DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-149 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 15, 2005. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  1,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant, a member of the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct 
her  record to  show  that  she  earned  at  least 50  points  in  her  anniversary year  (AY) of 
service ending on March 6, 1998 (AY 1998).  She alleged that points she earned for AY 
1998  were  mistakenly  attributed  to  the  following  anniversary  year,  which  ended  on 
March 6, 1999 (AY 1999).  This mistake caused her point total for AY 1998 to be less than 
50 so that the year does not count as a satisfactory year toward retirement.  The appli-
cant alleged that she has been trying to get this error corrected since 1999 to no avail.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that if the Board grants her a satisfactory year for AY 1998, 
she would also be entitled to (a) another Reserve Good Conduct Medal, which would 
improve  her  standing  in  the  servicewide  examinations;  (b)  a  second  Armed  Forces 
Reserve Medal dated one year earlier; and (c) an earlier date of completion of 20 years 
of satisfactory service toward retirement. 
 
 
The applicant stated that during the first three months of AY 1998, she was living 
in the Xxxxxxx and was assigned to drill at the Marine Safety Office (MSO) in Xxxxxx.  

However, in June 1997, she moved to the Los Angeles area.  Therefore, on July 10, 1997, 
she promptly mailed to the administrative office of the MSO in Xxxxxx a request for a 
transfer to a unit in California.  In addition, she followed up on her written request with 
a  telephone  call  to  the  administrative  office  and  was  told  that  the  new  assignment 
officer would process her request when he returned from leave.  However, she received 
no response.  Therefore, on September 26, 1997, she sent a second formal request for a 
transfer to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in Alameda, California.  She kept in touch with both the 
MSO and XXXXX to try to expedite the transfer and was assured by an administrative 
officer at XXXXX that her request would be endorsed.  However, her transfer was not 
effective  until  January  1,  1998,  and  the  orders  she  received  on  December  14,  1997, 
instructed her not to report for duty to XXXXX until January 24, 1998. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  because  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  unreasonable  delay  in 
transferring her, she was not able to perform enough drills (inactive duty for training or 
IDT) and active duty for training (ADT) to earn 50 points during AY 1998.  She pointed 
out that the Coast Guard Correspondence Manual states that correspondence should be 
replied to within 15 days, whereas she did not get orders to report to a new unit until 
more than five months after she submitted her request for transfer and was not permit-
ted to begin drilling until six months after her request. 
 
 
The applicant stated that because of the Coast Guard’s delay, she was very con-
cerned about earning enough points to complete a satisfactory year.  Therefore, upon 
reporting to XXXXX on January 24, 1998, she asked to be allowed to perform extra drills 
and  two  weeks  of  ADT  so  that  her  AY  1998  would  be  satisfactory  for  retirement 
purposes.  However, the chief administrative officer told her that he “did not have extra 
work for [her] to do” and “did not give [her] permission to do more drills until it was 
too late to make up [her] lost drills and this was an administrative error on his part.”  
Instead,  he  assigned  her  to  perform  IDT  by  taking  some  computer  classes  that  began 
during AY 1998 but ended during AY 1999.  The applicant stated that the chief “was 
under the misunderstanding that even IDT could be assigned according to the needs of 
the unit.”   
 

In  addition,  the  applicant  stated,  the  chief  assigned  her  ADT  according  to  the 
needs of the unit, which was not until April 1998, during AY 1999.  She stated that the 
chief told her that her ADT in April 1998 would be counted toward her AY 1998, and 
that the orders she received stated as much.  Under the old Reserve Administration and 
Training  Manual  (RATMAN),  she  alleged,  reservists  were  allowed  to  perform  their 
annual  ADT  requirement  outside  of  the  actual  anniversary  year  as  long  as  it  was 
“within  a  certain  window  of  time”  and  have  the  ADT  count  toward  the  anniversary 
year.  However, unbeknownst to her and the chief administrative officer, this policy had 
changed  in  1997,  and  contrary  to  the  orders  he  issued,  her  ADT  in  April  1998  was 
attributed to AY 1999 instead of AY 1998. 
 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  if  the  IDT  (drills)  she  performed  between  January  24 
and March 16, 1998, and the extra ADT she performed in April 1998 were attributed to 
her AY 1998, which ended on March 6, 1998, that year would be satisfactory for retire-
ment purposes.  She alleged that she should receive credit for 14 days of ADT in April 
1998,  instead  of  12  days,  because  (a)  her  travel  voucher  was  for  13  days  since  she 
crossed the international date line and had two May 1sts; and (b) she did not get credit 
for one day of travel time to her home, which should have been included in her ADT 
orders but was not. 
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the Coast Guard recently attempted to correct 
the error by adding 12 days of ADT to her  point summary for AY 1998 without sub-
tracting them from AY 1999. 
  
 
The applicant stated that she currently needs just one more day of drills to make 
 
her AY 1998 satisfactory for retirement purposes.  She stated that she has always done 
more than was required of her and so “one more day of drill credit is very little to ask 
for.”  She also stated that she had to travel for a day just to drill at XXXXX and never 
received credit for those travel days since it was voluntary.  In support of her allega-
tions, the applicant submitted the following: 
 
•  Travel documents indicating that she moved to California in June 1997. 
•  A  “Request  for  ADT/SADT/TEMAC  Orders”  dated  July  10,  1997,  with  the  last 
words crossed out and the word “Transfer” inserted by hand so that the title reads 
“Request for Transfer.”  The applicant requested a transfer “as soon as possible” to 
the Long Beach/San Pedro area just south of Los Angeles.  The form indicates that 
her address was in Xxxxxx, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. 

•  A “Reserve Information Worksheet” dated September 26, 1997, requesting transfer 
to XXXXX in Alameda, California, in Oakland’s inner harbor off San Francisco Bay.  
On the form, the applicant noted that it was her “second formal request for a trans-
fer” and that she was concerned she might have an unsatisfactory year if she could 
not  make  up  some  drills.    She  stated  that  she  was  available  to  drill  and/or  train 
immediately.    She  listed  her  home  address  as  Xxxxxxxx,  California,  which  is 
southwest of Los Angeles and about 470 miles south of Alameda.  Her request was 
endorsed by the command the same day.  

•  Assignment Orders dated December 14, 1997, assigning the applicant to XXXXX and 
ordering her to report there on January 24, 1998.  The orders noted that “no travel or 
proceed time is authorized in the execution of these orders.” 

•  An  email  dated  December  15,  1997,  from  the  Integrated  Support  Command  in 
Xxxxxx noting that the applicant would be assigned to XXXXX effective January 1, 
1998.    The  email  states,  “Apparently,  [the  applicant]  submitted  a  CG-5525  (CG 
Reserve Assignment Request and Orders) that never got to us.” 

