DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-036 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
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 the 
applicant’s request for correction on January 27, 2003. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated October 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant,  now  serving  as  a  lieutenant  in  the  Reserve,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  earned  at  least  50  points  in  his  anniversary  years 
ending  in  1997  and  1998,  so  that  each  anniversary year  would  count  as  a  satisfactory 
year  of  federal  service  for  retirement  purposes.1    He  alleged  that  because  the  Coast 
Guard erroneously recorded his participation as unsatisfactory during those two years, 
he was not selected for promotion to lieutenant commander (LCDR), and he asked the 
Board to correct that error by promoting him and by correcting his record to show suffi-
cient time in the grade of LCDR for promotion to commander (CDR).  He also asked the 
Board to award him appropriate back pay and allowances, with interest.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS  

 

                                                 
1  Active Reservists are required to earn at least 50 participation points in each “anniversary year” of their 
service for that year to count as a satisfactory year for retirement purposes.  Reservists in the Individual 
Ready Reserve are required to earn at least 27 points. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard erred  in  administering  the  Reserve 
program by “fail[ing] to carry out its obligations to ‘induce satisfactory participation’ as 
required by Reserve Policy Manual, COMDTINST M1001.28, section 4.B.1.”  He alleged 
that in October 1996, the Coast Guard arbitrarily and erroneously changed the end date 
of his anniversary year from October 1 to July 2 and never notified him of the change. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  change  in  his  anniversary  date  was  erroneous 
because under the Reserve Administration & Training Manual (RATMAN), “the anni-
versary  year  extends  from  the  date  of  entry  or  reentry  [into  the  Reserve]  to  the  day 
preceding the anniversary of the entry or reentry.”  However, on March 28, 1997, the 
Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) was issued to replace the RATMAN, and under it, anni-
versary  dates  are  calculated  from  the  day  the  reservist  takes  the  oath  of  office.    He 
alleged that his anniversary end date was changed in October 1996 in anticipation of the 
upcoming new regulation in the RPM. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in August 1997, after his anniversary year was altered 
and two months after his anniversary year ended without his knowledge, he received 
an “Annual  Screening for Participation & Transfer to Inactive Status List Letter.”  He 
requested and was granted a waiver so that he would not be transferred to the Inactive 
Status  List  (ISL).    However,  because  his  request  was  not  timely  processed,  his  record 
indicated  (erroneously  and  unknown  to  him)  that  he  was  on  the  ISL  when  it  was 
reviewed by the 1997 selection board, and he so was not selected for promotion. 
 

The applicant stated that he continued to drill as before but then, in August 1998, 
received another such letter.  In response to the second letter, he alleged, he chose to 
challenge  his  point  accrual  during  the  anniversary  year.    He  alleged  that  this  request 
was also untimely processed, and so his record once again showed his status as inactive 
(erroneously and unknown to him) when it was reviewed by the 1998 selection board, 
which also passed him over for promotion.   

 
On May 11, 1999, the applicant alleged, he was finally informed that his anniver-
sary year end date had been changed to July 2.  He submitted a copy of this letter, the 
final  sentence  of  which  stated  that  “[i]f  you  fail  to  earn  a  minimum  of  50  points  for 
another  anniversary  year,  in  your  current  grade,  you  are  subject  to  transfer  to  the 
Standby Reserve Inactive Status List (ISL).”  The applicant alleged that because of that 
sentence,  he  concluded  that  nothing  more  was  required  of  him  to  avoid  being  trans-
ferred to the ISL except to drill and earn enough points to complete satisfactory years. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that despite the language in the May 11, 1999, letter, and 
other written assurances that he was in an active status, he had already been transferred 
to the ISL because of the “untimely processing of [his] requests.”  Moreover, he alleged, 
the  erroneous  indication  in  his  record  that  he  was  inactive  when  his  record  was 
reviewed  by  the  selection  boards  in  1997  and  1998  caused  him  to  fail  of  selection  for 

promotion  and  be  separated.    He  noted  that  Article  4.B.4.  of  the  RPM  states  that  the 
failure to earn the minimum number of retirement points in an anniversary year “could 
have serious consequences upon [a reservist’s] career potential.”  He alleged that he did 
not learn that he had been transferred to the ISL in 1997 and 1998 until August 2002.   
 

