DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2005-055
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
AUTHOR: Andrews, J.
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 Chair docketed the
case on January 25, upon receipt of the applicant’s application and military records.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated October 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant, a former reservist, asked the Board to correct his records so that he
can be paid for drills he performed on October 2 and 3, 2004. He alleged that due to an
administrative error by the Coast Guard, he was not informed that he had been dis-
charged from the Reserve until November 2004 and performed his scheduled drills in
October 2004 in good faith.
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD
On September 2, 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Reserve for six years. He
attended boot camp and was released to inactive duty in the Selected Reserve (pay
status). On June 30, 2004, his command sent the Coast Guard Personnel Command
(CGPC) a recommendation that he be administratively discharged, as follows:
I believe this is the best course of action for both the member and the Coast Guard based
on the following. After multiple counseling sessions with [the applicant], he is not
planning to honor his contract with the Coast Guard. He refuses to attend or complete
“A” School, which is part of his contract requirements and has failed to comply with
mobilization requirements. Also, [he] experienced severe family and financial hardships
while attending Basic Training, which are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. I
believe that he did not realize the full scope of his obligations to the Coast Guard and
now, with the additional burdens placed on the member, it is best that he be discharged.
On September 28, 2004, CGPC issued orders discharging the applicant as of
September 27, 2004, with a general discharge under honorable conditions for “Unsatis-
factory Performance-Burden to Command.”
On February 22, 2005, the applicant’s command informed CGPC that the appli-
cant had performed drills after his discharge date because the command had not
received his discharge orders in time and had ordered him to attend drills on October 2
and 3, 2004. The command stated that the applicant had completed multiple drills on
both October 2 and 3, 2004—after his discharge date—through no fault of his own. The
command stated that the applicant could not be paid for the drills since his discharge
date in the database preceded the drill dates.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On April 25, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request.
The JAG submitted a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.
CGPC explained that when it generated the applicant’s discharge orders on Sep-
tember 28, 2004, they were sent by email to the applicant’s command. However, “the
point of contact was unavailable to relay the separation orders to the appropriate per-
sonnel at the unit, leaving the command unaware that Applicant’s discharge had been
processed.” Therefore, the command ordered the applicant to drill on the weekend of
October 2 and 3, 2004, and though he did drill, he was not paid for the drills. CGPC
concluded that through no fault of his own, the applicant drilled for two days without
knowing he had been discharged. CGPC recommended that the Board correct the
applicant’s date of discharge to October 5, 2004, so that the applicant can be paid.
On April 26, 2005, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast
Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days. No response was received.
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:
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552. The application was timely.
2.
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Coast Guard erred in ordering him to perform multiple drills on October 2 and 3, 2004,
after he had been discharged. CGPC has admitted that through no fault of his own, the
applicant performed multiple drills on both October 2 and 3, 2004, but could not be paid
for them because the database shows that he was discharged on September 27, 2004.
3.
Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s date of
discharge to October 5, 2004, and by ordering the Coast Guard to pay him any amount
he may be due as a result of the multiple drills he performed on October 2 and 3, 2004.
The application of former SN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction
of his military record is granted as follows:
ORDER
Jordan S. Fried
His date of discharge from the Reserve shall be October 5, 2004, instead of
September 27, 2004. The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount he may be due as a
result of this correction and the multiple drills he performed on October 2, 2004, and
October 3, 2004.
Steven J. Pecinovsky
Kathryn Sinniger
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-154
This final decision, dated June 20, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a chief warrant officer (CWO) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his record to show that from October 22 through November 4, 2003, he served on active duty for training (ADT) rather than inactive duty training (IDT). CGPC directed the Board’s and the applicant’s attention to a DVA website, www.gibill.va.gov, which states that a member may be...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-014
On October 3, 2006, the PSC issued the applicant’s retirement orders, which state that he was “hereby transferred to the United States Coast Guard Retired Reserve with pay as a MST1 effective FEBRUARY 28, 2006.” In addition, the PSC notified the applicant in a letter retroac- tively dated February 27, 2006, that he had completed 20 years of satisfactory service and was “eligible to receive retired pay when [he] reach[ed] age 60 on February 28, 2006.” A database print-out dated December 14,...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-149
of the RPM, “satisfactory participation” required attendance at 43 IDT drills and completion of at least 12 days of active duty or ADT, which was known as the annual training (AT) requirement, during an anniversary year. Applicant’s orders … correctly applied this 120-day rule because the duty occurred within the 120-day period after AY98 terminated.” CGPC stated that the orders show that the applicant’s ADT in April 1998 allowed her to meet her AT requirement for AY 1998 even though it...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-220
This final decision, dated June 12, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a chief health services specialist who was medically retired from the Reserve on April 5, 1997, with a 30% disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), asked the Board to correct her time in service, awards, and Reserve drill points for her inactive duty training (IDT (paid drills)), active duty training (ADT), special active duty training...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-096
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant stated that the Coast Guard denied his 2008 request to have the 18 days of leave restored, even though he qualified for SLA. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 12, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted a memorandum in which he adopted the comments provided by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-096
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant stated that the Coast Guard denied his 2008 request to have the 18 days of leave restored, even though he qualified for SLA. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 12, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted a memorandum in which he adopted the comments provided by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command...
In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that he was counseled that he was signing a 2-year reenlistment contract when he integrated from the Coast Guard Reserve into the regular Coast Guard on April 1, 2003.1 He also alleged that the aforementioned enlistment contract was blank with respect to the term of the enlistment and that he did not initial block 13a to certify that he did not have any more questions regarding the enlistment. In addition, the applicant’s CO stated in a...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-144
However, his record contains no page 7 documenting the results of alcohol abuse screening or treatment. Regarding the page 7 completed by the applicant’s commanding officer on July 22, 2005, the JAG stated that the Coast Guard’s Office of Military Personnel—rather than CGPC’s Advancement and Separations Branch—establishes all military personnel management policies. Pursuant to Article 20.B.2.f., the applicant’s command was required to document the alcohol incident on a page 7 in his record.
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2005-131
This final decision, dated April 26, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, now serving as a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Marine Corps Reserve, alleged that while he was serving in the Coast Guard Reserve, a drill point that he earned during his anniversary year ending February 27, 1980, was erroneously recorded as having been earned during the prior anniversary year, which ended on February 27, 1979. However, his commanding officer noted on...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2005-131
This final decision, dated April 26, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, now serving as a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Marine Corps Reserve, alleged that while he was serving in the Coast Guard Reserve, a drill point that he earned during his anniversary year ending February 27, 1980, was erroneously recorded as having been earned during the prior anniversary year, which ended on February 27, 1979. However, his commanding officer noted on...