DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2010-139 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application on March 19, 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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  January  13,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  who  was  medically  retired  with  a  40%  disability  rating  from  the  Coast 
Guard on October 14, 2000, after completing 19 years and 4 months of active duty, asked the 
Board to correct her record to show that she was retired with exactly 20 years of active duty so 
that she may become legally entitled to concurrent retired and disability pay (CRDP) under 10 
U.S.C. § 1414 if the DVA awards her a disability rating of 50% or higher.1   
 
The applicant alleged that when deciding whether to accept the 40% disability rating pro-
 
posed by the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB), an officer working in the Office of the 
Judge Advocate General (JAG) advised her to accept the 40% rating because the Department of 
Veterans’  Affairs  (DVA)  would  assign  her  a  new  rating  anyway  and  that  the  DVA’s  rating 
would likely be higher.  However, she received just a 30% rating from the DVA and is “still in 
an appeal process 10 years later.” 
 

The applicant further alleged that the JAG told her that she did not need to worry about 
the new CRDP law that was expected to be enacted because she had more than 18 years of ser-
vice.  The applicant alleged that had she been counseled properly, she would have contested the 
                                                 
1 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1414, veterans with at least 20 satisfactory years of service and service-connected disability 
ratings  from  the  DVA  of  at  least  50%  may  receive  concurrent  retired  and  disability  pay  (CRDP).    Prior  to  the 
enactment of CRDP, which went into effect on January 1, 2004, veterans could not receive full retirement pay and 
disability pay simultaneously. 

CPEB’s  decision  and  she  could  have  been  placed  on  the  Temporary  Disabled  Retired  List 
(TDRL) for up to five years.2  She alleged that she “was not only cheated out of the possibility of 
staying in the Coast Guard but … cheated out of receiving compensation” from the Coast Guard. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  discovered  the  alleged  error  in  her  record  on  January  1, 
2008, and did not explain the alleged date of discovery.  She also stated that it is in the interest of 
justice for the Board to excuse the untimeliness of her application because the alleged error will 
affect her quality of life for the rest of her life. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
In 2000, the applicant was serving as a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at Coast Guard Headquarters.  On May 25, 2000, after she 
was found unfit for duty by an Initial Medical Board, a CPEB convened, reviewed her records, 
and recommended that the applicant be permanently retired with a 40% disability rating due to 
“fibromyalgia: constant or nearly so, and refractory to therapy.”  The CPEB noted that although 
the applicant was not fit for duty, she met the medical requirements for retention on active duty 
and had more than 18 but fewer than 20 years of service. 
 
 
6, 2000, she signed the following statement regarding the CPEB’s recommendation: 
 

On June 15, 2000, the applicant consulted with counsel about the CPEB results.  On July 

I have been advised by the above-named counsel regarding acceptance or rejection of the findings 
and recommended disposition of the Central Physical Evaluation Board and signed the appropriate 
statement below: 

•  •  • 

I accept the Central Physical Evaluation Board findings and recommended disposition conditional 
upon the approval of my attached request for retention on active duty submitted IAW Chap. 17 
CG PERSMAN.  If my retention request is not approved, then I reject the Central Physical Evalu-
ation board findings and recommended disposition and demand a hearing before a Formal Physi-
cal Evaluation Board. 

 
 
On July 10, 2000, a lieutenant at the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) sent the 
applicant an email asking her to send him an official letter requesting retention.  In a letter dated 
July 10, 2000, the applicant requested retention on active duty to complete 20 years of service.  
She stated that she had been performing her duties satisfactorily and that her “medical appoint-
ments are on a follow-up status only and have not affected my commitment to duty.”  She also 
wrote the following: 
 

Contingent on my retirement request for the first day of July 2001, I request to be considered for 
support allowance duty in the xxxxxxxxxx area, as soon as unit mission permits.  This is my home 
of  record  and  place  of  selection  for  retirement.    Granting  this  request  will  enable  me  to  work 
closely with the Florida Veterans Administration on my medical disability approvals and boards 
required  to  get  into  the  VA  system.    Additionally,  it  will  allow  me  to  initiate  the  applications 

