DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2002-096
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X.
XXX XX XXXX, XXX
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. It was docketed on May 7, 2002, upon the
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated March 26, 2003 is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his pay base
date is June 15, 19XX, rather than July 31, 19XX, the date he entered active duty. He
alleged that because he signed his oath of office on June 15, 19XX, the July 31, 19XX pay
base date is incorrect. He alleged that because of this error, the timing of his pay raises
for longevity purposes will be adversely affected. In support of his application, he
submitted a copy of his oath of office, which shows June 15, 19XX as the date on which
he received a commission in the rank of ensign.
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD
On June 15, 19XX, the applicant signed an Acceptance and Oath of Office for an
appointment as an ensign
in the Coast Guard Reserve through the Direct
Commissioned Officer (DCO) program. The form indicates that June 15, 19XX is his
date of rank (DOR).
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-096 p. 2
On July 31, 19XX, the applicant entered active duty.
By an apparent
administrative error, the applicant’s pay base date was established as July 31, 19XX. On
August 1, 19XX, the applicant agreed to extend his active duty for three years through
July 31, 20XX. To date, the applicant continues to serve on active duty in the Coast
Guard.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 8, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted its
comments to the Board. In adopting the analysis of Coast Guard Personnel Command
(CGPC) as its advisory opinion, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant
the applicant’s request for relief.
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s correct pay base date is June 15,
19XX, the date he was sworn into the Coast Guard and signed his oath of office. He
also stated that the applicant’s correct active duty base date is July 31, 19XX, the date he
signed his active duty agreement.
The Chief Counsel stated that typically, a DCO is issued his or her “oath of office
with instructions to execute [it] prior to coming on active duty so that [he or she has]
military status and can travel to their first duty stations on orders.” He stated that
consequently, most DCOs have dates of commission earlier than their active duty base
dates. In this case, he stated that similarly, the applicant signed his oath of office on
June 15, 19XX and reported to the XXXXXX XXXXXX on July 31, 19XX to begin active
duty.
The Chief Counsel stated that officer promotions, and associated pay raises, are
based on the commissioning date established in the Register of Officers, while biennial
pay raises are based on the officer’s pay base date. He stated that based on the pay base
date of June 15, 19XX, the applicant’s record supports his allegation of error and should
be corrected.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 15, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days. The Board did not receive a
response.
Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) (COMDTINST M1001.28)
APPLICABLE LAW
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-096 p. 3
Pursuant to the authority contained in 14 U.S.C. § 736 (c), Article 7.A.2.b. of the
RPM provides that a Reserve officer’s “[p]ay allowances begin on the date of
appointment in the grade to which an officer has been appointed.…”
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law:
§ 1552. The application was timely.
The applicant requested that his pay base date be changed to June 15,
19XX, instead of July 31, 19XX. Under Article 7.A.2.b. of the RPM, his pay allowances
were to begin on June 15, 19XX, the date of his appointment to ensign. Therefore, the
Board finds that the computation of his pay base date should be the date on which he
was appointed to the grade of ensign.
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his pay
base date is erroneous and should be changed. He submitted evidence that he signed
his Acceptance of Oath of Office for appointment in the grade of ensign on June 15,
19XX. The Chief Counsel agreed that the Coast Guard committed an error when it
established the applicant’s pay base date as July 31, 19XX. The Chief Counsel stated
that the applicant’s pay base date should reflect June 15, 19XX, the date the applicant
signed his oath of office, rather than July 31, 19XX.
3.
4.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-096 p. 4
ORDER
The application of XXX XXXXXX X. XXXXXXX, XXX XX XXXX, USCGR, for the
His record shall be corrected to show that his pay base date in the grade of
The Coast Guard shall pay him any sum he may be due as a result of this
Julia Andrews
correction of his military record is granted as follows:
ensign is June 15, 19XX.
correction.
Dorothy J. Ulmer
Felisa C. Garmon
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2003-022
CGPC argued that the applicant did not meet the requirements of this section of the law because he was not in the SELRES at the time of the request and significant important medical evidence is dated after the applicant became a member of the IRR on June 1, 19xx. It provided the following (a) In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a reserve component who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-057
This final decision, dated December 31, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to pay him severance pay for the time he served as a commissioned officer. of the Personnel Manual provides for separation by revoking the commissions of Coast Guard officers, who like the applicant have less than three years of commissioned service. There is no SPD code for officers, like the applicant, whose commissions are...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-123
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 | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-012
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 | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-160
Instead, he argued, the BCMR should require the Coast Guard to prove that the selection boards acted fairly in denying him promotion. 1994 Selection Board Documents On xxxx, 1994, the Commander of the Military Personnel Command (MPC) issued the precept for the 1994 (promotion year 1995) xxx selection board. The Coast Guard is last of 5 [military] services in percentage of minority officers and next to last for women.
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2003-005
He alleged that, because he was long divorced by 1999, and his only child was just xxxxxxxx years old, he would have selected survivor benefits for his daughter at the earliest permissible date had he known about the open enrollment period. On XXXXX 31, 19xx, the applicant (who at the time was not married and had no children) completed an SBP election certificate, wherein he chose “option A,” electing no SBP coverage but remaining eligible to elect coverage at age 60. The record does not...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-040
2002-040 DECISION OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL ACTING UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY The Final Decision of the Board for Correction of Military Records (the Board) accurately summarizes the Applicant’s Request for Relief, the Summary of the Record, the Applicant’s Allegations, the Views of the Coast Guard, Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast Guard, and the Applicable Law. In fact, and contrary to the advice provided by the OCS yeomen, the applicant did not have over four years of...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1996-063
Finally, the applicant asked the Board to order the Coast Guard to appoint him counsel from the Coast Guard Physical Disability Evaluation Board to repre- sent him in this matter. The applicant submitted four affidavits of Coast Guard officers and copies VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel On June 6, 1997, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. It also states that members such as the applicant, who...
He alleged that pursuant to Coast Guard regulations, his command should have counseled him that he could receive a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 by reenlisting during the three months prior to January 22, 20xx, his sixth active duty anniversary. The CWO wrote that if the applicant had been aware that he could have reenlisted three months prior to his six-year anniversary, “he would receive an SRB payment, regardless of his selection to [xxxxxx xxxxxx].” The applicant also submitted a...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-083
Therefore, on January 12, 2000, the Board asked the Coast Guard to provide, if possible, (1) written confirmation by one or more members of the selection board that the applicant’s failure of selection was not due to an administrative oversight and (2) certain statistical information concerning the records of officers near the cut-off point on the selection list. of the Personnel Manual prescribes: “Except for its Report of the Board, the board members shall not disclose proceedings or...