DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-141 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 
applicant’s request for correction on August 1, 2005, upon receipt of his application and 
Coast Guard military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 26, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant, who retired from the Reserve on November 8, 1984, because of a 
physical disability, asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD 214.  He alleged 
that it erroneously failed to reflect all of his military service in that it did not total more 
than 20 years.  In addition, he alleged that it failed to reflect 2 years, 7 months, and 16 
days  of  Navy  sea  service;  two  awards  he  had  received;  and  military  schools  he  had 
attended.  He alleged that he discovered these errors on or about May 28, 2003. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  upon  passage  of  recent  laws  allowing  concurrent 
receipt of military retirement pay and disability pay,1 he asked the Coast Guard if he 
                                                 
1  Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1414,  which  was  enacted  in  2001,  veterans  with  at  least  20  years  of  service  and 
disability ratings from the DVA of at least 50% may receive concurrent retired and disability pay (CRDP).  
Under  10  U.S.C.  § 1413a,  which  was  enacted  in  2002,  veterans  with  at  least  20  years  of  service  and 
combat-related disabilities may receive combat-related special compensation (CRSC). As the applicant’s 
disabilities are not combat-related, he is clearly not eligible for CRSC. 

was eligible and was told that he was not because he did not have 20 years of service to 
qualify for military retirement pay.  He stated that he spoke with and asked three dif-
ferent people about his total military service and that each of them cited a different total 
amount of military service.  These and other conversations with Coast Guard personnel 
led him to realize that block 12 of his DD 214 contained a number of errors concerning 
his time in service. 
 
 
The applicant also asked that block 13 of his DD 214, which is supposed to list all 
decorations and awards received for all periods of service, be corrected to include his 
Coast Guard Reserve Meritorious Service Ribbon with bronze star and a Coast Guard 
Shot  Gun  Marksmanship  Ribbon.    In  addition,  the  applicant  asked  that  the  following 
courses that he completed be added to block 14, “Military Education,” which currently 
states “none”:  
 

•  Aviation Structural Mechanic Class A (8 weeks, 7/11/52); 
•  Naval School Airship (non-pilot) Class C (4 weeks, 6/18/54); 
•  Outboard Motor School (2 weeks; 4/12/74);  
•  Officer & Chief Leadership School (2 weeks, 7/29/77);  
• 
•  Recruiting School (3 weeks, 6/2/80); and 
•  Reserve Administration School (2 weeks, 6/21/81). 

Instructor Training School (2 weeks, 1/18/80);  

 
 
The applicant stated that in 2004, he received a letter from the Coast Guard with 
a  Computation  of  Retirement  Point  Credits  showing  that  upon  his  retirement  he  had 
accumulated  19  years,  4  months,  and  8  days  of  satisfactory  service  toward  a  Reserve 
retirement.  He stated that his applications for both CRDP and CRSC were denied based 
on the Coast Guard’s determination that he did not have 20 years of satisfactory service 
toward retirement. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he believes his record should show 20 years of service 
because, before he joined the Coast Guard, he served in the Navy from October 4, 1951, 
through October 3, 1955, when he was released into the Navy Reserve.  He stated that a 
Statement of Creditable Service dated March 31, 1981, showed that he had 15 years, 8 
months, and 27 days of total service.  Therefore, he alleged, since he served on extended 
active duty from May 1, 1980, through November 8, 1984, by the date of his retirement 
he had accumulated 20 years, 3 months, and 5 days of total service. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
From  October  4,  1951,  through  October  3,  1954,  the  applicant  served  on  active 
duty in the Navy.  He advanced to AM3/E-4.  Upon his release into the Navy Reserve, 
                                                                                                                                                             
 

his rating was AM3, but his Navy DD 214 notes that in the Reserve his rating would be 
AMS3.  His Navy DD 214 also shows that he had performed 2 years, 7 months, and 16 
days of “foreign and/or sea service.”  The back of his discharge certificate shows that he 
was stationed at the Naval Air Station in Guam.   
 

From October 4, 1954, through October 3, 1959, the applicant was a member of 
the Navy Reserve.  A Record of Naval Reserve Service shows that he rarely drilled, per-
formed no active duty for training, and did not earn any “satisfactory” years of service 
toward a Reserve retirement because he did not earn at least 50 points in an anniversary 
year.  

 
On June 30, 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as an FI1/E-
6.  Thereafter, he drilled and performed active duty for training regularly, gaining satis-
factory years of service toward a Reserve retirement in each anniversary year.  On April 
1, 1977, he advanced to FIC/E-7.   

 
On May 1, 1980, the applicant began serving on extended active duty.  He was 

assigned to the Coast Guard Training Center as a trainer at the Fire School. 