The applicant alleged that in light of his pending separation in the spring of 2000, 
his command, knowing that an error had occurred but unable to fix it, petitioned for his 
retention in the Reserve through the Officer-to-Enlisted Program.  Therefore, beginning 
on July 1, 2000, he drilled as an enlisted Reserve member in pay grade E-4, until he was 
recommissioned as an officer as a result of a direct commission selection panel.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to take any steps to induce his 
satisfactory  participation  during  his  new  anniversary  years  ending  in  July  1997  and 
1998, as required under the RATMAN and RPM.  Moreover, he alleged, the failure to 
notify him timely of the change to his anniversary year foreclosed his ability to perform 
additional  drills  in  order  to  complete  satisfactory  years  or  to  challenge  the  change  of 
anniversary date.  He alleged that the letters he received two months after the end date 
of each new anniversary year could not be considered “reasonable” efforts at induce-
ment, as required by the RPM.  In support of this allegation, he submitted an affidavit 
from a retired Reserve captain, who stated that during his years in the Reserve he  
 

was regularly responsible for monitoring the status of personnel in my command includ-
ing their drilling status in relationship to completion of drilling requirements for partici-
pation in the Coast Guard’s Reserve program.  It was the practice in my Commands to 
follow  the  guidance  provided  in  COMDTINST  M1001.27A,  including  counseling  mem-
bers for poor performance and placing a record of the counseling in the member’s record.  
Notice of the member’s poor performance was always made and an attempt to gain com-
pliance was proffered to ensure that we retained as many members in the Coast Guard 
Reserve as possible.   

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On September 29, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  He attended 
Officer Candidate School and was discharged on July 1, 1987, to accept a Reserve com-
mission.  On July 2, 1987, he signed his oath of office as an ensign (pay grade O-1) in the 
Selected Reserve and began serving on a three-year active duty contract.  On January 2, 
1989, he was promoted to lieutenant junior grade (O-2).  He was released from active 
duty on July 1, 1990.  A Reserve Retirement Points Statement (form CG-4175) that he 
received in January 1991 indicated that his anniversary date was October 1st.  

 
Upon his release from active duty, the applicant began drilling as a vessel com-
pliance  team  leader.    On  January  2,  1992,  he  was  promoted  to  lieutenant  (O-3).    A 
“Computation  of  Retirement  Credit  Points”  dated  June  15,  1992,  in  the  applicant’s 
record shows that he satisfactorily participated in the Reserve in the anniversary year 

from July 2, 1990, through July 1, 1991, by earning 72 points.  However, his next CG-
4175 still showed his anniversary date as October 1, 1993.  In 1992, he became a marine 
inspector  and  continued  to  accumulate  years  of  satisfactory  participation  toward 
retirement  by  earning  at  least  50  points  per  anniversary  year  until  July  1,  1996.    His 
performance evaluations up to this time were consistently good.  Pay stubs he received 
in  1995  showed  his  pay  base  date  to  be  October  29,  1986;  his  active  duty  termination 
date to be July 1, 1990; and his expected loss date to be July 1, 2017. 

   
In  August  1996,  the  applicant  requested  a  transfer  to  the  Individual  Ready 
Reserve  (IRR).   His  request  was  granted on August  19,  1996.   On October  5,  1996,  an 
electronic database was corrected to show that his anniversary date was July 2nd. 

 
The  applicant’s  evaluation  for  June  1,  1996,  through  May  31,  1997,  contains  no 
numerical scores or comments because he was in the IRR.  In the anniversary year end-
ing  July  1,  1997,  the  applicant  received  a  total  of  23  points.    (All  reservists  receive  a 
minimum  of  15  points  a  year  based  on  membership  alone  rather  than  for  drills  per-
formed.)  On August 25, 1997, the Coast Guard sent the applicant a certified form letter 
stating that because he had “earned fewer than the required minimum of 50 points[2] in 
your anniversary year ending 2 July 1997,” his options were to challenge that determi-
nation, to seek a waiver of the participation standard, or to request an honorable dis-
charge.  It also stated that if he did not act within 30 days of the date of the letter, he 
would  be  transferred  to  the  ISL  and  that  members  on  the  ISL.    (Members  on  the  ISL 
cannot participate in any Reserve activities or accrue retirement points until they return 
to active status.) 

