DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-109 
 
  

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Ulmer, 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  application  was 
docketed on July 7, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s father's completed application 
and the applicant's military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 15, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant's father requested that the applicant's military record be corrected 
to show that her death occurred in the "line of duty" (while in a duty status).  The Coast 
Guard determined that the applicant was not in a duty status at the time of her death 
and issued a Casualty Report to that effect.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  was  a  reservist  not  serving  on  full-time  active  duty.    The 
applicant's father alleged that the finding by the Headquarters' Decedent Affairs Officer 
that the applicant was not in a duty status at the time of her death was erroneous. He 
noted that the applicant's commanding officer (CO) and the Commander, United Coast 
Guard District 13 ruled that the applicant's death occurred in the line of duty.    
 
 
the applicant's death as follows: 

In a statement to the Board, the applicant's father described the circumstances of 

 

 

 

[The applicant] was killed in a car accident where she was a passenger in 
her own car.  Her friend who was driving was an active duty CG [Coast 
Guard] member he was also killed in the accident. 

[The applicant] was on IDT [inactive duty training] for the weekend and 
had just left the unit to pick up her friend and give him a ride back to Port 
Angeles  to  his  ship  which  was  underway  for  operations.    The  accident 
occurred at 2001 hours on Jan 11, 2003.  [The applicant] was scheduled for 
drill  that  weekend  starting  at  0600  hours  01-11-03  and  ending  at  1700 
hours 01-12-03.  She had orders to start title 10 (active duty) at 0700 on 01-
13-03.   
 
[The  applicant's]  unit  ruled  her  death  as  line  of  duty  and  sent  out  a 
message  stating  so.    Their  reason  was  that  her  unit  is  on  alert  and  was 
deploying shortly and [she] was subject to immediate recall, and that she 
was  under  unit  orders  for  the  entire  weekend.    [The  applicant]  was 
required to have her cell phone with her.  She was allowed to depart the 
duty  station  with  the  understanding  that  she  could  be  recalled  at  any 
moment and was not released from duty . . .   
 
The  13th  Coast  Guard  District  agreed,  but  [Headquarters]  denied  the 
claim  and  said  since  [the  applicant]  had  left  work  and  went  by  her 
residence she was no longer covered as active duty or on reserve status, so 
she was denied any coverage or compensation.   
 
The [Headquarters] ruling was made by a civilian employee who did not 
have  an  understanding  of  the  status  or  working  situation  of  a  Port 
Security Unit, and who used a very strict reading of the Title 10 Law.  I 
also  received  an  Honorable  Service  Citation  from  the  Secretary  of 
Transportation  stating  in  part  "Who  died  while  in  the  service  of  our 
Country as a Member of the United states Coast Guard."  I believe this is 
an acknowledgment as to [the applicant's] "line of Duty" death status . . .  

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on April 22, 2002.  She was a 
reservist not on full-time active duty.  She was assigned to Port Security Unit 313 where 
she  completed  one  day  of  a  two-day  weekend  drill  with  her  unit  located  in  Tacoma, 
Washington.    Later  that  evening,  January  11,  2003,  she  was  killed  in  an  automobile 
collision. She was a passenger in her own automobile that was being used to transport 
an  active  duty  friend  from  the  Seattle-Tacoma  Airport  to  his  duty  station  in  Port 
Angeles, Washington.  (The friend was also killed in the accident.)   According to the 

accident  report,  the  collision  occurred  at  2010  on  January  11,  2003  in  Sequim, 
Washington.   
 
In  the  early  morning  hours  of  January  12,  2003,  the  applicant's  unit  informed 
 
Commander, Coast Guard District 13 of the applicant's death.  The message also stated 
that the CO had determined the death to be "line of duty."  The CO explained that the 
applicant was "active duty, [member] on IDT status with Title [10] recall to commence 
on 12 January 03 [in support of] of Enduring Freedom/Southern Watch."  
 
 
On  January  13,  2003,  the  Decedent  Affairs  Program  Manager  prepared  a 
Casualty Report.  He determined the applicant's death to be "line of duty" but that she 
was not in a duty status at the time of her death.  (The applicant's father pointed out 
several  inaccuracies  in  the  Casualty  Report,  such  as  incorrectly  listing  the  applicant's 
place of birth, race, sex, and place of entry into the military service.  He also stated that 
the cause and circumstance should read, "Member was a passenger in a vehicle" rather 
than the phrase "members vehicle hit guard rail". ) 
 
 
As stated in the Coast Guard's advisory opinion (discussed later), on January 14-
17, 2003, several email conversations about the applicant's duty status occurred between 
the applicant's unit and Headquarters program managers. The ultimate determination 
by  the  Coast  Guard  was  that  based  on  current  law  and  regulations,  [the  applicant's] 
death did not take place while she was in a duty status. 
 