•  Pages from the Coast Guard Correspondence Manual, which states that correspon-

dence should normally be answered within 15 work days. 

•  Endorsed travel orders that stated the applicant was to report on April 19, 1998, for 
thirteen days of ADT-OTD in Korea.  The orders state that of the thirteen days “12 
days  ADT-OTD  to  satisfy  AT  [annual  training]  requirement  for  RQA  AY  ending 
3/7/98.” 

•  A Travel Voucher with an itinerary showing that she would leave home on April 19, 

1998, and arrive home on May 1, 1998 (which amounts to 13 days, inclusive). 

•  A series of email messages beginning in June 2004 regarding her requested correc-

tion. 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On March 7, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  A Retire-
ment Point Statement printed from the Coast Guard’s database on November 9, 2005, 
shows that, with the exception of her anniversary year ending on March 6, 1998, she has 
earned  satisfactory  years  of  service  toward  retirement  in  each  anniversary  year  since 
her enlistment and therefore now has 25 satisfactory years of service for retirement pur-
poses.  Her point summary shows that in AY 1998, she earned 22 drill points, 15 mem-
bership points, and 12 ADT points for a total of 49 points.  For AY 1999, she is credited 
with 44 drill points, 15 membership points, and 29 ADT points.  Notations on the point 
summary indicate that 12 days of ADT that the applicant performed in April 1998 had 
been erroneously credited to both AY 1998 and AY 1999, making her ADT for those two 
anniversary years total 41 days when in fact she performed only 29 days of ADT and all 
were performed in AY 1999. 

 
A Retirement Point Statement printed from the Coast Guard’s database on May 
18,  2006,  however,  contains  a  point  summary  showing  that  in  AY  1998,  the  applicant 
earned 22 drill points, 15 membership points, and zero active ADT points for a total of 
37 points.  For AY 1999, she is credited with 44 drill points, 15 membership points, and 
29 ADT points. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  January  1,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 

 
 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  application  should  be  denied  due  to  its  untimeliness 
because the applicant “failed to submit a timely application and has failed to show why 
it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.”  He pointed out that the applicant sub-
mitted no evidence to support her claim that she has been diligently attempting to cor-
rect the alleged error since 1999 except an email conversation that began in June 2004.  
The JAG further stated that a cursory review of the merits indicates that the applicant 
has no reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits.  Therefore, the Board should find 
that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse her delay. 

 
 
The JAG further noted that absent evidence to the contrary, government officials 
are presumed to have “carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” 
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  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  bears  the  burden  of 
proving error or injustice and argued that she “offers no evidence that the Coast Guard 
committed any error or injustice.  The fact that it took five months for Applicant to be 
reassigned does not constitute an administrative error by the Coast Guard.  Applicant 
offers no evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded the assignment 
officer.”  
 
 
Regarding the applicant’s participation in AY 1998, the JAG stated that she per-
formed  neither  IDT  nor  ADT  during  the  first  three  months  of  AY  1998  before  she 
moved  to  California.    After  moving  to  California,  she  waited  six  weeks  to  request  a 
transfer and then used the wrong form to do so.  She used the correct form to request a 
transfer on September 26, 1997, and received new assignment orders on December 14, 
1997. 
 
 
The JAG also stated that in AY 1998, the Reserve Policy Manual  (RPM) was in 
effect, and Article 8.C. of the RPM required reservists to earn 50 points during the actual 
anniversary year to have the year qualify as satisfactory for retirement purposes.  The 
JAG stated that therefore the applicant’s ADT in April 1998 may only be applied to her 
AY 1999 as it occurred six weeks after her AY 1998 ended. 
 
 
In making his recommendation, the JAG relied on a memorandum on the case 
prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  the  JAG  adopted.  
CGPC  stated  that  to  understand  this  case,  it  is  “important  to  distinguish  satisfactory 
participation  from  satisfactory  service  towards  a  Reserve  retirement.”    Under  Article 
4.A.  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.  These were the minimal partici-
pation standards that reservists had to meet to remain qualified for continued service in 
the Selected Reserve.  Under Article 3.B. of the RPM, members could meet their AT par-
ticipation  requirement  for  an  anniversary  year  by  performing  their  12  days  of  active 
duty or ADT up to 120 days before or after the anniversary year.  CGPC stated that the 
“authority to credit active duty periods 120 days before or after an anniversary year was 
relevant  only  in  the  context  of  participation  standards.”    In  addition,  members  could 
request a waiver of the AT participation requirement under Article 3.B.   
 
 
On  the  other  hand,  CGPC  stated,  satisfactory  service  for  retirement  purposes 
requires an accumulation of 50 retirement points in an anniversary year, in accordance 
with 10 U.S.C. § 12732 and Article 8.C. of the RPM, and completion of the AT require-
ment.  CGPC explained that “to earn a satisfactory year for retirement, Applicant had to 

complete  AT  (a  yes/no  event)  AND  earn  50  retirement  points  worth  of  duty  during 
AY98.  While retirement credit can only be awarded in the anniversary year in which it 
is earned, the 120-day rule provided Applicant 120 days before/after AY98 to demon-
strate  completion  of  AT.    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 ended on March 6, 1998, but “it was not 
intended to also award retirement point credit for AY98.”  CGPC stated that the retire-
ment points that the applicant earned for that period of ADT can only be applied to AY 
1999  as  “[n]either  statute  or  Coast  Guard  policy  authorize[d]  the  crediting  of  points 
earned in one anniversary year to a different anniversary year. … To do so would be 
contrary to policy and statute.” 
 

 
CGPC  stated  that  its  review  of  the  applicant’s  records  on  November  9,  2005, 
determined that she performed no IDT or ADT between January 10, 1997, and January 
24, 1998.  She had been credited for a total of 49 points in AY 1998, including 15 points 
for membership, 22 points for IDT drills, and 12 days of ADT.   CGPC stated that the 
attribution  of  the  retirement  points  for  the  12  days  of  ADT  in  April  1998  to  AY  1998 
instead of AY 1999 was an administrative error.  CGPC stated that her thirteenth day of 
ADT  (May  1,  1998)  is  properly  attributed  to  AY  1999.    CGPC  stated  that  a  corrected 
retirement point statement for the applicant’s AY1998 would show credit for 15 points 
for membership, 22 points for IDT drills, and zero points for ADT.  Therefore, CGPC 
stated  that  the  applicant  actually  earned  only  37  retirement  points  in  AY  1998  rather 
than 49. 
 
