DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
_____________________________________________________________________________
Application for Correction
of the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2009-244
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
______________________________________________________________________________
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 upon receipt of the applicant's
completed application on August 28, 2009, and subsequently prepared the final 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 27, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly
RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his DD 214 (certificate of discharge from active
duty) by adding the words “Reservist demobilizing in support of a contingency operation.” The
applicant alleged that he was denied Reserve Educational Assistance after his release from active
duty because his DD 214 did not contain the requested language. The applicant, a reservist, was
involuntarily ordered to active duty from May 14, 2008 to August 15, 2008, in support of a
national emergency.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 18, 2009 the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the
Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard. The JAG concurred with the comments
provided by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC), which were attached as an
enclosure to the advisory opinion.
PSC recommended that the applicant’s request be granted because the applicant was
recalled in support of a national contingency and that his DD 214 for this active duty period does
not account for the applicant’s recall to active duty under Title 10 of the United States Code.
PSC stated that according to Chapter 11, step 5 of the Pay and Procedures Manual, block 18 of
the applicant’s DD 214 should have included the following notations:
Member recalled under Title 10 and participated in Operation Noble Eagle;
Member’s duty location while on active duty: Sector Jacksonville;
Member did not serve in designated imminent danger pay area; and
Cumulative career active duty service: 10 months 11 days.1
issuance of a DD 215 with the above information.
PSC recommended that relief be granted by correcting the applicant’s record through the
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On February 19, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory
opinion. He agreed with it.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law.
States Code. The application was timely.
1. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United
2. The JAG found, and the Board agrees, that the Coast Guard committed an error by not
documenting on the applicant’s DD 214 his recall to active duty for a national emergency under
title 10 of the United States Code. The Board further agrees with the JAG that a DD 215 should
be issued correcting this error by adding the following notations in block 18: member recalled
under Title 10 and participated in Operation Noble Eagle; member’s duty location while on
active duty: Sector Jacksonville; member did not serve in designated imminent danger pay area;
and cumulative career active duty service: 10 months 11 days.
3. The applicant agreed with the recommended relief.
4. Accordingly, the applicant's request should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
1 Although PSC recommended that the notation “[a]ll medals/awards received by member are documented in block
13” be added to block 18, such additional language appears to be unnecessary because the applicant’s medals and
awards are already documented in block 13 of the DD 214.
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR, for correction of his military record is
ORDER
granted as follows:
Randall J. Kaplan
His DD 214 shall be corrected by issuing a DD 215 with the following notations added to
block 18: Member recalled under Title 10 and participated in Operation Noble Eagle; Member’s
duty location while on active duty: Sector Jacksonville; Member did not serve in designated
imminent danger pay area; and cumulative career active duty service: 10 months, 11 days.
Thomas H. Van Horn
Erin McMunigal
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-115
This final decision, dated December 3, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asserted that he served on active duty continuously from March 30, 2003, to September 30, 2008, and requested that his DD 214 be corrected accordingly. The Coast Guard recommended that the DD 214 for the period October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2008 be corrected to show the applicant’s total prior active service in Block 12.d. (b) The Coast Guard shall...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-074
The applicant alleged that when he received the EPEF on July 17, 2003, he signed it and sent it to the administrative offices of the Coast Guard Recruiting Command (CGRC) for placement in his record. It is the member’s responsibility to ensure that incorrect or missing data is [sic] updated in Direct Access prior to the PDE verification dead- line date for each SWE. CGPC stated that although the applicant noted the missing EPEF on his PDE, he “failed to ensure that the requested...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-092
Although, the marks, comments and comparison scale mark were substantially lower on the SOER than those on his previous OER, rather than stating in block 2 that the SOER was submitted to document performance notably different from the previous reporting period, the rating chain only cited the pertinent provision and then explained that the SOER was submitted because of a “loss of confidence in [the applicant’s] ability to effectively perform assigned duties” In this regard, the Board notes...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2011-243
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 20, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC). Block 18 of the DD 214 correctly includes the following comment with regard to MGIB:...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2009-232
The captain who served as the Sector Commander and reporting officer for the disputed OER stated that when the sector was stood up the applicant’s assigned position title was changed from the Chief of the Operations Prevention Department at MSO Xxxxxxxx to Chief of the Prevention Department for the sector. The PSC noted that the reporting officer stated that the applicant’s duties during the evaluation period “did not include the authorities and responsibilities inherent in Command.” The...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-227
In this regard, Article 5.B.8a.of the Reserve Policy Manual states that normally on the 30th anniversary of their pay base dates, enlisted members shall be transferred to the ISL Standby Reserve unless they have requested transfer to the IRR, requested retirement, or have been granted waivers by PSC to remain in the SELRES. Although he alleged that the Coast Guard should have transferred him to the ASL/ISL of the Standby Reserve to protect his record from inequities with regard to his pay,...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2009-187
2009-187 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct block 15 of her DD 214 dated September 21, 1990, to show that she contributed to the post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). He noted that the DVA denied her application for MGIB benefits because she was discharged in 1990, and as stated on the MGIB enrollment form, MGIB benefits must be used within 10 years of a veteran’s discharge. The applicant asked the Board to extend her eligibility for...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-192
The Board finds that it would be an injustice, however, for the applicant to be denied reserve retired pay after serving for over 20 years in the armed forces because he enlisted in the regular Coast Guard instead of the Coast Guard Reserve. Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s record should be corrected to show that his 1979 and 1983 Coast Guard enlistments were in the Reserve component of the Coast Guard. According to Article 8.C.16 of the Reserve Policy Manual, the fact...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-125
He also marked the applicant in the third block to the right on the comparison scale as a “fair performer; recommended for increased responsibility” and responsibilities in block 10 of disputed OER, as follows: The RO officer described the applicant’s potential for assuming greater leadership roles [The applicant] performed required number of drills & ADT-AT time during this 2-year evaluation period. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 25, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-059
The JAG stated that based upon the investigation and letter of censure, the applicant (and not any other officer) was responsible for the conflict that existed in the workplace climate during the period covered by the disputed OER. The supervisor stated that the applicant was given a letter of censure by the Sector Commander, in which the applicant was told that “he would not currently be recommended for promotion to the next higher pay grade, but since he was at the mid-point of his...