On February 18, 2003 the applicant's father filed a claim with the Department of 
 
Transportation  for  the  costs  of  the  applicant's  funeral  ($7,680),  and  the  one  time 
government death benefit ($6,000).  Apparently, the claim was denied.   
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On November 26, 2003, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard 
 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
father's request.   
 
 
TJAG  argued  that  the  applicant's  father  had  failed  to  carry  his  burden  of 
persuasion  and  should  have  his  request  denied.  He  also  argued  that  absent  strong 
evidence to the contrary, government officials are presumed to have carried out their 
duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  In recommending denial of the request, he 
further stated the following: 
 

Federal  law  determines  what  benefits  are  available  to  Coast  Guard 
Reservists  and  under  what  conditions.    Unlike  active  duty  members, 
reservists  "put  on"  and  "take off"  their  military  status.    Whenever  a  case 

involving one of these "citizen soldiers" is involved, it is always necessary 
to determine the individual's status as a threshold question.    In this case 
[the applicant] was acting as a citizen at the time of her death.  There is 
nothing pejorative in this determination.  She did nothing wrong and in 
fact was helping an active duty Coast Guardsmen when she died, but she 
did so in her own private capacity -- not under orders . . . [The applicant] 
completed  her  military  duties  when  her  drill  ended.    Had  she  driven 
directly home, she would have been considered in a duty status until she 
arrived [there].  When she decided to do something different, she stopped 
being  [SNYN  applicant's  name],  Coastie  and  became  [applicant's  name] 
citizen, even if her voluntary actions as a citizen were to lend a hand to an 
active duty Coast Guard friend.   

 
TJAG stated that the Coast Guard engaged in an internal struggle between what 
 
it  would  have  liked  to  do  and  what  its  duty  was  under  the  law.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant  was  a  valued  member  of  the  Coast  Guard,  but  the  law  does  not  allow  the 
Coast Guard to pay the benefits requested by the applicant's family. 
 
 
TJAG  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion,  comments  from  the 
Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).   CGPC recommended denial 
of this application on the following grounds: 
 

Reserve  Policy  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1001.28,  date  March  28,  1997.  
This was the version of the Reserve Policy Manual in effect at the time of 
[the applicant's] accident.  IDT consists of single and multiple drills (a drill 
is a four hour period of duty), and appropriate duty performed at Coast 
Guard units, the Selective Service System, or other inter-service units.  IDT 
is  designed  to  promote  military  readiness,  professional  development  or 
advancement, and provide military structure for administrative services.  
Travel time to and from a regularly scheduled drill or training site is not 
creditable toward minimum duration criteria.   
 
Per  Title  37  Section  206  [United  State  Code]  --  Reserves;  member  of 
National Guard; inactive-duty training, a member of a reserve component 
of  a  uniformed  service  who  is  not  entitled  to  basic  pay,  is  entitled  to 
compensation  for  a  regular  period  of  instruction  that  the  member  is 
scheduled  to  perform  but  is  unable  to  perform,  because  of  physical 
disability  resulting  from  an  injury,  illness,  or  disease  incurred  or 
aggravated while traveling directly to or form that duty or training.  
 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  COMDTINST  M1000.6A,  Chapter 
18.A.4.(6), Death Occurring While Traveling to and from Active Duty for 
Training  and  Inactive  Duty  Training.    Any  member  of  the  Coast  Guard 

Reserve,  who,  when  authorized  or  required  by  competent  authority, 
assumes an obligation to perform active duty for training or IDT and who 
dies from an injury incurred while proceeding directly to or directly from 
such active training or IDT.  Section 4.b. Eligibility.  The member's death 
must have occurred while on active duty, active duty training or IDT.  In 
case of IDT, the gratuity is payable if death occurs within 120 days and is 
the result of injury received during training.  The [applicant] is not eligible 
for death gratuity benefits.  She was not in a duty status as prescribed in 
the Personnel Manual, because she was not authorized, under orders, to 
transport the active duty member to his unit from the airport. 