 
Regarding  the  alleged  delay  in  the  applicant’s  transfer,  CGPC  stated  that 
“[o]rders to serve in a billet or to perform duty are issued when the needs of the service 
require  the  assignment.    Applicant’s  new  assignment  officer  had  a  responsibility  to 
ensure  that  Applicant  was  fully  qualified  to  fill  a  specific,  vacant  billet.    The  unit  to 
which Applicant was assigned was responsible for ensuring that she was properly proc-
essed in, and that her training schedule, including IDT and active duty, met the needs 
of Applicant’s billet qualifications.”  CGPC also pointed out that the applicant did not 
inform the Coast Guard that she was moving or had moved until six weeks after the 
fact.  CGPC stated that the fact that after she notified the Coast Guard of her move, she 
waited five months for a new assignment and another month for a report-in date does 
not  constitute  an  administrative  error.    In  addition,  CGPC  stated  that  the  new  com-
mand’s failure to ensure that that she could earn a satisfactory year for retirement pur-
poses between her report-in date, January 24, 1998, and the end of AY 1998 on March 6 
was not an administrative error. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On January 27 and 30, 2006, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast 

 
Guard and stated that she strongly disagreed with them.   
 
The applicant alleged that her application was timely because she was required 
 
to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing her application.  She stated that she 
has  “been  exhausting  for  five  years  my  CG  administrative  remedies  as  required.    As 
soon as I exhausted my remedies I filed my BCMR application.”  The applicant submit-
ted the following documents “to establish a continuum of timely filings” since 1999: 
 
•  A letter from the applicant to a Rear Admiral dated November 23, 1999, concerning 
her ideas regarding the unit’s medical records system, lack of an examination and 
educational  program,  lack  of  reimbursement  for  berthing,  etc.    Her  discussion  of 
berthing reimbursement stated the following: 

 

Furthermore, revolving around the same issue, and due to my superiors’ lack of timely 
action,  I  ended  up  with  an  unsatisfactory  year.    For  two  years  while  working  in  the 
Xxxxxxx, I would go to extremes to maintain satisfactory years with the CG.  To do my 
IDT/ADT,  I  would  pay  out  of  my  own  pocket  for  a  round-trip  ticket  from  Majuro  to 
Kwajalein.  In Kwajalein, I would pay out of my  own pocket for one to three nights of 
berthing while I waited to be scheduled for a military flight to Xxxxx (where I was sta-
tioned  at  MSO  Xxxxxx).    To  get  back  to  Majuro  I  would  reverse  the  process.  For  two 
years to maintain good standing with the CG I gave up all of my vacation time and home 
time  (except  about  two  weeks)  to  drill  in  Xxxxx.    All  of  this  came  to  nothing  because 
when  I  was  transferred  to  Alameda,  admin  did  not  do  anything  in  a  timely  fashion  to 
schedule my drills.  I got an unsatisfactory year because nobody cared enough or knew 
enough to do anything for me. 

 
•  A  letter  from  the  applicant  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  Human  Resources  Services  and 

Information Center (HRSIC) dated September 6, 2000, stating the following: 

 

In reviewing my Summary of Points, I have found so many discrepancies that I think it is 
necessary to do them all again. … My entire first year with the Coast Guard has been left 
out of my Summary of Points. … All of my correspondence course points have been left 
out. … My present concern is my [ADT] points.  Please review the orders I have sent you 
with my [ADT] points.  I am especially concerned with the years that I have been given 0 
points.    I  have  enclosed  a  summary  of  what  my  [ADT]  points  maybe  should  look  like.  
Please review them with the orders I have sent you. … 

 
•  A  letter  from  HRSIC  to  the  applicant  dated  December  29,  2000,  stating  that  the 
“reserve point adjustment requested in [her letter dated September 6, 2000] has been 
reviewed and corrections to include proper credit of your reserve service completed. 
… In accordance with [the Reserve Policy Manual], all periods of active duty must 
be  credited  in  the  anniversary  year  in  which  they  were  completed  and  cannot  be 
moved. 

 

•  A letter from the applicant to HRSIC dated January 27, 2001, in which she requests 

corrections for AY 1981 and AY 1985.  No mention is made of AY 1998. 

 
•  An email from the applicant to a commander dated February 21, 2001, in which she 
complained  that  another  member  purposefully  shredded  a  letter  concerning  her 
mixed  up  retirement  points  that  needed  to  be  changed  because  another  member’s 
points had been attached to the letter instead of her own. 

 
•  A  letter  from  the  applicant  to  HRSIC  dated  March  18,  2001,  in  which  she  asked 

HRSIC to review her points for AY 1981.  No mention is made of AY 1998. 

 
•  A letter from HRSIC to the applicant dated July 27, 2001, noting that the requested 

adjustments for AY 1981 had been made. 

 
•  A  discrimination  complaint  the  applicant  filed  on  August  27,  2001,  in  which  she 
alleged  that  another enlisted  member  and  an  officer  at  her  new  unit  in  San  Diego 
had discriminated against her by blocking her attempts to get her retirement points 
statement corrected so that she could get a “20-year letter.”  She stated that HRSIC 
needed to correct her point summary for AY 1981 so that she could get her 20-year 
letter and Armed Forces Reserve Medal.  In the complaint, the applicant also men-
tioned that she got a “bad year due to CG negligence.”  She complained about the 
delay in her assignment orders to XXXXX and the fact that she was not given “make-
up drills” to allow her to receive a good year for AY 1998.  She stated that she did 
not have a “normal progression of drills” in AY 1998 because she was living in the 
Xxxxxxx and  

 

could not fly in [to Xxxxx] on drill weekends because [of the schedule and cost of flights]. 
…  It  took  great  effort  on  my  part  to  stay  active  with  the  CG  while  I  worked  in  the 
Xxxxxxx.  I was very committed to the CG and I thought it was worth the effort.  For two 
years I nearly gave up all of my vacation time to drill.  I had permission to do all of my 
drills on my vacation times. … Alameda has purged my record and returned both of my 
transfer requests to me. … Ideally I should have stopped in Xxxxx and did all my drills 
before returning to California and I did think about this [but did not because she did not 
want to put her dog in quarantine in Xxxxx and her household goods were being shipped 
to  California].    It  was  not  practical  for  me  to  continue  to  make  extraordinary  efforts  to 
keep drilling with the CG at this point.  But my request to transfer and to begin drilling at 
Alameda was made in a timely fashion but the CG did not respond in a timely fashion. 

 
•  A  letter  from  the  Area  Commander  to  the  applicant  dated  November  20,  2001, 
regarding an informal resolution of her civil rights complaint.  The letter states that 
her retirement points had been corrected on May 30, 2001, to reflect 20 years of good 
service.  The letter further states that “if you believe that the Coast Guard has not 
complied  with  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  you  may  notify  the  Director  of  Civil 
Rights, Department of Transportation in writing within thirty (30) days of the date 
of the alleged violation, requesting that the terms of the informal agreement be spe-

cifically implemented.  Alternatively, you may request that this matter be reinstated 
for further processing from the point the informal process ceased.”  The Area Com-
mander  noted  that  the  informal  settlement  was  not  in  any  way  an  admission  of 
wrongdoing by anyone in the Coast Guard. 

 
•  The  applicant’s  response  to  the  Area  Commander  dated  November  20,  2001,  in 
which she stated that the Coast Guard’s actions had satisfactorily resolved only part 
of her complaint of discrimination. 

 
•  A  reprisal  complaint  filed  by  the  applicant  on  December  27,  2001,  in  which  she 
stated  that  she  had  been  “kicked  out  of”  XXXXX  because  of  her  prior  civil  rights 
complaint.    She  asked  that  her  record  be  corrected to  show  that  she  completed  20 
years of service one year earlier and explained her request as follows: 

 

I was assigned to MSO Xxxxxx for two years while I was teaching in the Xxxxxxx.  When 
I  returned  to  California  I  requested  a  transfer  to  XXXXX.    XXXXX  told  me  that  I  was 
needed and that my transfer request was  being processed.  This  paperwork processing 
took  so  long  that  I  ended  my  year  unsatisfactorily.    This  unsatisfactory  year  put  my 
twenty year letter off by one year, it [threw] my good conduct record off (and medals and 
points associated with advancement  off, too), and it [threw] my Armed Forces  Reserve 
Medal  off  by  one  year.    I  should  not  have  to  live  with  the  consequences  of  negligent 
paperwork  management  on  the  part  of  the  Coast  Guard.  …  After  being  assigned  to 
XXXXX, the unit failed to provide a program for correspondence courses … [so] I could 
not advance. 
 

•  An email message from the applicant to an administrative officer dated September 
19, 2004, in which she asked if she had been credited with two drills for the days she 
picked up her uniform and attended her physical examination in AY 2001. 

 
•  A letter from the Civil Rights Officer of the Department of Homeland Security dated 
February  24,  2005,  regarding  the  applicant’s  request  for  certain  information  under 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The letter notes that the Department has no 
report  regarding  her  discrimination  complaint  because  the  “complaint  came  to 
resolution.” 

 
Regarding  her  April  1998  ADT,  the  applicant  stated  that  she  “knew  that  ADT 
had  to  be  done  within  the  anniversary  year  that  it  was  going  to  be  applied  to.”  
Therefore  she  requested  drills  and  ADT  when  she  submitted  her  second  request  for 
transfer on September 26, 1998.  She stated that it was her responsibility to request ADT 
in a timely manner, and it was the Coast Guard’s responsibility “to accommodate [her] 
in a timely manner and to do it correctly.  They did not do this either because they were 
not  aware  of  new  regulations  and/or  because  they  really  believed  ‘the  needs  of  the 
service’ [came] first.” 
 

 
The applicant alleged that her travel orders for the April 1998 ADT contradict the 
JAG’s claim that her ADT could not be applied to AY 1998.  She stated that she request-
ed the ADT for AY 1998 and was told that it could be applied to AY 1998.  She stated 
that otherwise she would have requested a waiver for the AT requirement for AY 1998.  
Moreover, the applicant alleged that she and her command thought that all 13 days of 
the ADT would apply to AY 1998.  If not, they would have known she would be one 
day  short  and  would  have  assigned  her  another  drill  day  so  that  she  would  have  a 
satisfactory year with 50 retirement points in AY 1998. 
 
 
Regarding the timing and manner of her request for transfer, the applicant stated 
that the form she submitted to the Administrative Office in Xxxxxx was “the informal 
form that was used by MSO Xxxxxx to make various requests.  If the form was incor-
rect,  MSO Xxxxxx  still  needed  to respond  to  me  in  a  timely  manner  according to  CG 
policy.”    She  stated  that  at  least  they  should  have  told  her  she  was  using  the  wrong 
form.  She argued that the email from ISC Xxxxxx dated December 15, 1997, proves that 
MSO Xxxxxx failed to forward her transfer request.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The  Reserve  Administration  and  Training  Manual  (RATMAN),  COMDTINST 
M1001.27A, was in effect from May 14, 1991, to March 27, 1997.  On March 28, 1997, the 
RATMAN  was  canceled,  and  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (RPM),  COMDTINST 
M1001.28, went into effect. 

 

Definitions from the RPM 
 
 
Chapter 1.C.1.a. of the RPM stated that the Selected Reserve consists members of 
the Ready Reserve who are liable for immediate recall in case of war or national emer-
gency  and  who  perform  paid  IDT  (drills).    They  are  authorized  to  perform  up  to  48 
drills per year and between 12 and 15 days of ADT per year.   
 
 
Chapter 2.A.1.  stated that IDT “consists of single and multiple drills, and appro-
priate 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 criteria.”  Chapter 2.A.2. stated 
that “IDT may be performed with pay or without pay.  Non-pay IDT drills are author-
ized for enhanced training of personnel.”  Chapter 2.A.3. defined a single drill as a 4-
hour period of training.  Chapter 2.A.4. defined a multiple drill as two 4-hour periods of 
training scheduled in a single calendar day. 
 

Appendix  A  defined  “appropriate  duty”  as  a  “special  period  of  IDT  (differing 
from  single  and  multiple  drills),  under  orders,  of  three  to  eight  hours  duration,  nor-

mally performed on one calendar day. … One period of appropriate duty is equivalent 
to a single IDT drill for pay and point purposes.”  Chapter 2.A.5 stated that appropriate 
duty  “shall  be  used  only  where  sufficient  full-time  support  (FTS)  personnel  are  not 
available to accomplish those duties.” 
 
 
Appendix A and Chapter 3.C.1. stated that Active Duty for Training (ADT) “is a 
tour of active duty that is used for training members of the reserve components to pro-
vide trained units and qualified persons to fill the needs of the Armed Forces during 
war or national emergency and such other times as national security requires.”   
 

Appendix  A  defined  Annual  Training  (AT)  as  ”[t]he  specified  period  of  active 
duty (normally 12 days) required annually of all members of the Selected Reserve. … 
The training must be related to the reservist’s rate, RPAL requirements, or unit mission.  
ISC  commanders  determine  if  periods  of  active  duty  satisfy  the  AT  requirement.”  
Chapter 3.B.2.a. stated that “[b]y Coast Guard policy, the AT requirement is limited to 
members  of  the  SELRES  and,  for  most  members,  12  days  per  fiscal  year.”    Chapter 
3.C.4.a. states that “ADT-AT … orders … for any individual in a given position or for 
any given project will be approved by the servicing ISC(pf).” 
 
Regulations Regarding Transfers and Assignments 
 

Form  CG-5525,  “Coast  Guard  Reserve  Assignment  Request  and  Orders,”  was 

used by members of the SELRES to request a new unit assignment. 

 
Appendix  A  of  the  RPM  stated  that  the  Reserve  Personnel  Allowance  List 
(RPAL) is a “listing of Coast Guard billet requirements for selected reservists based on 
contingency needs, augmentation, and training opportunities.  SELRES member acces-
sions, assignments, and advancements are based upon the RPAL, which includes a Bil-
let  Code  Number  (BCN),  a  rating  and  grade,  and  any  required  qualification  code  for 
each billet.” 

 
Chapter 4.C.1. stated that when a reservist moves, “the servicing ISC(pf) should 
assign reservists to the unit closest to their permanent home address that has an appro-
priate vacant RPAL billet (see COMDTINST 5320.1).  If no unit is available within a rea-
sonable commuting distance, obligated reservists may be placed in TRA/PAY CAT E.” 
Chapter 1.D.7.c.(3) stated that “[a]ll transfers to a drilling status will be based on RPAL 
vacancies  or  the  needs  of  the  Coast  Guard.”    Chapter  2.B.5.  stated  that  a  “reasonable 
commuting distance” is no more than 100 miles. 

 
Enclosure  (3)  to  COMDTINST  5320.1  provided  complex  and  time-consuming 
procedures  for  creating  or  changing  an  RPAL  billet.    Enclosure  (4)  to  COMDTINST 
5320.1  stated  the  following  with  respect  to  how  an  assignment  officer  (AO)  should 
assign members of the SELRES to RPAL billets: 

 
Assigning SELRES members is a complex process—not administratively, but in terms of 
the many issues the AO must consider when making an assignment.  The AO must bal-
ance issues related to demand, supply, and the flow of people over time.  The assignment 
problem could be stated as follows:  1.  A vacant billet exists; which person should fill it? 
or 2.  An unassigned person exists; which billet should he or she fill? …  The degree of fit 
of the assignment of SELRES members to RPAL billets is measured by a computed Qual-
ify of Match (QOM) …  Is the person’s specialty the same as the billet’s specialty? … Is 
the person’s grade the same as that of the billet? … Does the person have the qualifica-
tion code required by the billet? … Does the person live within a reasonable commuting 
distance of the billet? … These four values are then weighted according to a policy estab-
lished  by  G-WTR,  and  a  computed  QOM  determined.    This  measure  of  fit  is  only  one 
variable, though, in a much broader problem. 
 
Unit  commanders  want  people  who  are  perfect  matches  with  requirements,  who  are 
available  when  needed,  who  require  little  or  no  further  training  investment  to  be  fully 
productive,  and  who  have  been  at  the  unit  long  enough  to  “know  how  things  work 
around  here.”  …    Individual  SELRES  members  what  to  use  their  skills,  to  be  compen-
sated for using them, and rewarded for extraordinary effort and results. … The AO must 
balance  these  needs  in  making  assignment  decisions,  across  multiple  units  and  with 
many people, with the best interest of the Coast Guard in mind. …  The AO must be able 
to  compare  needs,  wants,  constraints,  and  conditions  to  come  to  a  judgment  about  an 
assignment.  Thus, there can be very few rules, since rules constrain our actions just as 
they guide them.  Instead, the problem must be bounded by principles that can be com-
pared with other principles, and results may be different in different places at different 
times.  Solving the assignment problem means the AO must use his or her best profes-
sional judgment to balance a set of principles to accommodate a given situation … Such 
principles  are  based  on  past  successes  and  failures—or  experience.    Since  the  Coast 
Guard has little experience assigning SELRES members to RPAL billets, it is reasonable 
to say that the principles are evolving as we gain experience. 
 
People  assigned  to  units  (but  not  to  billets)  are  at  risk  of  reassignment  to  the  IRR  (non 
pay) if the AOP is at target strength.  Thus, a member is always encouraged to seek out 
and fill RPAL billets within his or her specialty.  

 
Regulations Regarding Satisfactory Participation Requirements  
 

Under  both  the  RATMAN  and  RPM,  most  members  of  the  SELRES  were 
attached to a unit in a pay status, were authorized and scheduled for 48 IDT paid drills 
per year, and were required to perform at least 12 paid ADT days per anniversary year. 
 

Chapter 4-A-1 of the RATMAN stated that unit commands should schedule four 
drills per month for each member of the SELRES but could alter drill schedules to coin-
cide with “peak augmentation opportunities.”  Chapter 4-B-1.e. of the RATMAN stated 
the following: 

 
For purposes of complying with the participation standards, credit for AT which begins 
in one anniversary year and extends to the next anniversary year may be given for either 
anniversary year, but not both.  (See 12-C-9 for crediting retirement points.) 

(1)  In unusual cases, district commanders may credit AT which ends no earlier 
than 120 days in advance of, or begins no later than 120 days subsequent to, the anniver-
sary date, to either year in order for a member to meet annual training requirements. 

(2)  The adjustment authorized above is to be used only on a non-recurring basis.  
When AT  is performed in  1 anniversary year to  meet the requirements  of the previous 
anniversary year, a second period of AT must be performed within that same year. 
 
Chapter 4-B-2 of the RATMAN stated that a district commander could waive an 
AT requirement in “emergencies,” such as a “physical disability, documented by a phy-
sician”  that  prevents  performance  of  AT.    SELRES  members  who  failed  to  meet  the 
minimum satisfactory participation requirements could be discharged or transferred to 
the Individual Ready Reserve (no drilling or pay).  

 
Chapter 2.B.3. of the RPM, entitled “Minimum Drill Attendance for Satisfactory 
Participation,” stated that “[m]embers in TRA/PAY CAT A and B must attend 90% of 
scheduled, paid IDT drills each fiscal year.  For members of TRA/PAY CAT A, mem-
bers must normally attend at least 43 drills.”   

 
Chapter 4.A.1. of the RPM defined “satisfactory participation” as “the fulfillment 
of  training  requirements  that  meets  or  exceeds  minimum  acceptable  standards  as 
described in this chapter.”  Chapter 4.A.2. stated that unsatisfactory participation in the 
SELRES is “the failure to comply with any of the following contractual obligations or 
program  participation  requirements:  …  c.  Attending  the  minimum  percentage  of 
scheduled  drills  per  2.B.  …  Satisfying  the  AT  requirement  when  a  waiver  was  not 
obtained. …” 

 
Chapter 3.B.4. stated that “[r]equests for waiver of the AT requirement shall be 
submitted in writing from the member to the commanding officer with a copy of the 
approved waiver request to the Servicing PERSRU and CGPC-adm-3. … If the waiver is 
approved, non-completion of the AT requirement will not be considered when evalu-
ating  the  member's  performance.”    Chapter  3.B.3.  stated  that  a  commanding  officer 
could grant a waiver for “sufficient cause” for 
 

a.  Members  who  have  completed  a  period  of  long  term  (greater  than  139  days)  active 
duty within the last year. 
b. Members who have graduated from Class "A" school within the last year. 
c. Members who are within one year of retirement eligibility. 
d. In years with  limited ADT-AT funding (as designated by Commandant (G-WTR-3)), 
members whose rating skills are substantially maintained through their civilian employ-
ment. 
e. Members residing overseas where the cost of returning the members to a training site 
is prohibitive. 
f. Members experiencing temporary physical disability documented by a physician and 
temporary family or personal hardship. These reasons must be completely documented 
by the member. 

