Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-010
Original file (2011-010.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
                                                                                FINAL DECISION 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-010 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  his  sea  duty  and  sea  pay 
continued from July 21, 2010, to August 3, 2010.  He alleged that during this period, his sea pay was 
stopped  because  on  July  21,  2010,  someone  made  an  erroneous  entry  in  the  Direct  Access  database 
indicating  that  he  had  been  transferred  from  the  CGC  BUCKTHORN  to  a  shore  unit.    Although  his 
command reversed the error on August 3, 2010, his record continues to show a break in sea service.  The 
applicant submitted print-outs from Direct Access showing that he was transferred from his cutter to a 
shore unit on July 22, 2010, and transferred back to his cutter on August 3, 2010, and that, because of 
those transfers, his sea pay was temporarily stopped and $292.50 was deducted from his pay.   

 
The Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief because the Executive Petty Officer of 
the cutter has confirmed that the applicant “was subject to an erroneous reassignment from his cutter billet 
to a shore based billet and then back to his cutter billet.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that as a result of an administrative 
error, his record erroneously reflects that he was assigned to a shore unit from July 21 to August 3, 2010, 
when in fact he remained assigned to the BUCKTHORN, and that as a result of this error, he sea pay was 
erroneously stopped and deducted from his pay.  Therefore, relief should be granted. 
 

ORDER 

The  military  record  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he 
remained assigned to the CGC BUCKTHORN throughout July and August 2010 and that he was entitled 
to credit for sea service and sea pay for that entire period.  The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount 
due as a result of these corrections.   
 
 

 
 

 

June 23, 2011 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 
 Reagan N. Clyne 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-012

    Original file (2011-012.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the PSC noted that the criteria for a Sea Service ribbon include 12 months of sea duty, which the applicant did not have, and that the list of units authorized to wear the Arctic Service medal does not include any unit to which the applicant was assigned for the period the medal was authorized. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that the Sea Service Ribbon was authorized on March 3, 1984, and is “[a]warded to active and inactive duty members of the Coast Guard and Coast...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-224

    Original file (2011-224.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 17, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a storekeeper second class (SK2/E-5) on active duty, asked the Board to correct her record to show that she was assigned to a cutter instead of a shore unit, Group xxxxxx, from January 31, 2002, to January 9, 2003, so that she will receive sea pay and credit for sea duty for that period. Although the applicant alleged that she worked as much on the tender as...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-003

    Original file (2011-003.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PSC also stated that there was nothing pretextual about the applicant’s assignment to the cutter since it was his permanently assigned unit, and NJP was imposed in accordance with Article 1.A.4.a. The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that an appli- cant’s military record is correct and fair, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a pre- 3. ponderance of the evidence that the OER is erroneous or unjust.1 Absent specific evidence to the contrary, the Board...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-192

    Original file (2004-192.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The JAG stated that the applicant’s command “properly followed [Coast Guard] regulations” in awarding the applicant NJP and that the collateral consequences of the NJP—including the disputed OER and the revocation of his temporary commission— “were carried out properly after affording Applicant all the due process rights to which he was entitled.” The JAG stated that under Article 15 of the UCMJ, NJP is a means for COs to deal with minor violations promptly and administratively and thus...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2008-040

    Original file (2008-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 he received for extending his enlistment in order to transfer from the CGC ADAK, which was stationed in Bahrain, to the CGC RUSH is tax exempt. Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, members may not sign a reenlistment or extension...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-259

    Original file (2010-259.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. applicant qualified as a boat3 crewmember on April 29, 1980, there are no documents in his record indicating that he ever served sea duty or received sea pay.4 Upon his discharge on November 26, 1980, the applicant signed his DD 214, showing zero sea service, as well as an Administrative Remarks page noting that he had “completed 00 years, 00...

  • CG | BCMR | Discrimination and Retaliation | 1998-035

    Original file (1998-035.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [N]either of these two xxxx [sic] had sea duty time as a xxxx and both were closer to the [cutter] than [the applicant was].” Moreover, D. stated, in contradiction to Z.’s claim that the Xxxx required a female, a male xxxx was assigned to the cutter when the applicant chose to be discharged rather than accept the orders. has had on [the applicant]. Coast Guard records indicate that, apart from the applicant, six female xxxx stationed in Xxxx and xxxxxxxx were tour complete and had not done...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-113

    Original file (2007-113.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS In the Workplace Climate category (block 5e), the applicant disputed the mark of 3 supported by the following disputed comments: “Kept FN assigned to cutter months after being directed by D17 to ADASSIGN mbr for medical reasons, creating extra burden for the crew.” “Several minor human relations and work-life incidents on cutter indicative of low morale and lack of leadership role model.” “PO promotion delayed due to non-completion of enlisted marks.” In block 7 of...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2012-114

    This final decision, dated February 1, 2013, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by raising his comparison scale mark from the third block to the fifth block on the rating scale in section 91 on his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period July 1, 2009 to May 11, 2010 (disputed OER). The applicant received the disputed OER while serving as the Support Department Head (SUPPO) on a Coast Guard...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2012-114

    Original file (2012-114.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated February 1, 2013, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by raising his comparison scale mark from the third block to the fifth block on the rating scale in section 91 on his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period July 1, 2009 to May 11, 2010 (disputed OER). The applicant received the disputed OER while serving as the Support Department Head (SUPPO) on a Coast Guard...