 
 
CGPC  attached  several  documents  to  his  comments.    One  was  the  Casualty 
Report  from  the  applicant's  unit  to  Commander,  Coast  Guard  District  Thirteen  dated 
January 12, 2003.   Paragraph B. of the message stated the following:   
 

Active Duty, [member] on IDT status with Title 10 recall to commence on 
12  Jan  03  ISO  Enduring  Freedom/Southern  watch.    [Member]  was 
transporting crew-member of USCG active . . . returning from training to 
meet  cutter  in  Port  Angeles,  WA.    Immediate  cause  of  death:    Traffic 
Accident. 

 
 
An  email  message  from  an  Integrated  Support  Command  Seattle  LCDR  to  the 
Headquarters Compensation Division described drills at the applicant's unit as follows: 
 

The PSU drills for officers begin Friday afternoon, for enlisted personnel 
Saturday morning, and end Sunday evening.  One of the unit's past CO's 
identified  operational  requirements  that  justified  the  24-hour  drill  days.  
This  is  similar  to  Reservists  assigned  to  cutters  who  receive  training 
underway  for  the  weekend.    Having  the  Reservists  on  call  for  the 
weekend allows them to have all members available for standing watches 
([the applicant] was included in the watch schedule), underway ops, night 
shoreside security patrols including areas outside their training site, and 
completing PQS requirements.  Op tempo has increased since the unit has 
been notified (classified) as to operational status.  Members know they are 
on call with the unit throughout the weekend and can be called to report 
at  any  time.    In  this  case,  [the  applicant]  was  authorized  by  the  PSU  to 
depart  the  reporting  area  and  transport  her  friend  to  his  duty  station, 
CGC, ACTIVE, in Port Angeles. 

 
 
A  Headquarters  Compensation  Division  Commander  (CDR)  replied  to  the 
LCDR's message stating that the applicant was not in a duty status at the time of her 
death.  He also stated the following: 
 

I  don’t  think  that  sending  personnel  home  from  a  drill  site  on  a  unit 
training weekend keeps them in any kind of duty status where they could 
be involuntarily ordered back into an IDT status, even if the unit plan is to 
reassemble  the  following  day  .  .  .  Nowhere  in  the  RPM  did  I  find  any 
mention  of  or  authority  for  granting  liberty  or  permissive  duty  to  a 
member ordered to perform IDT.   In my experience (over 20 years as an 
RPA) a reservist who departs an IDT site is, in fact, not in an IDT status 
except when traveling on a reasonably direct route home following release 
from single or multiple drills, unless such departure is pursuant to TAD 
orders. 
 
If a PSU CO thinks it necessary to keep everyone in a duty status for unit 
readiness on unit IDT weekends, then unit members must be required to 
remain  overnight  and  not  [be]  excused  to  go  home  at  the  end  of  day's 
training.  Once members are authorized to depart an IDT site, their status 
is different from reservists who augment cutters underway - where there 
is obviously no opportunity to go ashore.  Failure to require all hands to 
remain aboard their IDT site or to provide written authority for duty away 
from an IDT site sets us (the CG and Reserve) up for ambiguous situations 
such as we have with the untimely death of this young CG reservist.   

 
CGPC noted that the distance between the applicant's residence and her drill site 
 
was approximately 14 miles.  He submitted a map showing that the accident occurred 
approximately 85 miles past the applicant's home.  CGPC stated, "The record indicates 
that [the applicant] departed her unit after completing her drill and traveled to Seattle-
Tacoma  International  Airport,  the  opposite  direction  from  her  residence,  and  then 
proceeded towards Port Angeles.   

 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 22, 2003, the Board received the applicant's father's response to the 
views of the Coast Guard.  He stated that he has met his burden of proof and that he 
believed that the Coast Guard "failed to conduct a proper and thorough investigation 
into the matter." 
 
 
The applicant's father stated that the applicant was under official orders during 
the drill weekend.  As proof of this he submitted a plan of the month for June 2003 with 
the  words  "This  document  constitutes  official  Military  Orders  per  Commandant 
Instructions."    He  stated  that  all  earlier  plans  of  the  month  were  like  the  one  he 
submitted.  He further stated the following: 
 

[The  applicant]  was  not  released  from  duty,  but  was  ordered  by  her 
supervisors to stay in phone contact for immediate recall to the unit, but 
was allowed to leave to assist the active duty Coast Guard member with 
transportation to his ship.  [The applicant] was being deployed to the Gulf 
and all members were on recall status, the Admin staff was working extra 
hours and days to prepare the proper paperwork for their members.  The 
Coast Guard fails to see that an order by a superior places [the applicant] 
in an active duty status at the time of her accident.   

 
 
The  applicant's  father  argued  that  PSU  units  are  different  from  normal  Coast 
Guard Reserve units because of their 24-hour watches, which subject personnel to recall 
during  the  drill  weekend  from  Friday  night  to  1800  hours  or  later  on  Sunday  night.  
Therefore,  he  asserted  that  the  applicant's  death  occurred  in  the  line  of  duty  (duty 
status) and that relief should be granted. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) (COMDTINST M1001.28B) 
 
 
Article 2.A.1 states that IDT  (Inactive Duty for Training) consists of single and 
multiple  drills,  and  appropriate  duty  performed  at  Coast  Guard  Units,  the  Selective 
Service  System,  or  other  inter-service  units.    IDT  is  designed  to  promote  military 
readiness professional development or advancement, and provide military structure for 
administrative  services.    It  further  states  that  travel  time  to  and  from  a  regularly 
scheduled drill or training site is not creditable toward minimum duration criteria.  This 
provision  further  states  that  IDT  is  a  period  of  duty,  under  orders,  scheduled  for  the 
performance  of  training  augmentation,  formal  training  and  administration  (including 
SWE participation), and/or other activities in support of Coast Guard missions.   
 
 
 

Article 6.A.2b.  Defines duty status as follows: 

For purposes of this chapter [INCAPACITATION BENEFITS]:  A member 
is  considered  to  be  in  a  duty  status  during  any  period  of  active  duty  or 
inactive  duty;  while  traveling  directly  to  or  from  the  place  that  duty  is 
performed;  while 
the 
commencement  of  duty,  or  remaining  overnight  between  successive 
periods  of  inactive  duty  at  or  in  the  vicinity  of  the  site  of  the              
inactive duty.   

remaining  overnight 

immediately  before 

 

Line  of  duty  is  defined,  in  Article  6.A.2.g.,  as  a  finding  after  all  available 
information  has  been  reviewed  that  determines  an  injury,  illness,  or  disease  was 
incurred or aggravated while in an authorized duty status, and was not a preexisting 
condition or due to gross negligence or misconduct or the member.   

 

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 section 1552 of 

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

 
2.    The  applicant  was  a  reservist  who  performed  monthly  weekend  drills 
(inactive duty training (IDT)) with a PSU (port security unit).  On January 11, 2003, she 
had  completed  the  first  day  of  her  two-day  scheduled  weekend  drill,  when  she  was 
killed in an automobile accident at approximately 8:00 p.m. (2000 hours) more than 50 
miles from her drill site.  The Coast Guard has refused to pay the death gratuity and 
funeral expenses because of its determination that the applicant was not in a duty status 
at the time of her death. 

 
3.      Based  on  the  regulations,  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not 
commit an error or injustice in this case by finding that the applicant was not in a duty 
status at the time of her death.   Article 6.A.2.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual  (RPM) 
states that "a member is considered to be in a duty status during any period of active 
duty  or  inactive  duty  while  traveling  directly  to  or  from  the  place  that  duty  is 
performed; while remaining overnight immediately before commencement of duty; or 
[while]  remaining  overnight  between  successive  periods  of  inactive  duty  at  or  in  the 
vicinity of the site of the inactive duty."   For the reasons discussed below, the Board 
finds  that  the  applicant  did  not  meet  any  of  the  circumstances  of  Article  6.A.2.b,  and 
therefore was not in a duty status at the time of her death. 

 
4.  The applicant had completed her drill at approximately 1630 on January 11, 
2003, and had left the duty site.   The plan of the month for June 2003, submitted by the 
applicant's father, shows that Saturday drills commenced at 0730 and secured at 1630.  
The Sunday drills commenced at 0745 and secured at 1630.  If the same held true for the 
January 11 and 12 drills, as the applicant's father stated, the applicant's January 11, 2003 
drill secured (members were dismissed) at 1630 that afternoon.   

 
5. There is no evidence that the applicant was traveling directly to or from duty 
at the time of her death.  The evidence is persuasive that the applicant had secured from 
her drill at approximately 1630 on January 11, 2003 and either had not traveled directly 
to her home from duty or had traveled beyond her home.  As the Coast Guard pointed 
out,  the  accident  occurred  more  than  50  miles  from  her  duty  station.    The  distance 
between  the  applicant's  residence  and  her  duty  site  was  approximately  14  miles,  as 
stated in the advisory opinion.  