 
The applicant did not challenge the Coast Guard’s determination.  On September 
25, 1997, he submitted to his command a request for a waiver of the participation stan-
dard, stating that he planned to “be actively participating in the near future.  I plan to 
resume  participation  in  the  Ready  Reserve  on  or  about  1  Jan  1998.”    However,  the 
waiver  request  was  not  timely  forwarded  to  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC).  Therefore, on October 20, 1997, the applicant was sent a certified letter stating 
that he would be transferred to the ISL on November 15, 1997.   

 
On  November  6,  1997,  his  command  forwarded  his  request  for  a  waiver  to 
CGPC.  On November 7, 1997, CGPC sent the applicant a letter granting him a waiver 
of  the  point  requirement  “for  your  anniversary  year  ending  2  July  1997.  …  You  are 
reminded that this waiver does not award you a satisfactory year for federal retirement 
purposes.”  CGPC also canceled the applicant’s pending transfer to the ISL. 

 

                                                 
2    Because  the  applicant  was  on  the  IRR,  the  actual  number  of  points  he  needed  to  earn  during  the 
anniversary year ending on July 1, 1997, was 27, rather than 50. 

On November 11, 1997, the applicant left the IRR and returned to active status in 
the Selected Reserve.  According to a CG-4175 in the applicant’s record, in the anniver-
sary year ending on July 1, 1998, he received a total of 31 points.  On August 26, 1998, 
the Coast Guard sent the applicant a certified letter stating that because he had failed to 
earn the required minimum number of points and had already been granted a waiver 
for not meeting the minimum point requirement in 1997, his only options were to chal-
lenge the calculation of his points or to resign his commission and receive an honorable 
discharge.  It also stated that if he did not act within 30 days of the date of the letter, he 
would be transferred to the ISL.  

 
The applicant was not selected for promotion to lieutenant command (LCDR) by 
the promotion year (PY) 1999 selection board, which met from October 26 to November 
4, 1998.  On November 10, 1998, CGPC sent him a letter announcing his transfer to the 
ISL.  However, the record indicates that he was allowed to continue drilling in an active 
status even though inactive members are precluded from drilling. 

 
On  April  13,  1999, the  applicant  sent  a  letter  to  CGPC,  stating that  his  original 
anniversary date had been October 1st  and that his drills “were carried out in line with 
my  original  Anniversary  Date  and  participation  is  in  accordance  with  COMDTINST 
M1001.28.  This includes 12 days ADT carried out 3 Aug 1998 through 14 Aug 1998 as 
well as 18 consecutive IDT Drills from 15 August 1999 through 23 August 1999.” 

 
On May 11, 1999, CGPC sent a letter to the applicant stating that his transfer to 
the ISL on November 10, 1998, had been cancelled.  CGPC stated that his anniversary 
date  was  the  date  he  signed  his  acceptance  and  oath  of  office,  not  the  day  he  was 
assigned  to  an  active  drilling  unit.    Finally,  CGPC  stated  that  “[i]f  you  fail  to  earn  a 
minimum of 50 points for another anniversary year, in your current grade, you are sub-
ject to transfer to the Standby Reserve Inactive Status List (ISL).” 

 
In the anniversary year ending July 1, 1999, the applicant received a total of 69 
points.    In  a  performance  evaluation  he  received  on  May  31,  1999,  he  received  good 
marks  and  his  reporting  officer’s  recommendations  for  retention,  for  promotion  to 
LCDR, and for integration into the regular Coast Guard.  However, he was not selected 
for promotion by the PY 2000 LCDR selection board that met in November 1999.  On 
March  21,  2000,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  because  he  had  been  passed  over  for 
promotion for a second time, he would be discharged on June 30, 2000. 

 
On June 16, 2000, the applicant was informed that under the Reserve Officer-to-
Enlisted  Program,  he  had  been  selected  for  enlistment  in  the  Reserve  as  a  marine 
science technician third class as of July 1, 2000.  Thereafter, he applied for and received 
a  direct  commission  as  a  Reserve  officer  and  has  advanced  again  to  the  rank  of 
lieutenant.  He has continued to earn satisfactory years of federal service. 
 

The applicant’s participation record in the Reserve for the relevant years appears 
in the tables below (as taken from his CG-4175s).  The first table shows his participation 
arranged in accordance with a July 2nd anniversary date.  The second table shows his 
participation arranged in accordance with an October 1st anniversary date. 

 

 
ANNIVERSARY  
YEAR  
BEGINNING  
JULY 2 
7/2/95-7/1/96 
7/2/96-7/1/97 
7/2/97-7/1/98 
7/2/98-7/1/99 

INACTIVE DUTY DRILLING POINTS BY MONTH  

 

Jul 
4a 
4 
 
0 

 

Aug 
4a 
4 
 
18 d 

 

Sep 
4a 
 
 
6 

 

Oct 
4 
 
 
4 

 

Nov 
4b 
 
 
4 

 

Dec 
4 
 
4 
0 

 

Jan 
4 
 
2 
4 

 

Feb 
4 
 
4 
4 

 

Mar 
4 
 
2 
0 

 

Apr 
4 
 
0 
0 

 

May 
4 
 
4 
2 

 

Jun 
4 
 
0 
0 

 

Drill 
Pts. 

48 
8 
16 
42 

 

Mbr-
ship 
Pts. 

15 
15 
15 
15 

 

ADT 
Pts. 

 

Ann. 
Total 

11 b 
0 
0 
12 d 

71c 
23 
31 
69 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADT 
Pts. 

 

Ann. 
Total 

 

Drill 
Pts. 

 

Mbr-
ship 
Pts. 

 

Jul 
4 
 
0 
 

 

Dec 
4 
 
4 
0 

 

Jun 
4 
 
0 
0 

 

Mar 
4 
 
2 
0 

 

Feb 
4 
 
4 
4 

 

Apr 
4 
 
0 
0 

 

Jan 
4 
 
2 
4 

 

Oct 
4 
 
 
4 

Sep 
 
 
6 
 

Nov 
4b 
 
 
4 

May 
4 
 
4 
2 

Aug 
4 
 
18 d 
 

INACTIVE DUTY DRILLING POINTS BY MONTH 

 
ANNIVERSARY 
YEAR 
BEGINNING 
OCT. 1 
10/1/95-9/30/96 
10/1/96-9/30/97 
10/1/97-9/30/98 
10/1/98-9/30/99 
 
Note: Monthly points shown in gray blocks are taken from Leave and Earnings Statements (LESes) because there 
are no CG-4175s in the record for these years.  Months during which the applicant was in the IRR and performed no 
drills are cross-hatched.  Months for which no specific data are available are blank. 
 
a The summary record of annual points earned shows that the applicant earned 48 inactive duty drill points during the 
year.  Since his LESes show that he earned 36 points during the rest of the year, he must have earned 12 during 
these three months. 
b A January 1996 LES shows that the applicant earned his active duty for training (ADT) points from November 27 to 
December 2, 1995. 
c  In  1996 and  prior  years,  each  reservist  could  receive  a maximum  of  60  points,  not  including ADT  points,  toward 
retirement even if he performed more than 45 drills.  Therefore, the total for this year is 71 instead of 74. 
d In August 1998, the applicant also earned 12 ADT points. 
e Total is likely inaccurate because no specific data are available for July, August, and September 1999. 
 

11 b 
0 
12 d 

 

70 
15 
67 
33 e 

44 
0 
40 
18e 

15 
15 
15 
15 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  7,  2003,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the 
Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    In  making  this  recommendation,  he  relied  on  a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  
 
 
CGPC stated that the application was not timely and that the Coast Guard had 
complied with policy  and federal law in  determining that the applicant’s anniversary 
date from 1987 to 2000 was July 2nd, because that is the day he took the oath of office in 
the Reserve.  CGPC alleged that this date was “consistently used by personnel manag-
ers  to  determine  Applicant’s  compliance  with  published  performance  standards.”  
CGPC stated that the applicant did not have satisfactory years in 1997 and 1998 because 
he  earned  only  23  points  in  1997  when  he was  on  the  IRR  and  needed  27  points  and 

because  he  earned  only  31  points  in  1998  when  he  had  returned  to  active  status  and 
needed 50 points. 
 
CGPC pointed out that in August 1997, when the applicant was notified that he 
 
had not obtained a satisfactory year of federal service for the anniversary year ending 
on July 2, 1997, he chose to seek a waiver rather than challenge the Coast Guard’s deter-
mination of his point total or anniversary date. 
 