 

Chapter 4.A.7. stated that “[t]ravel or change of residence does not relieve reserv-
ists of their obligation to meet participation requirements.  a. Ready Reserve members 
detached from a unit due to change of residence (except for changes of residence out-
side the United States), shall normally be assigned to RPAL billets near their new resi-
dence, if available.” 
 
Regulations Regarding Scheduling and Frequency of Duty 

 
Chapter 5-B-2 of the RATMAN stated that, “[e]xcept as specifically authorized in 
writing by the Commandant,” SELRES members were authorized to perform no more 
than 2 drills per day, 6 per week, 12 per month, and 24 per quarter.”  Chapter 5-B-2.b. of 
the RATMAN and Chapter 2.B.2.d. of the RPM stated that, except for the daily maxi-
mum of 2 drills, these limitations did not apply to drills without pay, but “the nature of 
duty to be performed [during drills without pay] must be equivalent to that authorized 
for paid drills.” 

 
Chapter 2.B.2. of the RPM stated the following: 
 
a. Except as specifically authorized in writing by Commandant (G-WT), excluding appro-
priate duty, the maximum number of paid periods authorized for an individual member 
of the Selected Reserve during one fiscal year is: 

(1) Per fiscal year: 48 
(2) Per day: 2 

b.  IDT  drills  are  typically  spread  throughout  the  year  (four  drills  per  month),  but  they 
may  be  may  be  grouped  to  best  use  resources  to  meet  surges  in  operations,  seasonal 
requirements or for other reasons as determined by the unit issuing IDT orders.  When 
drills are grouped, it is important that reservists be included in the scheduling process in 
order to avoid civilian job conflicts. 
c. Care must also be taken to ensure that scheduling  does not conflict with a member's 
attainment  of  a  satisfactory  year  for  both  SELRES  (fiscal  year  basis)  and  federal  retire-
ment (anniversary year basis) requirements.  See section 4.A on Participation Standards 
in this manual. 
d. The above limitations on paid drills do not apply to drills without pay (except for the 
daily maximum of one single drill or one multiple drill).  However, the nature of duty to 
be performed must be equivalent to that authorized for paid drills. 
e. In locations where the active unit work loads vary with the seasons, scheduled drills 
may be concentrated during peak season. 
f. IDT and any form of active duty may not be performed on the same calendar day (e.g., 
drilling on Sunday and then reporting for ADT on the same Sunday evening). 

(1)  Two  single  drills  may  be  performed  and  reported  separately  on  the  same 

calendar day to accommodate different program codes. 

(2) Appropriate duty may not be performed on the same day as any other type of 
duty, with or without pay.  Two periods of appropriate duty may not be performed on 
the same day. 

 

Chapter  3.B.2.e.  stated  that  “[w]hen  scheduling  duty,  commands  must  keep  in 
mind the member's need to earn 50 retirement points each anniversary year to earn a 
satisfactory year for federal service (i.e., to get a good year for retirement).”   

 
Chapter  3.B.2.d.  stated  that  “[t]he  responsibility  for  requesting  active  duty  to 
meet  the  AT  requirement  lies  with  the  reservist.    Scheduling  should  be  coordinated 
between reservists and their command.”   
 
Laws and Regulations Regarding Satisfactory Service for Retirement Purposes 
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 12732 stated that “for the purpose of determining whether a per-
son is entitled to retired pay under section 12731 of this title, the person’s years of serv-
ice are computed by adding … [e]ach one-year period … in which the person has been 
credited with at least 50 points on the following basis:  (A) One point for each day of (i) 
active  service  …  (B)  One  point  for  each  attendance  at  a  drill  or  period  of  equivalent 
instruction that was prescribed for that year by the Secretary concerned and conformed 
to the requirements prescribed by law … (c) Points at the rate of 15 a year for member-
ship …” 
 
 
Appendix A of the RPM defined “satisfactory federal service” as a “any anniver-
sary  year  during  which  a  reservist  earned  a  minimum  of  50  retirement  points.  The 
accumulation of 20 such years is required for retirement with pay. (10 U.S.C. 12732)” 
 

 
Chapter 8.C.3. stated that qualifying service toward retirement under 10 U.S.C. 
§ 12732 is computed by adding each anniversary year in which at least 50 points have 
been credited on the basis of 1 point for each day of active duty or ADT; 1 point for each 
IDT  drill  attended  or  period  of  appropriate  duty  performed  during  the  anniversary 
year;  15  points  per year  for  membership  in a  Reserve  component;  and  various  points 
earned by satisfactory completion of correspondence courses. 
 

Chapter 8.C.9. stated that 50 retirement points “must be earned in an anniversary 
year for a year to be satisfactory for computation of service for retirement.  A maximum 
of  365  points  (366  in  a  leap  year)  may  be  credited  per  anniversary  year.”    Chapter 
8.C.9.f. stated that “retirement points must be credited in the anniversary year in which 
the duty was performed or the correspondence course was completed.”  (Chapter 12-C-
9.f. of the RATMAN also stated that “[r]etirement points must be credited in the anni-
versary year in which the duty was performed or the correspondence course was com-
pleted.”) 
 

Chapter  8.C.10.  stated  that  an  annual  Reserve  Retirement  Point  Statement  “is 
distributed by HRSIC approximately three months following the end of the reservist's 
anniversary  year.  …  Reservists  who  find  discrepancies  on  their  Reserve  Retirement 
Point Statement shall send a request for correction with supporting documents via the 

chain of command to HRSIC(cst).  HRSIC shall review and resolve discrepancies if the 
problem  can  be  identified.    In  cases  that  can  not  be  resolved,  HRSIC  shall  provide  a 
meaningful endorsement with any additional supporting documents available and for-
ward the request to CGPC-rpm for resolution.” 

 

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. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the day the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in her record that she wants corrected.  10 U.S.C. 
§ 1552(b).    The  JAG  argued  that  the  application  is  untimely  because  the  applicant  is 
seeking correction of her record to show that she was credited for 50 retirement points 
for AY 1998.  However, 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b) states that “[n]o application shall be consid-
ered by the Board until the applicant has exhausted all effective administrative reme-
dies afforded under existing law or regulations, and such legal remedies as the Board 
may  determine  are  practical,  appropriate,  and  available  to  the  applicant.”    Therefore, 
the applicant alleged, her application is timely because she has been diligently seeking 
correction of her total points for AY 1998 since 1999.  

 
3. 

 
In accordance with Chapter 8.C.10. of the RPM, the applicant presumably 
received an Annual Statement of Retirement Points  for AY 1998 in 1998.   Although a 
copy of that statement is not in the record, other documents indicate that the applicant 
initially was credited with 37 retirement points; that in response to her complaints, she 
was  for  some  time  credited  with  49  retirement  points;  and  that  after  considering  her 
BCMR  application  and  reviewing  her  record,  CGPC  recently  reduced  her  total  retire-
ment points for AY 1998 to 37.  In light of CGPC’s recent reduction of the applicant’s 
total retirement points for AY 1998 from 49 to 37, the Board finds that the application is 
timely.  Although the applicant knew or should have known that the Coast Guard was 
not counting her AY 1998 as a satisfactory year for retirement purposes since receiving 
her Annual Statement of Retirement Points in 1998, CGPC’s recent reduction of her total 
points  for  that  year  from  49  to  37,  contrary  to  the  applicant’s  request,  created  a  new 
alleged error regarding her total retirement points for AY 1998 and therefore causes the 
application to be timely. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  negligently  and  unfairly 
 
caused  her  to  have  an  unsatisfactory  year  for  retirement  purposes  by  delaying  her 
assignment to a new  unit.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that 

4. 

Coast Guard officials, including the administrative personnel and assignment officers in 
Xxxxx  and  California,  performed  their  duties  lawfully,  correctly,  and  in  good  faith.1  
The evidence submitted by the applicant indicates that on July 10, 1997, more than four 
months after the start of AY 1998, she informed the Coast Guard that she was moving to 
Xxxxxx, California, near Los Angeles, and asked for an assignment to a unit near Long 
Beach  and  San  Pedro,  south  of  Los  Angeles  in  Southern  California.    She  did  so  by 
submitting  this  information  on  the  wrong  form,  which  was  supposed  to  be  used  for 
requesting  ADT  or  other  active  duty  orders  rather  than  a  new  assignment,  to  the 
Administrative Office in Xxxxxx.   
 

5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  her  request  form  was  not  lost  but  was  never 
properly  processed.    As  evidence,  she  submitted  an  email  from  the  ISC  in  Xxxxxx 
concerning  an  agreement  with  ISC  Alameda  to  transfer  the  applicant.    ISC  Xxxxxx 
stated,  “Apparently,  [the  applicant]  submitted  a  CG-5525  (CG  Reserve  Assignment 
Request and Orders) that never got to us.”  This email is very ambiguous as there is no 
evidence in the record that the applicant ever completed a proper assignment request 
form  CG-5525,  and  she  did  not  allege  that  she  did  so.    As  the  applicant  requested 
assignment to a unit in California in July 1997, her request would have been forwarded 
to the assignment officer at ISC Alameda.  The applicant herself admitted that she later 
received  a  copy  of  the  incorrect  form  she  had  submitted  on  July  10,  1997,  from  ISC 
Alameda.  Therefore, the email does not prove that the incorrect form was not timely 
forwarded to the assignment officer at ISC Alameda or that the assignment officer did 
not timely attempt to find a billet for her in Southern California just as she had asked.  
 

6. 

Chapter 4.C.1. of the RPM provides that when a member of the SELRES 
informs the Coast Guard that she has moved and needs a new assignment, as the appli-
cant did in July 1997, the assignment officer at the new regional ISC should try to assign 
the member to the unit closest to the member’s new permanent home address that has 
an appropriate vacant RPAL billet.  Chapter 4.A.7.a. states that “Ready Reserve mem-
bers detached from a unit due to change of residence … shall normally be assigned to 
RPAL billets near their new residence, if available.”  [Emphasis added.]  The applicant 
has  not  proved  that  after  she  submitted  her  first  request  for  a  new  assignment,  the 
assignment officer did not timely attempt to find her an RPAL billet in a unit in South-
ern California.  As COMDTINST 5320.1  shows, RPAL  billets are not always available 
when a SELRES member moves to a region, and assigning members to billets and units 
may be a time-consuming process.  The COMDTINST notes that “[p]eople assigned to 
units (but not to billets) are at risk of reassignment to the IRR (non pay) if the AOP is at 
target strength.  Thus, a member is always encouraged to seek out and fill RPAL billets 
within his or her specialty.”  Therefore, although quickly assigning the applicant to a 

                                                 
1 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). 
 

unit without a billet might have facilitated her earning of retirement points in AY 1998, 
the rules required the assignment officer to take the time to try to find her an RPAL bil-
let within 100 miles of her home in Southern California because it would be in her best 
interest  to  have  one.    The  fact  that  on  September  26,  1997,  two  and  one-half  months 
later,  the  applicant  voluntarily  requested  assignment  to  a  unit  about  470  miles  away 
from her home, in Northern California, strongly suggests that the assignment officer’s 
attempt  to  find  her  an  assignment  in  Southern  California  had  been  fruitless  due  to  a 
lack of appropriate vacancies.  

 
7. 

The applicant has not proved that the form she submitted on July 10, 1997, 
was not timely provided to the proper assignment officer or that the assignment officer 
did  not  properly  perform  his  duties  in  accordance  with  Chapters  4.A.1.,  4.C.7.,  and 
2.B.5. of the RPM and COMDTINST 5320.1.  However, even assuming arguendo that the 
applicant’s  July  10,  1997,  form  was  not  timely  processed,  the  Board  is  not  persuaded 
that the consequent delay in the applicant’s assignment constituted an error or injustice.  
The  applicant  submitted  her  request  on  an  obviously  incorrect  form  and,  apparently, 
did not contact the assignment officer to ensure that it would be processed anyway.  As 
a long-term member of the SELRES in the yeoman rating, the applicant knew or should 
have known that the recent integration of the Reserve into the regular Coast Guard and 
the introduction of RPAL billets had significantly complicated the assignment process 
for reservists and that her submission of the wrong form could delay processing of her 
request.  Even if, as alleged, ISC Xxxxxx sometimes used the active duty request form 
for purposes other than its intended use, this fact would not convince the Board that the 
applicant could reasonably expect her use of the incorrect form not to delay her assign-
ment in another region of the country.  The applicant has not proved that she herself 
exercised due diligence in seeking a new assignment during the summer of 1997. 

 
8. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  once  she  submitted  her  Reserve  Information 
Worksheet  requesting  assignment  to  XXXXX  on  September  26,  1997,  which  that  com-
mand immediately endorsed, the Coast Guard negligently and unjustly delayed issuing 
her  Assignment  Orders  until  December  14,  1997—11  weeks  later—and  unfairly 
provided a reporting date of January 24, 1998, even though she had informed the joint 
command  that  she  was  worried  about  whether  she  would  earn  enough  retirement 
points to have a satisfactory year.  The applicant did not point to any regulation that 
required the Coast Guard and XXXXX to act upon her request any faster than it did, and 
the  Board  knows  of  none.    She  has  not  shown  that  either  the  orders  or  the  reporting 
date was unusually, unnecessarily, or unjustly delayed. 

 
9. 

Given  the  timing  and  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s  move  and  initial 
request for transfer, the Board finds that she has not proved any negligence or unneces-
sary,  unjust  delay  on  the  part  of  the  Coast  Guard  in  assigning  her  to  a  new  unit  in 
California or setting her reporting date.  Moreover, the Board notes that the applicant 

could have earned points for ADT, drilling, or correspondence courses while she was 
still assigned to MSO Xxxxxx but failed to do so. 

 
10. 

The applicant alleged that upon reporting to XXXXX on January 24, 1998, 
that command erroneously and unjustly prevented her from completing a satisfactory 
year of service for retirement purposes before her anniversary year ended on March 6, 
1998.    Chapter  3.B.2.e.  of  the  RPM  stated  that  “[w]hen  scheduling  duty,  commands 
must  keep  in  mind  the  member's  need  to  earn  50  retirement  points  each  anniversary 
year  to  earn  a  satisfactory  year  for  federal  service  (i.e.,  to  get  a  good  year  for 
retirement).”    Chapter  2.B.2.c.  stated  that  “[c]are  must  also  be  taken  to  ensure  that 
scheduling does not conflict with a member's attainment of a satisfactory year for both 
SELRES  (fiscal  year  basis)  and  federal  retirement  (anniversary  year  basis)  require-
ments.”    On  January  24,  1998,  only  42  days  remained  in  the  applicant’s  anniversary 
year.  Since 15 points are earned by membership alone, it was theoretically possible for 
the applicant to earn the 35 remaining points to have a satisfactory year for retirement 
purposes in AY 1998.  The language in Chapters 3.B.2.e. and 2.B.2.c., however, does not 
persuade  the  Board  that  XXXXX  was  required  to  assign  the  applicant  enough  drills 
during  her  first  42  days  at  the  command  to  ensure  that  she  could  earn  35  points  just 
because  she  had  not  earned  any  points  during  the  first  46  weeks  of  her  anniversary 
year.  The applicant admitted that her supervisor told her he could not schedule her for 
extra drills because he did not have any extra work for her to do.  Chapter 2.B.2.d. of the 
RPM stated that even  for unpaid drills, “the nature of duty to be  performed must be 
equivalent to that authorized for paid drills.”  As Chapters 2.B.2.b. and 2.B.2.e. indicate, 
scheduling frequent drills during a specific period, rather than spreading them evenly 
throughout the year, was authorized when the workload required it—i.e., during surges 
in  operations  in  “peak  seasons.”    Nothing  in  the  RPM  stated  that  a  command  must 
ensure that every reservist—even those who have earned no points during the first 46 
weeks  of  the  anniversary  year—have  sufficient  drills  scheduled  to  earn  a  satisfactory 
year for retirement purposes. 

 
11. 

The applicant alleged that her command continued to follow the rules in 
 
the RATMAN and therefore did not know that the points she earned for ADT in April 
1998 could not be applied to her AY 1998 for retirement purposes as well as for partici-
pation purposes.  She argued that if they had known the new rules, they would have 
scheduled her for sufficient drills and ADT to earn 50 retirement points before March 6, 
1998.  However, the rules regarding retirement points did not change when the RPM 
was issued.  Chapter 4-B-1.e. of the RATMAN, which allowed ADT performed within 
120  days  to  be  credited  to  the  prior  anniversary  year,  stated  that  “[f]or  purposes  of 
complying with the participation standards, credit for AT which begins in one anniver-
sary year and extends to the next anniversary year may be given for either anniversary 
year, but not both.  (See 12-C-9 for crediting retirement points.)”  Chapter 12-C-9 of the 
RATMAN stated that “[r]etirement points must be credited in the anniversary year in 
which  the  duty  was  performed  or  the  correspondence  course  was  completed.”    This 

12. 

exact same sentence was included in Chapter 8.C.9.f. of the RPM.  Therefore, under nei-
ther  the  RATMAN  nor  the  RPM  could  the  retirement  points  for  the  ADT  that  the 
applicant performed from April 19 to May 1, 1998, be credited to her prior anniversary 
year. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that her retirement points for her ADT from April 
10  to  May  1,  1998,  should  be  credited  to  her  AY  1998  because  of  the  language  in  her 
travel orders.  The travel orders stated, “12 Days ADT-OTD to satisfy AT requirement 
for RQA AY ending 3/7/98.”  The Coast Guard’s participation standards required each 
SELRES member to perform 12 days of AT each year or request and receive a waiver.  
The applicant apparently did not request a waiver from her command at XXXXX, and 
given the acceptable causes for waiver listed in Chapter 3.B.3., it seems unlikely that one 
would have been granted if she had.  The travel orders are silent about how the retire-
ment points for the ADT would be assigned and clearly do not suggest that any prom-
ise was made to assign them to the applicant’s prior anniversary year contrary to regu-
lation.  It is clear from the Retirement Point Statement printed from the Coast Guard’s 
database on November 9, 2005, that following the applicant’s complaints, 12 retirement 
points  that  she  earned  for  the  ADT  in  April  1998  were  erroneously  attributed  to  AY 
1998  for  some  period  of  time.    However,  this  error  in  the  database,  which  the  Coast 
Guard has since corrected, does not convince the Board that, contrary to long-standing 
regulation, retirement points earned by the applicant in April 1998 should be attributed 
to the anniversary year that ended on March 6, 1998.  
 
The applicant made numerous allegations with respect to the actions and 
 
attitudes of various Coast Guard personnel involved in her assignment and scheduling.  
Those allegations not specifically addressed above are considered to be not dispositive 
of the case. 
 
 
The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of 
the evidence that her failure to receive 50 points and a satisfactory year toward retire-
ment between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 1998, resulted from any negligence, error, or 
injustice  on  the  part  of  the  Coast  Guard  or  XXXXX.    The  applicant  earned  no  points 
while  assigned  to  MSO  Xxxxxx  (aside  from  membership  points)  and  did  not  exercise 
reasonable diligence to ensure that she would receive 50 points during the year despite 
her personal geographic and logistical impediments.  The Retirement Point Statement 
printed  from  the  Coast  Guard’s  database  on  May  18,  2006,  appears  to  be  correct  in 
showing that she received a total of 37 retirement points during AY 1998.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

13. 

14. 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 

military record is denied. 
 
 

 

 
 Elizabeth F. Buchanan 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Audrey Roh