 
On January 19, 1983, the applicant suffered a myocardial infarction.  Thereafter, 
he  was  evaluated  by  a  medical  board  but  returned  to  active  duty  because  the  board 
found that the applicant was “fit for duty and requires no work limitations.”  The Board 
reported that the applicant “has no complaints referrable to his cardiovascular system.  
He does not have dyspnea or chest pain and has returned to work.  He is continuing a 
program of physical activity.” 

 
On March 28, 1984, the applicant sought help for a severe headache and slurred 
speech.    He  was  hospitalized  and  diagnosed  with  an  intracerebral  hemorrhage.    Five 
days after he was discharged, his speech slurring became constant, and he was rehos-
pitalized.  CT scans revealed that the same part of his brain was bleeding again.  He was 
diagnosed with an acute parietal infarction. 

 
On  July  24,  1984,  a  medical  board  found  that  the  applicant  was  “expected  to 
never be fit for full duty.”  The board reported that the applicant had continued to suf-
fer slurred speech and headaches since the cerebral infarction and that he had also been 
diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type II. 

 
On November 8, 1984, the applicant was retired from active duty with a 70% dis-
ability rating after being properly processed under the Coast Guard’s Physical Disabil-
ity Evaluation System.  His DD 214 shows the following information in block 12: 
 

BLOCK  CONTENTS 
12.a. 
12.b. 

Date Entered AD This Period 
Separation Date This Period 

DD 214 ENTRY 
80  05  01  (May 1, 1980) 
84  11  08  (November 8, 1984) 

12.c. 
12.d. 
12.e. 
12.g. 

Net Active Service This Period 
Total Prior Active Service 
Total Prior Inactive Service 
Sea Service 

04 yrs., 06 mos., 08 days 
04 yrs., 10 mos., 14 days 
10 yrs., 01 mo., 17 days 
00 yrs., 00 mos., 00 days 

 

On November 9, 1984, the applicant’s name was placed on the Temporary Dis-
ability Retired List (TDRL).  Upon his disability retirement, the applicant had completed 
16 years of “satisfactory" service toward a Reserve retirement, including 4 years in the 
Navy; 11 years from June 30, 1973, through June 29, 1984; and 1 year for the more than 
50 points he earned from June 30 through November 8, 1984.  Because he did not earn at 
least 50 points each year he was a member of the Navy Reserve, those 4 years did not 
count as satisfactory years toward a regular Reserve retirement. 

 
Following his disability retirement, the applicant filed a claim for disability bene-
fits with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA).  The DVA also awarded the appli-
cant a 70% combined disability rating based on a 60% rating for severe arteriosclerosis 
with history of interior and anterior wall myocardial infarction; 20% for Diabetes Mel-
litus; and 10% for aphasia, secondary to intracerebral hemorrhage.  However, the DVA 
compensated the applicant at the 100% rate because he was deemed to be unemploy-
able based on his service-connected disabilities. 
 
 
On February 17, 1989, following a periodic physical examination, the CPEB rec-
ommended that the applicant be permanently retired with a 70% combined disability 
rating, based on a 60% rating for arteriosclerotic heart disease following his heart attack, 
a 10% rating for mild Diabetes Mellitus, and a 10% rating for his slurred speech result-
ing from his cerebral hemorrhage.  The applicant did not object to the findings and rec-
ommendation  of  the  CPEB.    On  April  10,  1989,  the  applicant  was  informed  that  his 
name had been moved from the TDRL to the Permanent Disability Retired List with a 
70% disability rating. 
 
 
On  May  7,  2004,  the  Coast  Guard  sent  the  applicant  a  revised  Computation  of 
Retirement Point Credits with a letter noting that a satisfactory year toward retirement, 
which requires 50 points to be accumulated during an anniversary year, differs from a 
year for pay purposes, which requires mere membership.  The letter pointed out that 
the applicant had earned 16 satisfactory years toward retirement (20 years are required).  
The  letter  also  pointed  out  that,  as  the  applicant  enlisted  on  June  30,  1973,  and  had 
exactly  eight  years  of  prior  service,  his  pay  base  date  was  June  30,  1965.    Therefore, 
when he retired on November 8, 1984, he had less than twenty years of service for pay 
purposes.    The  letter  stated  that  his  time  for  pay  purposes  amounted  to  19  years,  4 
months, and 8 days. 
 

On May 21, 2004, the applicant wrote to the Personnel Service Center.  He noted 
that he had been working to try to gain eligibility for concurrent receipt of retirement 
and disability pay.  He stated that he had recently received a Computation of Retire-

ment  Point  Credits  and  that  he  agreed  with  the  figures  therein.    The  attached  form, 
dated March 31, 1981, shows that his pay base date was June 30, 1965 (which is calcu-
lated  by  subtracting  all  days  of  military  service  from  the  current  date),  and  that  his 
active  duty  base  date  (which  is  calculated  by  subtracting  all  days  of  active  duty  and 
active duty for training from the current date) was August 14, 1975.  Based on the June 
30, 1965, pay base date, the form indicates that as of March 26, 1981, the applicant had 
15 years, 8 months, and 27 days of service for pay purposes. 
 
 
chart show[s] you had nineteen years and four months of active time.” 
 
Records Regarding Disputed Ribbons in Block 13 of the DD 214 
 

On December 14, 2004, CGPC informed the applicant that a “creditable service 

  On August 26, 1978, the Commander of the Third Coast Guard District awarded 
the applicant the Coast Guard Reserve Meritorious Service Ribbon with a bronze star in 
lieu of a second award. 

 
On February 22, 1984, the applicant was found “UQ,” or unqualified, during a 
shotgun course.  However, he qualified as a marksman, “MM,” with both a pistol and 
rifle.  His rifle and pistol ribbons are noted in block 13 of his DD 214.  

 

Records Regarding Disputed Military Education in Block 14 of the DD 214 
 
 
completed the following military training courses: 
 

Endorsed  orders  and  certificates  submitted  by  the  applicant  indicate  that  he 

•  Aviation Structural Mechanic School Class A, July 1953; 
•  Naval School Airship (non-pilot) Class C, June 1954; 
•  Outboard Motor School, April 1974; 
•  Senior Petty Officer Leadership & Management School, July 1977;  
• 
•  Recruiter Training School, June 1980; and 
•  Reserve Unit Administration Course, June 1981. 

Instructor Training, January 1980; 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  November  29,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 
 
submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Chair close the case administra-
tively because of certain corrections the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) had 
made  to  the  applicant’s  DD  214  with  a  correction  form  DD  215  after  reviewing  his 
application.  The JAG attached and adopted a memorandum on the case prepared by 
CGPC. 
 

CGPC stated that it has issued the applicant a DD 215, dated November 3, 2005, 

with the following changes to block 12 of his DD 214: 
 

 

DD 215 ENTRY 
No change 
No change 
No change 
04 yrs., 08 mos., 17 days 
10 yrs., 1 mo., 14 days 
No change 

DD 214 ENTRY 
80  05  01  (May 1, 1980) 
Date Entered AD This Period 
Separation Date This Period 
84  11  08  (Nov. 8, 1984) 
Net Active Service This Period  04 yrs., 06 mos., 08 days 
04 yrs., 10 mos., 14 days 
Total Prior Active Service 
Total Prior Inactive Service 
10 yrs., 01 mo., 17 days 
None 
Sea Service 

BLOCK  CONTENTS 
12.a. 
12.b. 
12.c. 
12.d. 
12.e. 
12.g. 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  changes  in  blocks  12.d.  and  12.e.  resulted  from  a  new 
Statement  of  Creditable  Service  (SOCS)  provided  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center.  
CGPC  stated  that  no  change  had  been  made  to  block  12.g.  because  that  block  is  not 
supposed  to  be  cumulative.    Therefore,  only  sea  service  performed  during  the  enlist-
ment is entered in this block, and the applicant’s foreign and sea service in the Navy 
may not be included on his Coast Guard DD 214.   
 
 
The  DD  215  also  added  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  Meritorious  Service  Ribbon 
with  bronze  star  to  block  13  of  the  DD  214.    Regarding  the  applicant’s  request  for  a 
Shotgun Marksmanship Ribbon, CGPC stated that the Coast Guard does not issue such 
a ribbon. 
 

The  DD  215  added  Recruiting  School  and  Reserve  Administration  School  to 
block 14 of the DD 214.  CGPC explained that block 14 is not cumulative and so is sup-
posed to include only those courses attended during the period covered by the DD 214.  
Therefore, only the two courses that the applicant completed between May 1, 1980, and 
November  8,  1984—Recruiter  Training  School  and  the  Reserve  Unit  Administration 
Course—should appear in block 14 of the DD 214.   
 

The  SOCS  provided  by  CGPC,  which  is  dated  November  2,  2005,  included  the 

following periods of active duty: 

Began Active Duty 

Ended Active Duty 

 

 

10/4/51 
3/31/74 
4/13/75 
9/7/75 
8/23/76 
9/12/76 
6/11/77 
7/17/77 
9/19/77 
5/29/78 
9/5/78 
12/27/78 

 

10/3/55 
4/12/74 
4/25/75 
9/19/75 
9/3/76 
9/24/76 
6/11/77 
7/29/77 
9/30/77 
6/30/78 
9/29/78 
1/26/79 

Time on Active Duty 

Years          Months          Days 
04 
00 
13 
00 
13 
00 
13 
00 
12 
00 
00 
13 
01 
00 
13 
00 
12 
00 
00 
02 
25 
00 
00 
00 

00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
01 
00 
01 

Running Total 

 

 

04  00  13 
04  00  26 
04  01  09 
04  01  21 
04  02  04 
04  02  05 
04  02  18 
04  03  00 
04  04  02 
04  04  27 
04  05  27 

4/8/79 
7/1/79 
1/6/80 
5/1/80 
Rough totals 
Equivalent totals 
Combined total 

4/20/79 
8/24/79 
1/18/80 
11/8/84 

00 
00 
00 
04 
08 
08 
09 

00 
01 
00 
06 
09 
09 
02 

13 
24 
13 
08 
175 

25 

05 m, 25 d 

04  06  10 
04  08  04 
04  08  17 
09  02  25 

 

The SOCS also shows the following periods of inactive duty: 

Time on Inactive Duty 

Years           Months          Days 

Running Total 

04 
00 
01 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
05 
05 
10 

00 
09 
00 
04 
11 
00 
08 
01 
01 
07 
02 
02 
02 
02 
04 
03 
56 

01 

00 
01 
00 
11 
03 
08 
16 
05 
19 
28 
04 
27 
11 
10 
11 
12 
166 

16 

 

 

 

04  09  01 
05  09  01 
06  01  12 
07  00  15 
07  00  23 
07  09  09 
07  10  14 
08  00  03 
08  08  01 
08  10  05 
09  01  02 
09  03  13 
09  05  23 
09  10  04 
10  01  16 

 
 
 
 

Began 

Inactive Duty 

10/4/55 
6/30/73 
4/13/74 
4/26/75 
9/20/75 
9/4/76 
9/25/76 
6/12/77 
7/30/77 
10/1/77 
7/1/78 
9/30/78 
1/27/79 
4/21/79 
8/25/79 
1/19/80 
Rough totals 
Equivalent totals 
Combined total 

Ended 

Inactive Duty 

10/3/59 
3/30/74 
4/12/75 
9/6/75 
8/22/76 
9/11/76 
6/10/77 
7/16/77 
9/18/77 
5/28/78 
9/4/78 
12/26/78 
4/7/79 
6/30/79 
1/5/80 
4/31/80 

4 y, 8 m 

5 m, 16 d 

 
 
The SOCS shows that the applicant’s “Total Creditable Active Duty” is 9 years, 
2 months,  and  25  days  and  that  his  “Total  Creditable  Service  for  Pay”  is  19  years, 
4 months, and 9 days.  It does not provide a total for inactive duty. 
 
 
Neither the JAG nor CGPC addressed the applicant’s request that the Board cor-
rect his record to show that he had 20 years of service so that he would be eligible for 
concurrent receipt of disability and retirement pay (CRDP). 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
The applicant responded twice to the actions and recommendation of the Coast 
Guard:  once when he received the DD 215 directly from the CGPC and once when he 
received a copy of the JAG’s submissions from the BCMR.  
 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  concurred  with  the  SOCS  in  that  it  shows  that  he 
accumulated 9 years, 2 months, and 25 days of active duty.  However, he repeated his 
allegation that his total creditable service for pay amounted to 20 years, 1 month, and 25 
days.  Regarding the change to block 12.d. on the DD 215, the applicant noted that it 
says  4  years,  8  months,  and  17  days,  but  he  had  exactly  4  years  of  active  duty  in  the 
Navy.  Regarding the change to block 12.e. on the DD 215, the applicant stated that his 
calculations show that he had 10 years, 11 months, and 0 days of inactive service. 
 
 
Regarding block 13, the applicant stated that a ribbon for recruiters was author-
ized shortly after he completed Recruiter Training.  He asked that this ribbon be added 
to block 13 of his DD 214.  Regarding block 14, the applicant again asked that Outboard 
Motor  School,  Officer  &  Chief  Leadership  School,  and  Instructor  Training  School  be 
added to this block.  
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the SOCS erroneously indicates that his rank 
was AM3 rather than AMS3 while he in the Navy Reserve; that his rank was unknown 
from June 30, 1973, through September 24, 1976; and that from September 25, 1976, until 
his  retirement,  his  rank  was  FTC/E7.    The  applicant  stated  that  in  fact  his  rank  was 
AMS3  while  he  was  in  the  Navy  Reserve  and  FI1/E6  from  June  30,  1973,  until  he 
advanced  to  FIC/E7  (not  FTC)  on  April  1,  1977.    In  support  of  these  allegations,  the 
applicant submitted (a) a copy of his Navy DD 214 noting his rating change to AMS3; 
(b) a copy of his June 30, 1973, enlistment contract, which shows that he was enlisted as 
an FI1/E-6; (c) copies of various documents showing that he retained this rate and was 
consistently recommended for reenlistment; and (d) and a copy of a letter dated March 
17, 1977, which shows that his advancement to chief firefighter (FIC/E-7) was author-
ized as of April 1, 1977.  In addition, block 12.h. of the applicant’s DD 214 shows that his 
date of pay grade was April 1, 1977. 
 
 
excellent work. 
 