 
6.  A  member  may  be  in  a  duty  status  while  remaining  overnight  immediately 
before  commencement  of  duty,  or  while  remaining  overnight  between  successive 
periods of inactive duty at or in the vicinity of the site of the inactive duty.  Since the 
applicant was more than 50 miles from her duty site at 2000 hours on the date of her 
death,  she  was  neither  in  close  proximity  to  her  duty  site  nor  was  she  near  the 
commencement of her duty, which was scheduled for 0745, the next morning, January 
12, 2003.  She, therefore, met none of the requirements listed in the RPM for being in a 
duty status.  

 
7.    The  applicant's  father  argued  that  the  applicant  was  not  released  from  her 
January  11  drill,  because  she  was  ordered  by  her  supervisors  to  stay  in  telephone 
contact  with  them  for  immediate  recall.    According  to  the  father,  she  was  allowed  to 
leave  to  assist  an  active  duty  member  with  transportation.  The  LCDR  from  the 
applicant's unit never stated that the applicant was in a duty status after the drill had 
secured.    Instead,  she  stated  that  the  applicant  was  subject  to  recall.  The  LCDR's 
statement  that  the  applicant  was  authorized  by  PSU  to  depart the  reporting  area  and 
transport her friend to his duty station simply means that if an emergency arose the unit 
knew that the applicant would not be available. 
 

8.    However,  the  Court  in  Andrews  v.  United  States,  4  Cl.  Ct.  114  (1983), 
recognized the military's control or right to control a reservist as a factor in determining 
a member's duty status.  In Andrews, the plaintiff had orders for a two-day period of 
inactive duty away from his home drilling site.  After the training exercise secured the 
first day, the plaintiff, who had missed dinner made a short "chow run" off site and was 
injured on the return.  The Court ruled for the plaintiff stating that  

 
the military clearly had the right to control plaintiff. It cannot be doubted 
that had plaintiff  left  Camp Smith without  authorization he would have 
been  subject  to  military  disciplinary  action.    He  was  billeted  at  Camp 
Smith  and  was  expected  to  be  there  at  all  times  unless  authorized  to  be 
else  where  .  .  .  It  cannot  be  said  that  plaintiff  reverted  to  his  normal 
civilian status during this abbreviated "chow run" . . .  
 
In  the  present  case  no  evidence  has  been  presented  describing  the  amount  of 
control the Coast Guard had over the members of the unit once the drill was secured.  
For  instance,  there  is  no  evidence  whether  the  members  of  the  unit  were  required  to 
remain on base or near the duty site, what activities they could or could not participate 
in  once  the  drill  had  secured,  or  what  would  happen  to  them  if  they  could  not  be 
reached by telephone.  Even if the applicant was told that it was okay to transport her 
friend to another town, it was not for government business.  She was not given orders 
for this mission, as required by Article 2.B.5 of the RPM, which states, "Reservist who 

are  ordered  to  locations  other  than  their  normal  drill  sites  shall  be  placed  on  TDY 
orders."   

 
9.  The father's argument that the applicant was never released from the January 
11  drill  conflicts  with  the  June  2003  partial  plan  of  the  month  for  the  PSU,  which  he 
stated was like the January 2003 plan of the month. The June 2003 partial plan of the 
month shows that Saturday drills secured at 1630 and there is nothing in the plan of the 
month  at  all  about  members  staying  in  telephone  contact  or  limiting  their  movement 
once  drill  had  secured.    There  is  insufficient  evidence  establishing  that  the  applicant 
was under military control at the time of her death. 

 
10.    There  is  some  evidence  that  the  applicant  had  orders  to  begin  a  period  of 
active duty on January 12 or 13, 2003.  However, there has been no evidence presented 
that she had commenced serving on these orders at the time of her death. 

 
11.    The  applicant's  father  also  raised  the  issue  that  the  applicant's  CO  and 
Commander, Coast Guard Group Thirteen, determined that her death was in the line of 
duty, meaning she was in a duty status.  However, this was an interim determination as 
permitted under Article 6.A.2.f. of the RPM. The Commandant or his delegate makes 
final determination with respect to duty status.   
 

12. 

The applicant's father has failed to prove an error or injustice on the part 
of the Coast Guard.  Accordingly, the applicant’s father's request for the correction of 
the applicant's military record should be denied.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  for  the  correction  of  the  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Thomas F. Muther, Jr. 

record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG (deceased) is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier