she had been try-
ing  since  January  21,  2009,  to  pass  a  physical  examination  so  that  she  could  qualify  for  the 
SELRES.    The  applicant  concluded  that  she  had  not  “even  had  a  chance  to  have  a  ‘bad’  year, 
much  less  three  of  them  as  [is]  required  for  the  board  to  suggest  separation  as  indicated  in  the 
PERSMAN!  I haven’t even been released from active duty for two full years yet!  I know that I 
am not an expert, but surely there has been a mistake!” 
 
 
On  September  23,  2009,  LT  M,  the  Reserve  selection  board  coordinator  for  PSC-rpm, 
advised  the  applicant  that  in  accordance  with  Chapter  7.A.8.  of  the  PSC-rpm,  she  would  be 
honorably discharged as of June 30, 2010.  He noted that although in the past, PSC-rpm had held 
LT retention boards to retain Reserve LTs who had not been selected for promotion, in 2009, the 
Commandant directed PSC-rpm not to hold a retention board. 
 
 
On  September  24,  2009,  the  applicant  sent  an  email  to  CAPT  F  about  her  pending  dis-
charge.  She stated that she had resigned her active duty commission because she could not move 
from the State of Washington without losing custody of her children.  On her last day of active 
duty, she was offered a Reserve commission as a LT, which upset her, but she eventually took 
the oath of office on March 11, 2008, and informed Reserve personnel that she needed to wait a 
year before drilling.  She was placed in the IRR.  On October 7, 2008, she was advised that she 
had  not  been  selected  for  promotion  by  the  Reserve  LCDR  promotion  board  that  convened  on 
September 8, 2008.  On October 24, 2008, she was told that a Reserve Mobilization Board had 
transferred her to the Standby Reserve, ISL, as of December 1, 2008.  On January 20, 2009, she 
asked to move from the IRR to the SELRES and soon thereafter learned that she could not trans-
fer to the SELRES without a physical  and without replacing all of her dental work, which cost 
about $2,000.  On June 3, 2009, the PSC issued ALCGRSV 024/09, which noted, inter alia, that 
the Reserve LCDR selection board would convene on August 18, 2009, to consider LTs for pro-
motion and that only LCDRs and CDRs who had failed twice of selection for promotion to the 
next higher grade would be considered for retention.  On June 4, 2009, she was offered a SEL-
RES billet, but it was with a deployable unit.  She tried to get another billet and figure out what 
to do, but numerous inquiries went unanswered.  On June 16, 2009, she was told that she could 
transfer from the ISL to the IRR to drill for points without pay.  Previously, she had thought that 
she had to be in the SELRES to drill for points.  On June 18, 2009, she submitted a request to 
transfer to the IRR.  On July 6, 2009, she began to inquire about drilling opportunities.  On July 

 

 

20, 2009, the PSC-rpm issued a memorandum transferring her to the IRR retroactively as of July 
1, 2009.  On August 18, 2009, the LCDR selection board convened, and on September 15, 2009, 
she learned that she would be discharged. 
 
 
The  applicant  told  CAPT  F  that  she  should  have  been  warned  that  she  would  be  dis-
charged if she was not selected for promotion, even though she could not have been discharged 
for failing of selection if she had remained on active duty.  In addition, she stated that someone at 
PSC-rpm should have told her to wait a month before transferring to the IRR because of the new 
rules regarding retention of Reserve officers.  She stated that, “[s]ince everyone knew I had been 
inactive, as well as how hard I was trying to get back into the reserves, this failure is unconscion-
able.”  She stated that in “hundreds of pages of emails … the likelihood that a non-selection will 
result in my discharge does not even come up once!”  She noted that CAPT N and his staff called 
her and told her that because she was so anxious to drill they had “tried to accommodate me and 
that is why they allowed me to be transferred from the ISL (a place of protection from his rule) 
to  the  IRR  with  less  than  three  weeks  before  the  board!”    She  stated  that  the  advice  she  had 
received on June 16, 2009, to transfer to the IRR was negligent given that noted that ALCGRSV 
024/09 had been issued just ten days earlier. 
 
The applicant told CAPT F that the PSC-rpm’s actions showed “a complete lack of stew-
 
ardship.  Where did anyone ever help me make the transition to the reserves?  At no time have I 
ever received a package of ‘how to … or … what to expect’s or … need to know’s.’  I simply got 
a magazine, an oath of office and was directed to the Reserve Policy Manual.  I do not even have 
an ID card!  I was never attached  to a unit where I would have been given advice.  This is not 
acceptable.    We  are  shipmates!    We  are  all  leaders.    Discharge?!!    This  cannot  be  true.    I  was 
forced  to  get  out  of  the  Coast  Guard  by  a  misguided  judge  [who]  wrote  in  my  parenting  plan, 
‘Mother is on active duty, should she elect to accept orders out of state, all parenting rights and 
responsibilities shall revert immediately to father.’  My decision to leave the Coast Guard does 
not mean that I do not care and that I do not have a lot to offer to the Coast Guard.” 
 
On September 28, 2009, CAPT F wrote to the PSC asking for advice on the applicant’s 
 
situation  and  stating  that  the  applicant  “worked  very  hard  to  try  to  get  into  and  understand  the 
reserve process, but it appears to me that her pending discharge was a result of no/bad advice and 
is in my view a process fouled on all accounts.” 
 
 
On October 23, 2009, the applicant told CAPT N that she had not yet received an official 
notice from his office about her pending discharge or an Annual Screening Questionnaire (ASQ) 
that they had promised to send her and that was not available on-line.  She also stated that he had 
promised to have his staff assist her in applying to the BCMR.  On October 26, 2009, CAPT N 
advised her that his “promise still stands.”  He noted that she been sent an email about her dis-
charge on September 23, 2009, and that a “hard copy memo” about her discharge would be sent 
to her within two weeks and that the ASQ form would be sent to her and the rest of the IRR in a 
week. 
 
In an undated email, the applicant submitted her ASQ form, which she dated November 
 
18, 2009, and advised CAPT N that she had not received any of the correspondence he had dis-
cussed in his October 26, 2009, email. 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On April 28, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, 
the JAG adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum prepared by 
the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The  PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  emails  show  that  in  March  2008,  she  intentionally 
enlisted in the IRR, whose members can earn points and remain eligible for promotion.  The PSC 
stated that if the applicant intended not to participate in any way in 2008, the ISL “would be the 
most  appropriate  status  to  assume.”    However,  the  PSC  stated,  she  submitted  no  evidence  that 
she ever told the PSC-rpm in  2008 that she intended not  to  participate for a  year,  and the PSC 
possesses no such evidence.  Therefore, she remained in the IRR and was considered for selec-
tion for promotion to LCDR in September 2008 pursuant to 14 U.S.C § 732 and Chapter 7.A of 
the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM).  The PSC submitted a copy of the notification memorandum 
regarding  her  failure  of  selection  in  2008.    It  states  that,  “[p]rovided  you  remain  in  an  active 
status, you may be eligible for selection by the next board.”  Because of her inactivity in the IRR, 
a board transferred her to the ISL as of December 1, 2008.  The PSC submitted copies of memo-
randa addressed to the applicant regarding her transfer to the ISL dated October 24 and Decem-
ber 29, 2008.   
 
 
The PSC stated that on January 21, 2009, the applicant requested a transfer from the IRR 
(although she was then in the ISL) to the SELRES, in which she could drill for pay and receive 
performance  evaluations.  When the applicant  refused her orders in  June 2009 because she did 
not want to deploy, the PSC-rpm advised her of the benefits of the IRR.  On June 18, 2009, she 
freely submitted a request to transfer back to the IRR, which was granted. 
 
 
The PSC stated that the applicant’s name appeared eighth on the list of Reserve LTs who 
would be considered for promotion by the LCDR selection board set to convene on August 18, 
2009, and a notation beside her name on the list shows that she had no recent performance evalu-
ation in her record and should contact the administrator of the Officer Evaluation System imme-
diately.  However, the applicant did not respond, and so her record was reviewed by the selection 
board, and she  failed of  selection a second time.   Therefore, the PSC-rpm notified her that she 
would be discharged pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 740. 
 
With regard to her transfer to the IRR as of July 1, 2009, the PSC stated that the emails 
 
show an “open pattern of communication” between the applicant and PSC-rpm staff.  However, 
“this communication was not  heeded to  the fullest  extent possible, thus  resulting in  the current 
state of affairs.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 4, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

 
 
invited her to respond.  No response was received.    
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS 

 
Chapter  1.C.  of  the  RPM  contains  a  chart  of  the  organization  of  the  Reserve,  including 
 
the Ready Reserve, which includes the SELRES  and the  IRR, and the Standby Reserve, which 
includes the ASL (active status list) and the ISL.  It also contains descriptions of these different 
Reserve  components.    The  differences  between  these  components  are  described  throughout  the 
RPM but particularly in Chapter 4.A., where the different participation opportunities and require-
ments of the SELRES and the IRR are explained.  Chapter 5.A. describes how Reserve assign-
ments occur, and Chapter 5.B. discusses transfers between the Reserve components.   
 

Chapter  7.A.  contains  the  rules  for  Reserve  officer  promotions.    Chapter  7.A.2.a.  states 
that all Reserve officers except those on the ISL and retired officers are considered to be in  an 
“active status.”  Chapter 7.A.3.a. states that the Commandant maintains an  “Inactive Duty Pro-
motion  List”  (IDPL)  of  all  Reserve  officers  in  an  active  status.    The  officers  on  the  IDPL  are 
eligible for promotion. 

 
Chapter 7.A.8.d. states the following regarding two failures of selection for promotion: 
 
Officers  who  twice  fail  of  selection  are  normally  removed  from  an  active  status  on  30  June 
following the approval date of the board report upon which the second failure of selection occurs, 
unless  needs  of  the  service  dictate  otherwise.  Unless  eligible  for  retention  in  an  active  status  as 
described  below,  the  officer  will  be  given  an  opportunity  to  transfer  to  the  Retired  Reserve,  if 
qualified,  or  shall  be  transferred  to  the  Inactive  Status  List  or  discharged,  as  directed  by  CGPC-
rpm.  

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

Chapter 7.A.8.e. states the following: 

A  commander,  lieutenant  commander  or  lieutenant  who  twice  fails  of  selection  may  be  retained 
for  not  more  than  the  minimum  period  of  time  necessary  to  complete  20  satisfactory  years  for 
retirement,  plus  one  additional  year,  if  required,  if  so  recommended  by  the  selection  board  in 
which the second failure of selection occurs.  

Chapter 7.A.8.f. states the following: 

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12646, a Reserve commissioned officer of any grade who is due to 
be removed from an active status as the result of twice failing of  selection, and  who on  30 June 
following the approval date of the board report on which the second failure of selection occurs has 
completed:  
 
(1) At least 18 but less than 19 years of service for retirement computed under 10 U.S.C. 12732, 
may  not be discharged or transferred from an active  status  without  his or her consent before the 
earlier of the following dates:  

(a) The date on which he or she is entitled to be credited with 20 years’ service, or  
(b) The third anniversary of the date on which he or she would otherwise be discharged 

or transferred from an active status.  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law: 

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  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  

 
 
The application was timely.  
 
 
The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.   
 

2. 

4. 

3. 

The applicant  asked the  Board to  place her on the  ISL  as of the date of her dis-
charge from active duty in 2007 and to reverse the decision that removed her from the ISL and 
returned her to the IRR just three weeks before the Reserve LCDR selection board met in 2009.  
She  also  asked  the  Board  to  remove  her  failures  of  selection  for  promotion  in  2008  and  2009.  
The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  information  in  the 
applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the bur-
den of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or 
unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, 
approved by the Deputy General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” 
evidence  standard  recommended  by  the  Coast  Guard  and  adopting  the  “preponderance  of  the 
evidence”  standard  for  all  cases  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  latter  standard  in  2003  in  33 
C.F.R. § 52.24(b)).  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard offi-
cials and other Government employees have carried out their duties  “correctly, lawfully, and in 
good  faith.”  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir.  1992);  Sanders  v.  United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the 
Coast Guard erred by leaving her in the IRR for most of 2008 instead of transferring her to the 
ISL.  The emails show that she knowingly affiliated with the IRR when she accepted her Reserve 
commission in March 2008, even if she failed to read the RPM or Reserve web pages to learn the 
requirements and consequences of her affiliation with the IRR.  There is no evidence to support 
her claim that the PSC-rpm staff were aware of her intention not to participate in 2008.  As an 
officer in an active status, her name was on the IDPL, and her record was properly reviewed by 
the LCDR selection board in September 2008.  Therefore, she has not shown that her first failure 
of  selection  for  promotion  in  the  Reserve  resulted  from  an  error  or  injustice  committed  by  the 
PSC-rpm staff or other member of the Coast Guard. 
 
 
The  applicant  claimed  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  decision  in  July  2009  to  grant  her 
request  to  transfer  to  the  IRR,  making  her  quickly  eligible  for  promotion  in  August  2009,  was 
erroneous and unjust.  She admitted that she had requested transfer to the IRR in June 2009, but 
stated that if someone had mentioned that such a transfer would make her eligible for promotion 
and, hence, discharge, she would have delayed her transfer.  However, the applicant was eligible 
for promotion as a member of the IRR in 2008 and was informed of her failure of selection for 
promotion that year.  Therefore, she knew or should have known that she would be eligible for 
promotion as a member of the IRR in August 2009 and yet requested transfer to the IRR in June 
2009.  Whether serving on active duty or in the Reserve, officers who fail twice of selection are 
eligible  for  separation  or  retention,  and  under  Chapter  7.A.8.d.  of  the  RPM,  separation  is  the 
norm.    Moreover,  in  June  2009,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGRSV  024/09,  under  which 

5. 

 

 

Reserve  LTs  who  failed  of  selection  for  a  second  time  in  2009  would  not  be  considered  for 
retention.  While it would have been good if one of the PSC-rpm staff with whom she was com-
municating about transferring to the SELRES or the IRR had mentioned this change to the appli-
cant, the Board cannot reasonably find that their failure to do so was an error or injustice.  The 
RPM and the ALCGRSV were published on-line, the applicant had access to them, and had she 
evinced any interest in promotion issues, she would have read them.  The officers with whom she 
was  discussing  possible  assignments  and  transfers  to  the  SELRES  or  the  IRR  were  reasonably 
focusing  on  her  stated  desires  first  for  an  assignment  and  then  to  transfer  and  how  they  could 
accommodate those desires, not on whether she had already failed of selection once, whether she 
was  eligible  for  advancement  in  2009,  or  whether  her  record  would  be  non-competitive  for 
advancement  because  of  past  non-participation.    The  emails  show  that  the  PSC-rpm  staff  was 
communicative and trying to be helpful, and they presumably would have provided accurate and 
timely advice about promotion matters if the applicant had raised the subject with them, but she 
did not even though she had failed of selection the year before. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  she  was  not  afforded  sufficient  counseling  about 
Reserve matters and so was unjustly discharged after more than fifteen years on active duty.  The 
record  shows,  however,  that  the  applicant  assumed—without  bothering  to  learn  even  the  most 
basic information about the Reserve, which was readily available in the RPM and on-line—that 
if she resigned her active duty commission, she would be able to continue and retire as a Reserve 
officer on her own terms.  Although an attorney, she apparently failed to read numerous, critical 
parts  of  the  RPM,  which  was  drawn  to  her  attention  several  times.    She  also  failed  to  pay  any 
attention  to  her  eligibility  for  promotion,  which  is  normally  critical  to  an  officer’s  ability  to 
continue in any military service until eligible for retirement.  The applicant has not proved that 
her discharge was erroneous, and  given her own failure to  pay sufficient attention  and conduct 
sufficient research to ensure her own success  as a Reserve officer, the Board finds that she has 
not  proved by a preponderance of the evidence that  her failures of selection  for promotion  and 
consequent discharge were unjust. 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

6. 

7. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

The  application  of  former  LT  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR, 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
for correction of her military record is denied.