 
CGPC  alleged  that  in November  1998,  rather  than  transfer  the  applicant  to  the 
ISL,  which  would  have  prevented  him  from  drilling  and  earning  satisfactory  years 
toward retirement, the Coast Guard gave the applicant “another chance” by allowing 
him to remain in an active status so that he could continue to drill and earn more satis-
factory  years  of  service.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  in  an  active  status  as  a 
commissioned officer in the Reserve from July 2, 1987, through June 30, 2000, but was 
not selected for promotion by two separate LCDR selection boards, whose deliberations 
in choosing the best qualified officers for promotion are confidential, as provided under 
the U.S. Code. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 20, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 
Guard  invited  him  to  respond  within  30  days.    On  September  4,  2003,  the  applicant 
responded.  
 
 
The applicant argued that his application was timely because he did not discover 
the  administrative  errors  that  devastated  his  career  until  2002.    The  applicant  also 
alleged that the Coast Guard is “disingenuous” in arguing untimeliness since it failed to 
modify its regulations regarding Reserve participation to comply with a 1967 statute, 10 
U.S.C.  12303,  until  May  2003.3    Moreover,  he  argued,  even  if  his  application  was 
untimely, the Board should find that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations in light of the Coast Guard’s errors and changes in policy. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to maintain his record properly 
in  accordance  with  10  U.S.C.  102044  and  so  should  not  receive  the  presumption  of 
regularity that it normally receives under the Board’s rules. 

                                                 
3    In  10  U.S.C.  12303,  Congress  allowed  the  President  to  order  any  member  of  the  Reserve  who  is  not 
participating  satisfactorily  to  active  duty  for  up  to  one  year.    Because  there  is  no  requirement  in  the 
statute that the President actually exercise this authority, the applicant’s argument that the Coast Guard 
was somehow negligent and untimely in not revising its regulations earlier fails. 
4  Title 10 U.S.C. 10204 requires the Coast Guard to maintain personnel records for each Reserve member 
with  the  following  information:    physical  condition,  dependency  status,  military  qualifications,  civilian 
occupational skills, availability for service, and a record of “the number of members of each class of each 
reserve  component  who,  during  each  fiscal  year,  have  participated  satisfactorily  in  active  duty  for 

 
 
The applicant argued that the Coast Guard erred in arguing that his anniversary 
year was properly determined by the date he took his Oath of Office.  He alleged that 
the anniversary year is determined by a reservist’s drilling status.  He alleged that the 
Coast Guard “did not comply with policy or law in issuing the 2 July 1987 anniversary 
date” because on that day he was on active duty instead of inactive duty. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the error in the form letter he received in August 1997 
indicating that he would have had to earn 50 points to have a satisfactory year rather 
than 27 points caused him not to notice the changed anniversary date stated in the let-
ter.    He  also  alleged  that  he  had  actually  “earned  sufficient  points  for  the  year,  but 
because  of  my  Anniversary  date  change,  those  points  were  shifted  to  the  previous 
year.”5  He also repeated his allegation that the letter was insufficient as an inducement 
to  participate  satisfactorily  since  it  was  issued  after the  end  of  the  calendar  year.    He 
argued that the Coast Guard had a duty to warn him that his participation was unsatis-
factory before the end of the anniversary year. 
 
 
The applicant argued that his anniversary year ending in 1998 also would have 
been satisfactory if his anniversary date had properly remained October 1st.6  He also 
argued that the August 1998 was just as deficient as an inducement to participate satis-
factorily as the August 1997 letter because it was issued after the anniversary year was 
over. 
 
The applicant alleged that CGPC’s claim that he was given “another chance” in 
 
1998 is wrong.  He alleged that he “drilled satisfactorily in 1999 because I discovered the 
change to my Anniversary date and complied with the changed Anniversary date.”  He 
also  alleged  that  CGPC’s  statement  that  he remained  in  an  active  status  from  1987  to 
2000 is clearly wrong because he received letters in 1997 and 1998 transferring him to 
the ISL. 
 
 
 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Chapter  4.D.  of  the  Reserve  Administration  and  Training  Manual  (RATMAN), 
COMDTINST M1001.27A, in effect from May 14, 1991, to March 27, 1997, required offi-
                                                                                                                                                             
training  and  inactive  duty  training  with  pay.”    Since  the  Coast  Guard  has  maintained  a  record  of  the 
applicant’s annual participation and satisfactory years of service, the applicant’s argument that the Coast 
Guard has violated this statute fails. 
5    This  allegation  does  not  bear  out  because,  as  shown  in  the  tables  above,  the  applicant  earned 
insufficient  points  for  the  anniversary  year  ending  in  1997  based  on  either  an  October  1  or  July  2 
anniversary date. 
6   This allegation is borne out in the tables above. 

cers in the IRR to obtain at least 27 satisfactory federal service points per anniversary 
year.  Members in the Selected Reserve were required to earn 50 points.  The RATMAN 
defines an anniversary year as extending “from the date of entry or reentry to the day 
preceding the anniversary of entry or reentry.”  Chapter 9.D.4.a. of the RATMAN pro-
vided  that  a  “reservist  who  finds  discrepancies  on  CG-4175  should  initiate  a  request, 
with verifying documents, to Commandant (G-RA-1) via the district commander (r).” 
 

Chapter 4.E.1. of the RATMAN provided that an officer of the Selected Reserve 
who,  in  the  opinion  of  his  commanding  officer,  failed  to  participate  satisfactorily  by 
attending prescribed drills should be counseled.  If no improvement was observed, the 
officer  could  be  transferred  to  the  IRR  or  his  commission  could  be  revoked.    The 
RATMAN did not require such counseling to be document. 
 
Chapters  4.A.2.  and  4.A.6.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (RPM),  COMDTINST 
 
M1001.28, in effect from March 27, 1997, to May 17, 2003, required officers in either the 
Selected Reserve or the IRR to obtain at least 50 satisfactory federal service points per 
anniversary  year.    The  RPM  defines  the  anniversary  date  as  “the  date  the  member 
entered into active service or into active status in a Reserve component.” 
 

Chapter 4.B.1 of the RPM required commands to “monitor member participation 
and evaluate performance of prescribed training requirements to determine compliance 
with the [performance and participation requirements].  Every effort shall be made to 
correct performance deficiencies by timely counseling of members who are not partici-
pating  satisfactorily.    Commands  shall  document  all  counseling  in  accordance  with 
Preparation  and  Submission  of  Administrative  Remarks  (CG-3307),  COMDTINST 
1000.14  (series),  and  enclosure  (6)  to  Personnel  Pay  and  Procedures  Manual,  HRSIC-
INST M1000.2 (series).  Counseling for unexcused IDT drill absences shall start with the 
first absence.” 
 
Chapter 1.C.3. of the RPM states that reservists on the ISL may be ordered to active 
 
duty in time of war or national emergency but “may not train for pay or retirement points, are not 
eligible for promotion, and do not accrue credit for qualifying years of service for retirement.” 
 
 
tion to the next rank by two selection boards shall be discharged. 
 

Title 14 U.S.C. § 740 provides that officers who have been passed over for selec-

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of 

1. 

 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the day the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record that he wants corrected.  10 U.S.C. § 
1552(b).  Although the applicant alleged that he discovered certain administrative errors 
by the Coast Guard in 2002, he has known that he was deemed not to have earned satis-
factory  years  of  service  toward  retirement  in  1997  and  1998—the  alleged  error  in  his 
record—since August 1998.  Therefore, his application was untimely.   

 
3. 

4. 

 
The  Board  may  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to do so.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  To determine whether it is in the interest 
of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should consider the reasons for 
the delay and conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.7  The applicant alleged 
that he was not aware of certain administrative errors by the Coast Guard until recently.  
The record contains evidence of administrative errors by the Coast Guard that could not 
easily have been discovered by the applicant.  In addition, the record contains several 
CG-4175s  from  the  early  1990s  showing  his  anniversary  date  as  October  1  instead  of 
July 2.  Accordingly, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the stat-
ute of limitations in this case. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in 1996 the Coast Guard arbitrarily changed his 
anniversary date from October 1 to July 2.  The RATMAN defined an anniversary year 
as extending “from the date of entry or reentry to the day preceding the anniversary of 
entry or reentry.”  The record indicates that the applicant entered the Selected Reserve 
on July 2, 1987.  There is no contrary evidence in the record.  The more specific defini-
tion  under  the  RPM  in  effect  after  March  1997—“the  date  the  member  entered  into 
active  service  or  into  active  status  in  a  Reserve  component”—does  not  affect  this 
determination since the applicant clearly entered active status in a Reserve component 
(the  SELRES)  on  July  2,  1987.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  proper 
anniversary date from 1987 until his separation from the Reserve officer corps on June 
30, 2000, was July 2. 
 
The record contains several CG-4175s showing that in the early 1990s, the 
 
Coast Guard erroneously recorded the applicant’s anniversary date as October 1.  How-
ever,  a  “Computation  of  Retirement  Credit  Points”  dated  June  15,  1992,  in  the  appli-
cant’s  record  shows  that  he  was  told  that  he  had  satisfactorily  participated  in  the 
Reserve in the anniversary year from July 2, 1990, through July 1, 1991, by earning 72 
points.  However, in light of the erroneous  CG-4175s provided annually to the appli-

5. 

                                                 
7  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of  Defense,  68  F.3d  1396,  1405  (D.C.  Cir.  1995);  Allen  v.  Card,  799  F.  Supp.  158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992). 

6. 

8. 

cant, the Board finds that in the early 1990s he could reasonably have been misled to 
believe that his anniversary date was October 1. 
 
On  August  25,  1997,  the  Coast  Guard  notified  the  applicant  that  he  had 
 
earned  only  23  points  during  the  anniversary  year  that  ended  on  July  2,  1997,  which 
was insufficient for a satisfactory year toward retirement.  In this letter, the Coast Guard 
erroneously used the new requirement of 50 points for members on the IRR under the 
RPM,  whereas  the  RATMAN  standard  of  27  points  actually  applied  since  the  appli-
cant’s anniversary year had begun while the old manual was in effect.  The applicant 
alleged that the Coast Guard’s error in citing the point requirement caused him not to 
notice the July 2 anniversary date cited in the letter.  However, the applicant’s annual 
point total—23—met neither requirement.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded that 
the Coast Guard’s error could have prevented the applicant from challenging the deter-
mination that the year was unsatisfactory if he actually believed that it was satisfactory.  
Nor  is  the  Board  persuaded  that  the  applicant  could  have  failed  to  notice  the  July  2 
anniversary date since the letter arrived in August 1997, prior to October 1, which is the 
date  the  applicant  alleges  that  he  reasonably  believed  to  be  his  anniversary  date.  
Assuming that he believed his anniversary year to be ending on October 1, he could not 
have failed to notice that he was receiving a letter announcing that the anniversary year 
had been unsatisfactory one month before he expected it to end.  Therefore, the Board 
finds that as of August 1997, the applicant was on notice that his anniversary date was 
July 2. 
 
The applicant alleged that if the Coast Guard had applied the anniversary 
 
date  that  it  misled  him  to  believe  was  correct—October  1—he  would  have  earned  a 
satisfactory  year  of  service  for  the  anniversary  year  ending  in  1997.    However,  the 
record indicates that from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1997, the applicant was in 
the  IRR  and  performed  no  drills  at  all,  earning  only  the  15  points  every  reservist 
receives  for  membership  annually.    Therefore,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the 
Coast  Guard’s  error  in  issuing  him  CG-4175s  with  the  October  1  anniversary  date 
caused him to receive an unsatisfactory year for retirement purposes in 1997.  Further-
more, the Board notes that in failing to challenge his point total in 1997 and requesting a 
waiver instead, the applicant may be deemed to have accepted the Coast Guard’s deter-
mination regarding his unsatisfactory year and anniversary date as accurate.  The appli-
cant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  failure  to  receive  a 
satisfactory year of service in 1997 was either an error or injustice. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  discrepancy  in  his  anniversary  date  also 
caused him to receive an unsatisfactory year in 1998.  From July 2, 1997, to July 1, 1998, 
he earned only 31 points, whereas 50 were required since he had chosen to return to the 
SELRES from the IRR.  It is true that if his anniversary year were calculated from Octo-
ber 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998, the applicant would have earned 67 points, which 
would have been more than sufficient for a satisfactory year.  However, the Board has 

7. 

found that the applicant was on notice that his anniversary date was July 2 as of August 
1997, before he left the IRR.  Therefore, the Board finds that upon rejoining the SELRES 
in November 1997, the applicant knew or should have known that his anniversary date 
was July 2 and that he would have to earn 50 points before July 1, 1998, to have another 
a satisfactory year of federal service entered in his record.  Furthermore, the Board notes 
that in failing to challenge his point total timely in August 1998, the applicant may be 
deemed to have accepted the Coast Guard’s determination regarding his unsatisfactory 
year and anniversary date as accurate.  The applicant has not proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that his failure to receive a satisfactory year of service in 1998 was 
either an error or injustice. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that when his record was reviewed by LCDR selec-
tion boards in 1997 and 1998, it erroneously showed him to be on the ISL.  However, the 
applicant  did  not  fail  of  selection  for  promotion  in  1997.    He  was  passed  over  for 
promotion  to  LCDR  in  1998  and  1999  by  the  promotion  year  (PY)  1999  and  2000 
selection boards, respectively. Although the applicant was sent a letter in 1997 announc-
ing his pending transfer to the ISL on November 15, 1997, his transfer to the ISL was 
canceled  on  November  7,  1997,  before  it  went  into  effect.    Therefore,  there  is  no  evi-
dence in the record that when the applicant’s record was reviewed by the LCDR selec-
tion board from October 26 to November 4, 1998, it erroneously indicated that he was 
on the ISL.   
 

9. 

10. 

The Coast Guard sent the applicant another letter announcing his transfer 
to  the  ISL  on  November  10,  1998,  following  his  second  year  of  unsatisfactory  partici-
pation.  Although the Coast Guard allowed the applicant to continue drilling so that he 
could  earn  a  satisfactory  year,  the  record  indicates  that  the  November  10,  1998,  letter 
was not actually canceled until May 11, 1999.  Therefore, it is possible that during that 
six-month period his record erroneously indicated he was in the ISL.  However, since 
the November 10, 1998, letter was canceled on May 1, 1999; since he continued to drill 
in  an  active  status  during  those  months;  and  since  he  received  a  satisfactory  year  of 
service for the anniversary year ending on July 1, 1999, the record does not support his 
allegation  that  when  he  was  considered  for  promotion  to  LCDR  a  second  time  in 
November 1999, the selection board erroneously believed he was on the ISL.  Therefore, 
the applicant has failed to prove that his record contained erroneous information in his 
record about his status in the SELRES when he was passed over for promotion in 1998 
and 1999.  In addition, in light of findings 7 and 8 above, he has failed to prove that his 
record  contained  erroneous  information  about  his  level  of  participation  in  1997  and 
1998 when the selection boards reviewed it. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  letters  he  received  in  August  1997  and 
August 1998 were the only attempts by the Coast Guard to induce his participation in 
the Reserve and that, because they arrived after the anniversary years had ended, they 
were insufficient to meet the requirements of the RPM and the RATMAN.  He submit-

11. 

ted a statement from a retired Reserve captain who indicated that his practice was to 
counsel reservists about their unsatisfactory participation and to document that coun-
seling in their records.  While both the RATMAN and the RPM required commands to 
attempt to induce participation, the applicant has submitted no evidence to support his 
allegation that no one in the Coast Guard made any attempt to induce his participation 
during those two years.  The lack of an administrative entry documenting such coun-
seling in the applicant’s record does not persuade the Board that no one informed the 
applicant of the requirement to earn points during those years.  Moreover, the applicant 
was an officer, not an enlisted member, and was responsible for knowing the require-
ments  and  meeting  them.    Documentation  of  efforts  to  induce  participation  was  not 
required under the RATMAN, and Chapter 4.B.1. of the RPM required documentation 
only  of  performance  problems  or  unexcused  absences  from  drills,  not  of  efforts  to 
encourage participation.8  While it might be difficult for the applicant to prove that no 
one ever told him about the point requirements and what measures he needed to take to 
meet them while he was in the IRR in 1997 and after he rejoined the SELRES in 1998, the 
difficulty of finding proof does not relieve an applicant of the burden of proof.  Absent 
strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard  officials  have 
performed their duties lawfully, correctly, and in good faith.9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

12.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

                                                 
8  There is no evidence in the record that the applicant’s command was unhappy with his performance or 
that he had any unexcused absences from drills in anniversary years 1997 and 1998. 
9 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

military record is denied. 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

_______________________________ 
 Janis Monk 

_______________________________ 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

_______________________________ 
 Thomas H. Van Horn