                                                 
2 The applicant did not explain how she believes placement on the TDRL would have benefited her.  Placement on 
the TDRL does not give a member more time in service but may result in reinstatement on active duty if the member 
becomes fit for duty or in a higher disability rating if the member becomes more disabled during the maximum 5-
year  period  a  member  may  remain  on  the  TDRL.    Placement  on  the  TDRL  depends  upon  the  CPEB  or  FPEB 
(Formal PEB) finding that the member is unfit for duty because of an unstable disability. 

required for the VA’s “Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program.”  Furthermore, this 
authorization will allow me to continue to serve the U.S. Coast Guard while alleviating the hard-
ship of being isolated without any support system.  Being in close proximity to a support system 
(family) would be medically therapeutic for my transition. 

 
 
The applicant’s command endorsed her request for retention on active duty, although her 
medical condition had “resulted in her routinely missing several days per week from work,” and 
her request for an assignment to xxxxx.  He noted that she should not be left in her current billet 
because her inability to work had created a “significant disparity in the tasks and duties of other 
personnel assigned” to the office.  He echoed her reasons for wanting an assignment to xxxxx 
and stated that if she could not be assigned to xxxxx, she should be reassigned to the Headquar-
ters Support Command (HSC) so that her current billet could be filled and the Coast Guard’s 
medical and Work-Life facilities would be immediately available to her.   
 

On July 31, 2000, the applicant sent the lieutenant an email asking about the status of her 
retention request.  On August 1, 2000, the lieutenant informed the applicant that her request for 
retention  until  she  attained  20  years  of  active  duty  had  been  approved  but  that  she  would  be 
assigned to the HSC and that her request for an assignment in xxxxx “was not approved due to a 
higher service need for your talents here.” 
 
 
acceptance of the CPEB’s recommendation and signed the following acceptance instead: 
 

On August 2, 2000, the applicant withdrew her request for retention and the contingent 

I accept the Central Physical Evaluation Board findings and recommended disposition and waive 
my right to a formal hearing before a Physical Evaluation Board. 

The  CPEB’s  proceedings  and  recommendation  were  reviewed  and  approved,  and  on 

 
 
October 14, 2000, the applicant was medically retired with a 40% disability rating. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  June  18,  2010,  the  JAG  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  and  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 by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   

 
The PSC stated that the applicant’s retirement date of October 15, 2000, “was two years 
prior to the proposal of concurrent receipt submitted to the Subcommittee on Personnel, Com-
mittee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.”  The PSC further stated that the applicant’s request for 
retention on active duty until she could retire with 20 years of service was approved, but she did 
not accept her retention orders because she wanted to transfer to xxxxx.  The PSC stated that her 
request to transfer to xxxxx was not approved because there was a greater need for her services 
at Coast Guard Headquarters.  The applicant “elected retirement due to a disability over retention 
to the 20th year of service.”  Therefore, the PSC argued, she “is not entitled to relief for her deci-
sion to retire due to a disability.” 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 25, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory opin-
ion and invited her to respond within 30 days.  The applicant did not request an extension and 
submitted her response late, on December 20, 2010.  The applicant stated that at the time of her 
separation, she thought  she “was being counseled by  the best JAG officers the military  could 
offer or train” and she did not question his advice.  She alleged that he “was very adamant about 
the law of ‘concurrent receipt’ and sounded very sure of himself as to the law.”  She alleged that 
he told her “you are over 18 years you will be covered because you will be a medical retirement 
over 18 years.”  The applicant stated that she was very depressed, had no female colleagues in 
her xxxxxxxxxxxxxx office, and was commuting by Metro every day, which “took a toll on my 
body and psyche.”  At the office, her job was to redact criminal cases on homicide, drug busts, 
and suicides, and she “worked behind a bullet proof window/office with no interaction except 
with  the  six  or  so  male agents.”    She  stated  that  she  decided  not  to  remain  on  active  duty  to 
complete 20 years because the proposed Headquarters assignment “would have only added to my 
stress, depression and frustration due to the time and hours that it would have required me to get 
to work each day.  Upon reflection, it was a way to force me out of the Coast Guard at best.”   
 
 
The applicant argued that given her 19 years and 4 months on active duty and previous 4 
months and 5 days in the Reserve under the delayed entry program,3 it is unreasonable for any-
one to think that she would elect retirement with so little remaining time until her 20th anniver-
sary unless she “was given a conditional response or advice.”  She alleged that she “left the ser-
vice  based  on  reliance  by  Coast  Guard  legal  that  I  would  be  covered to my  20th  year.”   The 
applicant stated that for her “to have complete resolution, and to look back on my career in the 
service with goodwill, I am asking you to either grant me the needed time to complete 4 months 
and 5 days[4], put me in a reserve status to complete my time or put me back on active duty for 
the remaining time needed to complete my retirement.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE LAW 

 

On December 28, 2001, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 107-107,5 and Section 641 of the act stated the following in 
pertinent part:  
 

SEC.  641.  CONTINGENT  AUTHORITY  FOR  CONCURRENT  RECEIPT  OF  MILITARY 
RETIRED PAY AND VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND ENHANCEMENT 
OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION AUTHORITY. 

(a) RESTORATION OF RETIRED PAY BENEFITS.--Chapter 71 of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

Ҥ  1414.  Members  eligible  for  retired  pay  who  have  service-connected  disabilities:  payment  of 
retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation; contingent authority 

                                                 
3 Only the applicant’s 19 years and 4 months of active duty count toward her retirement eligibility because her time 
in the delayed entry program was not satisfactory for retirement purposes. 
4 With 19 years and 4 months of total active duty, the applicant needs 8 months of active duty to have 20 years of 
satisfactory service for retirement purposes. 
5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1012 (Dec. 28, 2001). 

 
“(a) PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION.--Subject to subsection (b), 
a member or former member of the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other than as 
specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled to veterans’ disability compensation is entitled 
to be paid both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, subject to the enactment of 
qualifying offsetting legislation as specified in subsection (f). 
 
“(b) SPECIAL RULE FOR CHAPTER 61 CAREER RETIREES.--The retired pay of a member 
retired under chapter 61 of this title [disability retirement] with 20 years or more of service other-
wise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member’s retirement is subject to 
reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the 
member’s retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the 
member  would  have  been  entitled  under  any  other  provision  of  law  based  upon  the  member’s 
service in the uniformed services if the member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title. 
 
“(c) EXCEPTION.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
title with less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the 
time of the member’s retirement. 

“(e)  EFFECTIVE  DATE.--If  qualifying  offsetting  legislation  (as  defined  in  subsection  (f))  is 
enacted, the provisions of subsection (a) shall take effect on— 

“(1) the first day of the first month beginning after the date of the enactment of such qua-

•  •  • 

lifying offsetting legislation; or 

“(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the calendar year in which such legisla-

tion is enacted, if that date is later than the date specified in paragraph (1). 
 
“(f) EFFECTIVENESS CONTINGENT ON ENACTMENT OF OFFSETTING LEGISLATION. 

(1) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be effective only if— 

“(A) the President, in the budget for any fiscal year, proposes the enactment of 

legislation that, if enacted, would be qualifying offsetting legislation; and 

“(B) after that budget is submitted to Congress, there is enacted qualifying off-

setting legislation. …” 

 
 
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1), “[s]ubject to subsection (b), a member or former member 
of the uniformed services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who is also entitled for 
that  month  to  veterans’  disability  compensation  for  a  qualifying  service-connected  disability 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as a “qualified retiree”) is entitled to be paid both for that 
month without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38 [laws requiring offsets].”  Paragraph 
(a)(2)  defines  a  “qualifying  service-connected  disability”  as  a  “service-connected  disability  or 
combination of service-connected disabilities that is rated as not less than 50 percent disabling by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.” 
 

PRIOR CRDP CASES BEFORE THE BCMR 

 
BCMR Docket Nos. 2007-080 and 2009-251 
 
 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2007-080,  the  applicant  had  been  medically  retired  with  a  60% 
disability rating and 19 years and 29 days of active duty after the CPEB reported that she did not 
meet the standards for retention until her 20th active duty anniversary.  She had not requested 
retention, and she argued that her CPEB attorney told her that because she was so disabled and 
was more than 6 months from her 20th anniversary, she could not request retention.  She also 
argued that the form used to accept or reject the CPEB results misled her into thinking she could 

not  request  retention  because  the  CPEB  had  noted  that  she  did  not  meet  the  standards  for 
retention  and  marked  “NA”  in  a  block  concerning  her  right  to  request  retention  as  if  it  were 
inapplicable to her case.  The applicant submitted a statement from the attorney who had coun-
seled her, and he supported her claim that the form was misleading and that she might have been 
confused about her right to request retention. He also stated that, in his experience working with 
CPEB  evaluees,  if  the  applicant  had  requested  retention,  she  would  have  been  retained.    The 
applicant also submitted a letter from her last supervisor, who stated that if the applicant had 
requested retention, the command would have supported her request. 
 
 
The  JAG  recommended  denying  relief,  and  the  Board  denied  relief  based  on  the 
application’s untimeliness and on the lack of evidence that the applicant was not told that she 
could request retention.  The Board found that under the applicable regulations, the applicant’s 
command presumably informed her of her right to request retention.  The Board also found that 
the applicant had not proved that she had been miscounseled by her attorney about her right to 
request retention since the attorney did not say so in his statement on her behalf. 
 
 
The applicant in BCMR Docket No. 2007-080, however, requested reconsideration and 
submitted probative new evidence supporting her claim that she was confused about her right to 
request retention on active duty.  The applicant submitted a copy of her Initial Medical Board 
(IMB) report and her commanding officer’s (CO’s) endorsement to the report, which were not in 
the record when Docket No. 2007-080 was considered.  The CO wrote in his endorsement that 
the applicant was able to carry out all of her assigned duties and recommended that she remain in 
her assignment until she had completed 20 years of service.  The applicant also argued that the 
CPEB  made  a  typographical  error  in  marking  the  box  indicating  that  she  did  not  meet  the 
standards for retention since nothing in the IMB report or the CO’s endorsement supported such 
a finding.  Her request for reconsideration was granted and, upon further review in BCMR Dock-
et No. 2009-251, the JAG recommended that the Board grant relief, finding that the IMB report 
and the CO’s endorsement “demonstrate through a preponderance of evidence that the applicant 
was wronged in not being  allowed to  remain on active duty in order to complete 20  years of 
satisfactory  service.”    The  Board  agreed  with  the  JAG  and  granted  relief  by  changing  her 
retirement date to her 20th active duty anniversary. 
 
BCMR Docket No. 2005-049 
 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2005-049,  the  applicant  had  been  placed  on  the TDRL  in  1988 
with a 60% disability rating and 19 years, 10 months, and 25 days of active duty and 2 years, 7 
months, and 4 days of inactive service.  He had asked to be retained on active duty until he could 
complete 20 years of service, but his request was denied.  The JAG recommended that the Board 
grant relief and noted that the applicant’s drill records had been lost.  The Board found that the 
application was untimely but excused the untimeliness because the applicant had filed it within 
three years of the enactment of Public Law 107-107 on December 28, 2001. The Board found 
that at the time of his placement on the TDRL, “the applicant was physically able to perform 
some useful work for the Coast Guard, even though pain prohibited him from working full days 
and from performing all of the physical tasks that might be expected of an engineering officer in 
certain billets.”  The Board granted relief by correcting the date of the applicant’s placement on 
the TDRL to his 20th active duty anniversary based on the following reasoning: 

 

 

8. 
In a memorandum to the Board dated July 2, 1976, the delegate of the Secretary stated 
that in deciding whether a veteran’s discharge is unduly severe, the Board may take into account 
current standards and mores.  Similarly, the Board may consider in this case whether the appli-
cant’s separation one month and five days shy of a 20-year retirement was unduly severe and not 
in accordance with current standards even if the Commandant did not clearly abuse his discretion 
in 1988 in deciding that the applicant could not perform useful service in his grade or billet.  The 
written standards for retention under Article 17.A.2.b. of the Personnel Manual have not changed 
since 1988.  However, the fact that both the JAG and CGPC recommended that the Board grant 
relief strongly suggests that today, a CWO in the applicant’s circumstances would not be separated 
one month and five days shy of his 20th active duty anniversary but would be retained until he had 
completed 20 years of active service.  The Board notes that because a veteran could not receive 
duplicate benefits (concurrent retirement and disability pay) in 1988, the impact of the Comman-
dant’s decision at the time was much less severe than the impact such a decision would have today.  
Therefore, the applicant’s request likely received less consideration than it would today following 
the authorization of CRDP under 10 U.S.C. § 1414. 
 