The  applicant  also  submitted  many  letters  of  appreciation  he  received  for  his 

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: 
 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 

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

1. 

2. 

The  applicant  alleged  numerous  errors  on  his  DD  214,  which  is  dated 
November 8, 1984.  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 stated that he discovered the alleged errors 
in 2003, the Board finds that he knew or should have known about the alleged errors 
when he received the DD 214.  Therefore, his original application was untimely.  How-
ever,  the  Coast  Guard  responded  to  the  application  by  issuing  the  applicant  a  new 
SOCS and a DD 215 on November 2 and 3, 2005, respectively.  As the applicant contests 
the accuracy of both of these new military records and his complaints with respect to 
these new records are timely, the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to excuse 
the untimeliness of the original application pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and to con-
sider all of his allegations on the merits. 

 
3. 

 
 The applicant served in the Navy for exactly 4 years from October 4, 1951, 
through  October  3,  1955.    He  was  a  member  of  the  Navy  Reserve  for  exactly  4  years 
from October 4, 1955, through October 3, 1959.  Finally, he was a member of the Coast 
Guard Reserve from June 30, 1973, through November 8, 1984, which—when calculated 
year by year, month by month, and day by day—amounts to  
 

•  11 years for the period June 30, 1973, through June 29, 1984;  
•  04 months for the period June 30, 1984, through October 29, 1984; and  
•  10 days for the period October 30, 1984, through November 8, 1984.   

 
Therefore,  with  exactly  8  years  of  prior  service  in  the  Navy  and  Navy  Reserve,  the 
applicant’s maximum total time as a member of the military is 19 years, 4 months, and 
10 days.  Although the applicant alleged that he had more than 20 years of creditable 
service, his calculations cannot be correct given that his total time as a member of any 
military service is absolutely no more than 19 years, 4 months, and 10 days.  Moreover, 
the military services calculate time for various purposes by various methods in accor-
dance with regulation.  Therefore, this simple calculation by the Board does not prove 
that the Coast Guard’s calculations of time for various purposes are erroneous. 
 
 
The applicant disputed the “Total Creditable Service for Pay” shown on 
the SOCS issued on November 2, 2005:  19 years, 4 months, and 9 days.  Calculations of 

4. 

creditable service for pay are determined by regulation.  Appendix C of the Personnel 
and Pay Procedures Manual requires creditable service for pay to be calculated as fol-
lows:  the date of separation minus the date of entry plus one “inclusive” day.  Thus, the 
applicant’s creditable service for pay includes his 8 years in the Navy and Navy Reserve 
plus his time in the Coast Guard Reserve calculated in accordance with the rule: 
 

Date of separation 
Date of enlistment 

 
1984  11 
        –  1973  06 

08 
30 

 
Because  one  cannot  subtract  30  from  08,  a month  of  days  (30  days)  is  taken  from  the 
months  column,  which  is  therefore  reduced  by  one  month,  so  that  the  subtraction  is 
performed as follows: 
 

 

 

Date of separation 
Date of enlistment 
 
Plus one inclusive day    +   
Creditable Service for Pay      11  04 

1984  10 
 
        –  1973  06 
     
    11  04 

 

 

38 
30 
08 
01 
09 

 
Adding the applicant’s 8 years of creditable service in the Navy and Navy Reserve to 
this total brings the applicant’s Total Creditable Service for Pay to 19 years, 4 months, 
and 9 days, just as the SOCS shows.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Total Creditable 
Service for Pay on the applicant’s most recent SOCS has been calculated in accordance 
with  regulation  and  is  not  erroneous.    Although  it  differs  by  one  day  from  the  total 
military service calculated by the Board in finding 3, the military services calculate time 
for  various  purposes  by  the  methods  prescribed  by  regulation,  and  along  with  the 
effects  of  leap  years,  the  methods  prescribed  by  regulation  sometimes  produce 
unexpected results. 
 

5. 

Moreover, the Board notes that “creditable service for pay” is not equiva-
lent  to  “satisfactory  service  for  retirement  purposes.”    To  be  eligible  for  a  Reserve 
retirement, a reservist needs 20 years of satisfactory service.  Only anniversary years in 
which the reservist has earned at least 50 points count as satisfactory years of service for 
retirement purposes.  10 U.S.C. § 12732.  Creditable service for pay is used to determine 
a  member’s  seniority  (number  of  years  in  military  service)  and  it  affects  his  pay  rate 
within his pay grade; it is not relevant to his eligibility for retirement pay. 
 
 
 The SOCS issued by the Coast Guard on November 2, 2005, shows that 
the applicant served a total of 9 years, 2 months, and 25 days on active duty throughout 
his military career in the Navy, Navy Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve.  The applicant 
stated  that  he  does  not  dispute  this  amount  as  his  total  active  duty.    However,  the 
applicant did dispute the figure for Total Prior Active Service in block 12.d. of his DD 
214.  DD 214 entries are determined by the regulations in COMDTINST M1900.4.  Chap-

6. 

 
7. 

ter 1-C of this manual provides the instruction for entering data in the various blocks.  
The instruction for block 12.d. states the following:  “Enter the years, months, and days 
of service creditable for basic pay for all active service prior to the date entered in block 
12.a.  This computation will include all periods of active duty training performed in any 
branch of the Armed Forces.”  The “Running Total” column in the table at the top of 
page  6  shows  that  when  the  applicant  entered  active  duty  on  May  1,  1980,  he  had  4 
years,  8 months,  and  17  days  of  prior  active  service.    Therefore,  the  DD  215  that  the 
Coast Guard issued on November 3, 2005, is correct with respect to block 12.d.  
 

The applicant also disputed the amount of Total Prior Inactive Service in 
block 12.e. of his DD 214.  Chapter 1-C of COMDTINST M1900.4 provides the following 
instruction  for  completing  block  12.e.:    “Enter  the  years,  months,  and  days  of  service 
creditable for basic pay for inactive service completed prior to the date entered in block 
12.a.  Active Duty Training computation must be subtracted from the total prior inac-
tive  service  computation,  since  the  ADT  computation  is  cited  as  part  of  block  12.d.”  
Therefore, pursuant to this regulation, Total Prior Inactive Service in block 12.e. is cal-
culated by subtracting the Total Prior Active Service in block 12.d. from the member’s 
Total Creditable Service for Pay prior to the date of entry on active duty in block 12.a.  
As stated in finding 4, the applicant’s latest SOCS correctly shows that his Total Credit-
able  Service  for  Pay  is  now  19  years,  4  months,  and  9  days.    Since  block  12.e.  is  sup-
posed  to  show  only  inactive  service  prior  to  the  period  covered  by  the  DD  214,  the 
active  duty  shown  in  block  12.c.  of  the  DD  214  must  also  be  subtracted  from  a  Total 
Creditable  Service  for  Pay  calculated  after  the  member’s  separation.    Subtracting  the 
active duty reflected on the DD 214 in blocks 12.c. (Net Active Duty This Period) and 
12.d. (Total Prior Active Service) results in the following calculation: 

 

 

 

 

 
Total Creditable Service for Pay as of 11/2/2005 
Net Active Duty This Period (block 12.c.) 
 
Subtotal2 
 
Total Prior Active Service (block 12.d.) 
Total Prior Inactive Service 3 
 
 
Therefore,  calculated  in  accordance  with  regulation,  the  applicant’s  Total  Prior 
Inactive Service in block 12.e. of his DD 214 should be 10 years, 1 month, and 14 days.  
This is the amount of inactive service he had completed when he began extended active 
duty on May 1, 1980.  Therefore, the DD 215 issued on November 3, 2005, is correct with 
respect to block 12.e.  Block 12.e. on the applicant’s DD 214 has been properly corrected 
by  the  DD  215  in  accordance  with  Chapter  1-C  of  COMDTINST  M1900.4.    This  cal-

19 
      –  04 
 
14 
      –  04 
 
10 

04 
06 
10 
08 
01 

09 
08 
01 
17 
14 

 

 

 

                                                 
2  As in finding 4, to subtract 6 months from 4 months, one must take 1 year (12 months) from the year 
column and so subtract 6 months from 16 months. 
3  As in finding 4, to subtract 17 days from the 1 day in the subtotal, one must take 1 month (30 days) from 
the month column and so subtract 17 days from 31 days. 

culation  of  Total  Prior  Inactive  Service  may  seem  erroneous  since,  if  one  adds  all 
periods of inactive service shown on the SOCS as in the table on page 7, one arrives at a 
total of 10 years, 1 month, and 16 days.  However, various calculation methods produce 
different results, which are also often affected by leap years.  As the above calculations 
show, the method prescribed by regulation produces the result shown on the DD 215. 

 
8. 

The applicant alleged that block 12.g. of his DD 214 should show 2 years, 
7 months, and 16 days of Navy sea service.  His Navy DD 214 shows 2 years, 7 months, 
and 16 days of “foreign and/or sea service,” apparently for his service at the naval air 
station on Guam.  However, Chapter 1-C of COMDTINST M1900.4 provides the follow-
ing instructions for completing block 12.g. on a DD 214:  “Enter the years, months, and 
days  of  sea  service  from  the  date  entered  in  block  12.a.  through  the  date  entered  in 
block 12.b.”  (Similar instructions are provided for entering the figure for foreign service 
in  block  12.f.)    Blocks  12.a.  and  12.b.  on  the  DD  214  correctly  show  the  first  and  last 
dates of the period of active duty covered by the DD 214:  May 1, 1980, and November 
8,  1984.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  that  he  performed  any  sea  service  or  foreign 
service between May 1, 1980, and November 8, 1984.  Therefore, blocks 12.f. and 12.g. 
on the DD 214 are correct and in accordance with regulation in showing that the appli-
cant performed no foreign service or sea service from May 1, 1980, to November 8, 1984. 

 
9. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct block 13 of his DD 214 by adding 
a Coast Guard Reserve Meritorious Service Ribbon with bronze star and a Coast Guard 
Shot  Gun  Marksmanship  Ribbon.    The  Coast  Guard  added  the  Reserve  Meritorious 
Service Ribbon to block 13 when it issued the DD 215 on November 3, 2005.  The Coast 
Guard further stated that it has no marksmanship ribbon for proficiency with a shot-
gun.  The Board’s review of the Medal and Awards Manual confirms this claim.  The 
manual includes ribbons for proficiency with a pistol or rifle, both of which are already 
noted on the applicant’s DD 214, but none for proficiency with a shotgun. 

 
10. 

In his response to the Coast Guard’s recommendation, the applicant asked 
that a Recruiting Ribbon be added to block 13 of his DD 214.  He alleged that he should 
be eligible because he completed Recruiter Training in June 1980, shortly after he began 
serving on extended active duty.  Chapter 5.B.12.a.(1) of the Medals and Awards Man-
ual states that to be eligible for a Recruiting Service Ribbon a member on active duty 
must “successfully complete a PCS tour (at least two consecutive years of duty) in recruiting [to 
be] eligible for the award.  The award is retroactive to those personnel who have successfully 
completed  at  least  two  consecutive  years  of  duty  in  recruiting  on  or  after  1 January  1994.”  
Chapter  5.B.12.a.(2)  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  states  that  “[i]nactive  duty  Reserve 
personnel  who  complete  recruiter  personnel  qualification  standards  and  drill  at  or  augment  a 
recruiting  office  for  a  minimum  of  two  years.    (Subsequent  awards  are  not  authorized.    All 
service after 1 January 1980 may be credited.)”  Although the applicant was a reservist, he was 
serving on active duty when he completed Recruiter Training.  Therefore, the eligibility criteria 
in Chapter 5.B.12.a.(1) seem to apply, and the applicant has not shown how he is eligible for the 
ribbon under these criteria since none of his service was performed “on or after 1 January 1994.”  

In addition, the applicant’s record indicates that he served as a trainer at Fire School rather than 
as a recruiter during his extended active duty.  Moreover, since the applicant did not raise this 
issue in his original application, the Coast Guard has not had an opportunity to address it.  The 
Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is 
entitled to the Recruiting Service Ribbon. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct block 14 of his DD 214 by adding 

 
11. 

the following military courses: 
 

•  Aviation Structural Mechanic Class A (8 weeks, 7/11/52); 
•  Naval School Airship (non-pilot) Class C (4 weeks, 6/18/54); 
•  Outboard Motor School (2 weeks; 4/12/74);  
•  Officer & Chief Leadership School (2 weeks, 7/29/77);  
• 
•  Recruiting School (3 weeks, 6/2/80); and 
•  Reserve Administration School (2 weeks, 6/21/81). 

Instructor Training School (2 weeks, 1/18/80);  

 
The Coast Guard corrected block 14 on November 3, 2005, by adding notations for his 
completion of Recruiting School and Reserve Administration School during the period 
covered  by  the  DD  214:    May  1,  1980,  through  November  8,  1984.    The  Coast  Guard 
stated that coursework performed prior to the period of active duty covered by the DD 
214 is not supposed to be entered in block 14.  Chapter 1-C of COMDTINST M1900.4 
provides the following instructions for entering coursework in block 14:  “To assist the 
former  service  member  in  employment  placement  and  job  counseling,  those  formal 
service schools and in-service training courses captured in PMIS/JUMPS and success-
fully completed during the period of service covered by the form will be entered in this 
block.”    Thus,  since  the  applicant’s  DD  214  documents  his  service  from  May  1,  1980, 
through  November  8, 1984,  only  the  courses  he  completed  during  that  period  should 
appear in block 14.  Aside from Recruiting School and Reserve Administration School, 
which have already been added to the DD 214 by the issuance of the DD 215, all other 
courses cited by the applicant were completed before May 1, 1980, and so should not 
appear in block 14. 

 
12. 

The  applicant  objected  to  the  fact  that  the SOCS  issued  on  November  2, 
2005,  cites  his  rate  erroneously.    He  noted  that  his  Navy  DD  214  states  that  his  rate 
would be AMS3 while he served in the Navy Reserve.  Moreover, his rate in the Coast 
Guard  Reserve  from  June  30,  1973,  through  March  31,  1977,  was  FI1/E-6,  not 
“unknown” as the SOCS states, and his rate thereafter was FIC/E7, rather than FTC/E7.  
The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  proved  that  his  SOCS  is  erroneous  in  these 
respects as there is ample documentation in his record to confirm his rate.  His Navy 
DD 214 clearly states that his rate in the Navy Reserve would be AMS3.  The applicant 
enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on June 30, 1973, as an FI1 and remained in that 
rate until advanced to FIC on April 1, 1977.  Although the applicant raised this issue in 

his response to the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion, the necessary corrections are suffi-
ciently administrative in nature that the Board will order the Coast Guard to make them 
and to reissue the applicant a corrected SOCS.  In this regard, the Board notes that the 
use of FTC in lieu of FIC on the SOCS is likely due to the fact that after the applicant 
retired, the nomenclature for firefighters changed and they became fire control techni-
cians abbreviated as FT instead of FI. 

 
13. 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  he  should  be  entitled  to  concurrent  receipt  of 
disability pay and retirement pay (CRDP) under 10 U.S.C. § 1414 because he has more 
than 20 years of creditable service.  However, as shown in finding 3 above, the applicant 
spent at most 19 years, 4 months, and 10 days as a member of a military service; and as 
stated in finding 5, creditable service for pay is not relevant to a member’s eligibility for 
retirement.  In enacting CRDP under 10 U.S.C. § 1414, Congress authorized concurrent 
disability and retirement pay only for disabled veterans who (a) have completed at least 
20 years of active duty toward a regular retirement or (b) have completed 20 years of 
satisfactory service toward a Reserve retirement.  The applicant performed only 9 years, 
2  months,  and  25  days  of  active  duty,  so  he  cannot  be  eligible  for  regular  retirement 
pay.    Furthermore,  he  has  only  16  satisfactory  years  of  service  toward  a  Reserve 
retirement, so he cannot be eligible for Reserve retirement pay.  Because under 10 U.S.C. 
§ 12732 an anniversary year is not “satisfactory” for Reserve retirement purposes unless 
the member earns at least 50 points during the year, none of the applicant’s 4 years in 
the  Navy  Reserve  were  satisfactory  for  retirement  purposes.      The  applicant’s  satis-
factory years of service for retirement purposes were as follows:  4 years on active duty 
in  the  Navy;  11  anniversary  years  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  from  June  30,  1973, 
through June 29, 1984; and 1 (one) year for the remainder (partial anniversary year) of 
his service from June 30, 1984, through November 8, 1984.  As the applicant accumu-
lated only 16 satisfactory years toward a Reserve retirement and less than 10 years of 
active duty toward a regular retirement, he is not eligible for CRDP under current law.   
 
 
The  Board  concludes  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponder-
ance of the evidence that his DD 214 as corrected by the DD 215 issued on November 3, 
2005, contains any error or injustice.  The only errors found by the Board are those con-
cerning the notations of his rate on the SOCS issued on November 2, 2005. 
 

14. 

15.  Accordingly,  the  Board  should  grant  the  relief  described  in  finding  12 

above with respect to the applicant’s SOCS, but all other relief should be denied. 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR  (retired),  for  correction 

of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall issue him a new Statement of Creditable Service reflecting 

 
the following rates and pay grades: 

 
•  As a member of the U.S. Navy from October 4, 1951, to October 4, 1955, his 

rate was AM3/E4. 
 

•  As  a  member  of  the U.S.  Navy  Reserve  from  October  4,  1955,  to October  3, 

1959, his rate was AMS3/E4 (rather than “AM3/E4”). 

 
•  As a member of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve from June 30, 1973, to March 

31, 1977, his rate was FI1/E6 (rather than “unknown”). 

 
•  As  a  member  of  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  Reserve  from  April  1,  1977,  to 

November 8, 1984, his rate was FIC/E7 (rather than “FTC/E7”). 

 
No other relief is granted. 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 
 J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller