DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-139 
 
  
   

 

 
 

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.  On July 1, 
1999, the BCMR received the application in this case, which was completed on 
February 3, 2000, upon receipt of the applicant’s military records.    
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 28, 2000, is signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The  applicant,  a  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  order  the 
Coast Guard to pay him for his last 14 days of active duty.  He alleged that he 
received  his  last  pay  check  on  xxxxxx,  1998,  but  continued  to  serve  through 
xxxxxxxxx,  1998.   He alleged  that  “it  appears  [he]  was  not  paid  for  14  days  of 
active service.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
 The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 31, 19xx.  In 1994 
and 1995, he received administrative entries in his record indicating that he was 
warned that he exceeded his maximum allowed weight.  On August 31, 1995, the 
Coast Guard granted him an exception to the standard weight tables so that his 
individual maximum allowable weight was 234 pounds. 
 

On June 1, 1998, the applicant reenlisted for 6 years to receive a reenlist-
ment  bonus.    However,  on  xxxxxxxx,  1998,  he  was  weighed  during  a  random 

urinalysis and found to be 46 pounds overweight.  On xxxxxxxx, 1998, his com-
mand  notified  him  that,  because  the  probationary  period  for  losing  46  pounds 
exceeded  36  weeks,  he  would  be  recommended  for  separation.    On  xxxxxxx, 
1998, a doctor verified that the applicant was 46 pounds overweight. 

 
On  xxxxxxxxxx,  1998,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  recom-
mended to the Commander of the Military Personnel Command that the appli-
cant  be  discharged  because  the  probationary  period  prescribed  for  losing  46 
pounds  (46  weeks)  exceeded  the  maximum  probationary  period  permitted  (10 
months).  The CO also stated that the applicant “has shown no desire to lose the 
excess  weight  and  has  expressed  a  desire  to  be  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard.”  The applicant signed a statement indicating that he did not wish to sub-
mit a statement on his own behalf.  On xxxxxxxxxxx, 1998, the Military Personnel 
Command issued orders for the applicant to be discharged by xxxxxxxx, 1998. 

 
On  xxxxxxxx,  1998,  the  applicant  was  discharged  for  failing  to  meet  his 
weight standard.  He was assigned an RE-3F reenlistment code, indicating that 
he  was  eligible  to  reenlist  except  for  the  fact  that  he  exceeded  his  maximum 
allowable weight.  In addition, he was advised that he could seek reenlistment 
without loss of rank if he met his allowable maximum weight at least 6 months 
but no more than 12 months after his discharge. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  2,  2000,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief for lack of 
jurisdiction. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Chairman should dismiss this case or 
the Board should deny relief because the applicant has not alleged any specific 
error or injustice in his record.  Because the applicant asks only to be paid, the 
Chief  Counsel  argued,  his  claim  is  purely  monetary  and  does  not  involve  a 
correction of his record.  Under 31 U.S.C. § 3702, he stated, members’ claims for 
pay,  allowances,  and  benefits  that  do  not  involve  record  corrections  must  be 
settled  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense.    In  the  alternative,  he  argued,  the  Board 
should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant did not receive a paycheck for 
his last two weeks on active duty because, at the time of his discharge, he owed 
the  Coast  Guard  an  amount  that  exceeded  what  he  would  have  been  paid  for 
that  period.    The  applicant’s  Leave  and  Earning  Statement  shows  that  he  was 
paid through xxxxxxxxxx, 1998, he alleged, but “[n]o money was sent to Appli-
cant’s  account  because  it  was  applied  toward  his  debt.”    The  Chief  Counsel 

alleged that the applicant was informed that the money would go toward paying 
off his in-service debt prior to his discharge, on xxxxxxx, 1998, and again after he 
inquired about it on June 22, 1999.  Therefore, he argued, there is no merit to the 
applicant’s allegations. 
 
The Chief Counsel attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum from 
 
the Acting Chief of the Compensation Division, who explained that the money 
was  used  to  offset  the  applicant’s  in-service  debts,  including  “unliquidated 
advance pay” and the unearned reenlistment bonus.  He alleged that the appli-
cant  still  owes  money  on  these  debts,  and  the  debt  “has  been  referred  to  the 
Treasury Department’s Financial Management Service for collection.”  Copies of 
the following documents were attached to the memorandum: 
 

•  An  e-mail  message  dated  xxxxxxxxx,  1998,  stating  that  no  initial  sepa-
ration  payment  was  authorized  for  the  applicant  “due  to  collection  of  in-
service debt.” 

 

 

 

•  A letter dated July 9, 1999, from the Coast Guard Entitlements and Debts 
Auditor  to  the  applicant,  stating  that  at  the  time  of  his  discharge,  he  owed 
$3,806.35,  and  so  his  final  payment  of  $1,232.12  was  applied  to  reduce  that 
debt. 

•  Leave and Earning Statements indicating that the applicant’s pay was cal-
culated based on his active service through xxxxxxxxx, 1998, but that the pay 
was applied toward his in-service debts. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 2, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant did not 
respond. 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552(c) provides that “[t]he Secretary concerned may pay, 
from applicable current appropriations, a claim for the loss of pay, allowances, 
compensation, emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits, or for the repayment of 
a  fine  or  forfeiture,  if,  as  a  result  of  correcting  a  record  under  this  section,  the 
amount is found to be due the claimant on account of his or another's service in 
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, as the case may be, or 
on account of his or another's service as a civilian employee.”  [Emphasis added.] 
 

Title 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter 
or  another  law,  all  claims  of  or  against  the  United  States  Government  shall  be 
settled as follows:  (1) The Secretary of Defense shall settle—(A) claims involving 
uniformed service members' pay, allowances, travel, transportation, retired pay, 
and survivor benefits … .” 
 

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 application was timely. 

2. 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  this  case  should  be  dismissed  for 
lack of jurisdiction because the applicant’s claim is essentially monetary.  How-
ever,  monetary  claims  are often  based  upon  records,  which  may be  erroneous.  
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(c), the Secretary may pay claims that are found to be due 
after an erroneous record has been corrected. 

The applicant did not prove that the Coast Guard committed any 
error  or  injustice  in  calculating  his  in-service  debt  or  in  applying  his  final  pay 
toward reduction of that debt.  He did not allege or otherwise identify any error 
or injustice in his record for the Board to correct.  Nor has the Board found any 
error or injustice in the applicant’s record with respect to his claim. 

Under  31  U.S.C.  §  3702(a),  the  Secretary  of  Defense  can  settle 
monetary claims against the Coast Guard that do not involve any alleged error or 
injustice in a military record.  Therefore, if the applicant cannot prove any error 
in his record for the Board to correct, he may file his claim with the Secretary of 
Defense. 

  
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The application for correction of the military record of former XXXXXXX, 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 
George Kuehnle, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Michael J. McMorrow 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCG, is hereby denied.