“Injustice” as used in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) is “treatment by the military authorities that 
9. 
shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 
1011  (1976);  Decision  of  the  Deputy  General  Counsel,  BCMR  Docket  No.  2001-043.    “The 
BCMR has the authority to decide on a case-by-case basis if the Coast Guard has committed an 
error or injustice.”  Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket No. 2002-040.  In 
light of all the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Board finds that, in retrospect, his tempo-
rary retirement one month and five days shy of 20 years shocks the sense of justice. 

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 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 discovered the 
alleged error in her record.  The Board finds that the applicant knew or should have known that 
she had not been credited with 20 years of service upon her retirement in 2000, and she knew or 
should have known that she was not entitled to CRDP in 2004.  Although she claimed that she 
discovered the alleged error on January 1, 2008, she provided no explanation or justification for 
this alleged date of discovery.  Therefore, the Board finds that her application was untimely. 

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.”6     

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 

                                                 
6 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-5 (D.D.C. 1992); see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995). 

4. 

5. 

 
The applicant argued that the Board should excuse the untimeliness of her appli-
cation because the alleged error in her record will affect her quality of life.  This statement, how-
ever, does not explain or justify her long delay in seeking a 20-year retirement. 
 

The Board’s review of the merits of this case shows that it lacks merit.  The record 
shows that the applicant, following consultation with counsel, requested retention until her 20th 
active duty anniversary, and her request was approved.  However, when the Coast Guard refused 
to  move  her  to  a  unit  near  her  home  of  record  for  her  final  year  on  active  duty,  she  quickly 
elected an earlier, medical retirement.  Although the applicant alleged that she opted to refuse 
retention based on poor legal advice, she submitted nothing to prove this allegation.  Her argu-
ment that poor legal advice is the only reason she would have refused retention is not persuasive.  
Nor is there anything in the legislative history of 10 U.S.C. § 1414 that might have caused the 
JAG to tell her that a veteran with less than 20 years of satisfactory service for retirement pur-
poses would be entitled to CRDP.7  The applicant also alleged that she accepted the recommen-
dation of the CPEB based on poor legal advice but has submitted nothing to support this claim 
either.  The fact that the DVA has assigned her a lower disability rating for her fibromyalgia than 
did the CPEB is unusual, but certainly not evidence of poor legal advice.  Nor has the applicant 
supported her claim that she should have been placed on the TDRL, and there is no evidence that 
she would have received a higher disability rating or been returned to active duty had she been 
placed on the TDRL.  The applicant’s military records, which are presumptively correct,8 contain 
no evidence substantiating her allegations of error and injustice.  Based on the record before it, 
the Board finds that the applicant’s claims cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

The  Board  notes  that  this  applicant’s  case  is  quite  different  from  other  CRDP 
cases in which the Board has granted relief.  Unlike the applicants in BCMR Docket Nos. 2009-
251 and 2005-049, the applicant was not erroneously or unjustly denied retention until her 20th 
active duty anniversary.  She was counseled by an attorney and initially requested retention, and 
her request was approved.  The record shows that she then voluntarily rejected retention until her 
20th anniversary because she wanted to move to xxxxx.  The applicant has not shown that the 
Coast Guard’s denial of her request to transfer to xxxxx for a year was erroneous or unjust.9   

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 
statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied because she has not justified her 
delay in seeking the requested correction and she has not shown that her medical retirement with 
 
19 years and 4 months of active duty was or is erroneous or unjust. 

                                                 
7 See, e.g., National Defense  Authorization  Act  for Fiscal  Year 2002, Pub. L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1012 (Dec. 28, 
2001); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-333 (2001), as reprinted in 2001 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1021, at 1099, 2001 WL 1597757. 
8 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders v. United 
States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979),  for  the  required  presumption,  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that 
Government officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”). 
9 “Injustice” as used in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) is “treatment by the military authorities that shocks the sense of justice, 
but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976). 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Retired),  for 

correction of her military record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer