Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1999-074
Original file (1999-074.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-074 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section 
1552 of title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR 
docketed this case on March 3, 1999, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  9,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board 
to correct the active duty base date (ADBD) and original Coast Guard enlistment 
date shown on his Personal Data Information Form (PDIF) to November 20, 198x.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  active  duty  base  date  and  original  enlist-
ment date should be November 20, 198x, because that is the day he first enlisted 
in the Coast Guard.  The applicant submitted a copy of his PDIF dated October 4, 
1998,  which  indicates  that  his  ADBD  is  November  19,  198x.    The  space  on  the 
PDIF for the date of the applicant’s original enlistment in the Coast Guard is left 
blank. 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegation,  the  applicant  submitted  a  photocopy  of  an 
enlistment  contract  dated  November  20,  198x,  which  obligated  him  to  serve  in 
the Reserve for two years. The enlistment contract indicates that he had served in 

the Air Force from July 7, 196x, to July 6, 197x.  The applicant also submitted a 
copy of a retirement points computation form prepared on December 21, 1994.  
That form indicates that he served in the Air Force from July 7, 196x, to October 
22, 197x.  It also indicates that he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on Novem-
ber 20, 198x, and served continuously thereafter up to the date the form was pre-
pared.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant the appli-
cant’s request. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  already  initiated 
 
action to correct the applicant’s ADBD but that the correction would take from 
three to six months because part of his active duty was in a different service, the 
Air Force. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on 
the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  dated 
November 10, 1999.  CGPC stated that the applicant’s original enlistment date in 
the Coast Guard was indeed November 20, 198x.  CGPC indicated that action to 
initiate the correction via the Coast Guard Human Resources Service & Informa-
tion Center had been taken but that the process might take three to six months.  
Therefore, CGPC recommended that relief be granted. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
for a term of two years.   
 

On November 20, 198x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve 

 
On December 16, 198x, the Coast Guard sent the Air Force a “Request for 
Statement of Service,” form CG-4714, because the applicant had indicated in his 
enlistment  documents  that  he  had  previously  served  in  the  Air  Force.    In 
response to the Coast Guard’s request, the Air Force reported that the applicant 
had served continuously on active duty from July 7, 196x, to October 22, 197x.  
The Air Force also sent the Coast Guard a copy of the applicant’s discharge form, 
DD 214.  The DD 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged from the Air 
Force on October 22, 197x, after having performed 7 years, 3 months, and 16 days 
of “total active service,” including 1 year and 5 days of “foreign and/or sea serv-
ice.” 
 

On  October  29,  198x,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  for  another 

 
two years, through November 19, 198x. 
 
On November 20, 198x, the applicant reenlisted for two years.  This enlist-
 
ment  was  extended  for  one  year  on  September  26,  198x,  and  for  an  additional 
three years on September 24, 198x. 
 
 
Although the applicant’s record does not contain a reenlistment contract 
covering  the  period  from  November  20,  199x,  to  July  23,  199x,  it  is  clear  from 
many other documents in his file that he continued to serve in the Reserve and 
earn retirement points during this time.   
 

On July 24, 199x, the applicant was discharged and immediately reenlisted 

On May 30, 199x, the applicant reenlisted for another four years, through 

for three years. 
 
 
May 29, 200x. 
 

2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  both  his  ADBD  and  his 

date of original enlistment in the Coast Guard Reserve to November 20, 198x. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his original date of enlistment in the Coast Guard Reserve is November 20, 198x. 

Active duty base dates are supposed to reflect all periods of active 
duty  served  by  members  in  all  U.S.  military  forces.    Because  the  applicant’s 
record contains a DD 214 showing that he served in the Air Force from July 7, 
196x, to October 22, 197x, it would be inaccurate to change his ADBD to Novem-
ber 20, 198x.  The applicant’s ADBD should reflect the 7 years, 3 months, and 16 
days of “total active service” he performed for the Air Force. 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Coast Guard had taken action to 
 
correct the applicant’s dates administratively but that correcting the applicant’s 
ADBD would take three to six months because a Statement of Credible Service 

5. 

must be sought from the Air Force.  However, the record shows that the Coast 
Guard  already  sought  and  received  this  information  from  the  Air  Force  soon 
after  the  applicant  joined  the  Reserve  in  198x.    The  applicant’s  record  already 
contains a “Request for Statement of Service” (form CG-4714) and a DD 214 from 
the Air Force clearly providing the legal confirmation of prior active duty service 
the Coast Guard now seeks. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

The  application  for  correction of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXXXXX, 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

The  applicant’s  date  of  original  enlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve 

USCGR, is hereby granted as follows: 
 
 
shall be corrected to November 20, 198x. 
 
 
The applicant’s active duty base date shall be recalculated to include the 7 
years, 3 months, and 16 days of active duty he performed for the Air Force from 
July 7, 196x, to October 22, 197x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Pamela M. Pelcovits 

 
 

 

 
David M. Wiegand 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 1998-111

    Original file (1998-111.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CGPC stated that the “applicant has made arrangements to drill in April 199x so that he obtains one day towards retirement and thus becomes eligible for a 20-year Coast Guard Reserve Retirement.” On April 14, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days. He subsequently extended this enlistment three times, obligating himself to serve another 6 years, through Saturday, April 2, 198x. All other reenlistments shall be...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 1999-132

    Original file (1999-132.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Coast Guard alleged that many lieutenants serving on continuation contracts with less than 18 years of active service were denied TERA retirements and discharged with severance pay. In 199x, the Coast Guard incorrectly promised the applicant that, if he accepted a four-year active duty continuation contract, he would be able to remain on active duty until he could retire with 20 years of active service. However, the Coast Guard permitted the applicant to retire under TERA, which gave...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2001-091

    Original file (2001-091.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant stated that a Naval psychiatrist, who evaluated him in 199X at the request of the Coast Guard, supports his allegation that his Bipolar disease was incurred on and aggravated by his Coast Guard active duty service. He stated that the applicant needed to be "medically boarded from the Coast Guard" and recommended a medical board, which should have occurred while the applicant was on active duty. In recent statements on behalf of the applicant, CDR H (the flight surgeon), as...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1998-015

    Original file (1998-015.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated that the applicant’s DD Form dated October 31, 199x, is correct, and that the applicant’s sea and foreign service were properly documented on his other DD Form 214s. Therefore, the applicant’s Coast Guard foreign/sea service should be reflected only on the DD Form 214 that covers the period during which he performed that service. Like- wise the foreign and/or sea service performed by the applicant for the Coast Guard in the 1970s properly appears only on the DD Form 214 dated...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-012

    Original file (2002-012.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that when he was selected for an appointment as a lieutenant, through the Coast Guard’s law specialist program, the Coast Guard failed to provide him with three years’ constructive credit. He contended, rather, that the applicant was recruited “through a lateral entry program (DCL), to transfer from his reserve status as a lieutenant who performed general duties to an active duty status as a lieutenant who was designated a law specialist.” The Chief Counsel further...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1999-068

    Original file (1999-068.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant stated that he voluntarily enlisted on November 15, 196x, and had “a good time” in the Coast Guard until a chief warrant officer (CWO) at his unit in xxxxxxx, asked for a part-time volunteer to work as a cook. On March 8, 196x, the CWO forwarded the report of the Medical Board to the Commander of the xxxxx Coast Guard District, approving the findings and recommending that the applicant be administratively discharged. He stated that he was telling the...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1998-099

    Original file (1998-099.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that he did not have a personality disorder. On December 7, 199x, after reviewing the report of the ADB and the record, the Commander of the xxxx Coast Guard District recommended to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) that the applicant be discharged for misconduct. No member of the Coast Guard has a right to a TERA retirement.

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1998-052

    Original file (1998-052.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and that she had been charged with filing false claims. On June 22, 1999, Coast Guard Investigations forwarded a copy of the report of the investigation of the filing of false claims by recruiters in the xxxx office to the BCMR. On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-123

    Original file (2002-123.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He alleged that had his active duty base date been correct at the time of the May 19xx SWE, he would have been advanced from the promotion list in 19xx. Consequently, he argued, there is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard had any prior knowledge of the applicant’s active duty service in the Air Force Reserve until the applicant’s letter to HRSIC in July 20xx. The record shows that the Air Force Reserve, in responding to the Coast Guard’s Request for Statement of Service, failed...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1999-112

    Original file (1999-112.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated March 30, 2000, is signed by the three duly appointed REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a former seaman xxxxxxx who served as a xxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that on May 30, 198x, he received a disability discharge based upon a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoid personality disorder, rather than an administrative discharge for unsuitability based upon a diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality disorder. ...