DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-154 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  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 September 2, 2005. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  20,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant, a chief warrant officer (CWO) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked 
the Board to correct his record to show that from October 22 through November 4, 2003, 
he  served  on  active  duty  for  training  (ADT)  rather  than  inactive  duty  training  (IDT).  
The applicant alleged that he was involuntarily recalled to active duty for nine months 
beginning on January 23, 2003.  On October 11, 2003, he alleged, he signed an extended 
active  duty  (EAD)  contract  to  begin  active  duty  as  of  November  5,  2003.    However, 
while on terminal leave in mid October 2003, he was “called back” to his unit to assist a 
deployment.  The applicant stated that he served on a full-time basis between the end of 
his involuntary active duty orders on October 21, 2003, and the start of his EAD contract 
on November 5, 2003. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  on  November  24,  2003,  his  unit  “cut”  ADT  orders  to 
bridge the gap and cover his service from October 22 through November 4, 2003.  How-
ever, on December 2, 2003, the ADT orders were canceled, and his service during those 
two weeks was counted and paid as IDT instead. 

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  Master  Chief  Petty  Officer  of  the  Coast  Guard 
(MCPO  E)  informed  him  on  August  31,  2004,  that  he  did  not  qualify  for  educational 
benefits  under  the  Montgomery  G.I.  Bill  (MGIB)  because  he  had  a  “break  in  service” 
from October 22 through November 4, 2003, and therefore had not performed 24 con-
secutive months of active duty. 
 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of the following: 
 

•  Standard Travel Orders dated November 24, 2003, which state that on October 22, 
2003, the applicant was to report to his unit for “14 days of Consecutive Active  Duty 
Training  (ADT-AT).”    The  orders  indicate  that  they  were  issued  by  the  applicant’s 
PERSRU in accordance with Article 4.G.3. of the Personnel Manual. 

 

•  His  Leave  and  Earnings  Statement  (LES)  for  the  month  of  October  2003,  which 
shows that the applicant was paid as a member on active duty for all of October, based 
on  transactions  processed  as  of  October  21,  2003.    In  addition,  the  LES  states,  “Your 
statement  of  intent  has  processed  showing  that  you  are  scheduled  to  be  retained  on 
active duty beyond 22Oct03. 

 

•  His LES for the month of November 2003, which shows that he was paid as a mem-
ber on active duty for all of November, based on “transactions processed as of Novem-
ber 20, 2003.” The LES states, “Your expected active duty termination date is 22Jan04.  
Please convey your intentions to your unit/PERSRU to ensure timely separation proc-
essing or uninterrupted pay service.”  In addition, the LES shows that the applicant was 
on leave from October 1 through October 10. 

 

•  His LES for the month of December 2003, which shows that his basic pay and allow-
ances  were  stopped  as  of  October  21,  2003;  that  his  basic  pay  and  allowances  for  the 
period  October  22  through  November  4,  2003,  had  been  deducted;  and  that  he  was 
instead paid for 13 consecutive multiple IDT drills from October 23 through November 
4, 2003.  It also shows, in clear contradiction to his receiving pay for a multiple drill on 
October 24, 2003, that he was charged for one day of regular leave on October 24, 2003. 

 

•  An email message showing that on November 24, 2003, a yeoman first class (YN1 P) 
serving as the Administrative Officer at the applicant’s unit requested ADT orders for 
the  applicant  from  October  22  through  November  4,  2003.    She  wrote that  the  orders 
were needed “to cover the time between Title 10 RELAD [release from active duty] and 
member reporting for EAD orders.  This has been discussed and verbally was approved 
by FOT and [a chief yeoman (YNC N) at the regional Integrated Support Command].”  

 

•  An  email  message  from  a  yeoman  third  class  (YN3  A)  dated  November  25,  2003, 
who  stated  that  she  had  “entered  [the  applicant’s]  ADT-AT  and  it  is  on  my  auditor’s 
desk for approval.” 

 

•  An email message dated December 1, 2003, from YN1 P to YNC N in which YN1 P 
stated the following: 

 
I  am  trying  to  track  some  information  regarding  the  conversation  you  had  with  [the 
applicant and LT M].  Member was under the impression there was an important reason 
that  he  should  be  on  continuous  active  duty[,]  so  ADT-AT  from  the  date  of  term[inal] 
leave on Title 10 orders to start date for EAD vs. member covering the period worked as 
IDT.  He said he was told that if it was not continuous active duty it would affect several 
things, including pay, insurance, etc. 
 
If it does not really affect anything, it would be best for the FOT budget and policies to 
pay  the  member  by  IDT  drills  instead.  ….    Could  you  please  get  back  to  me  ASAP  to 
clear  up  the  confusion  of  WHY  it  needed  to  be  accounted  as  ADT-AT  vice  IDT.    The 
orders  for  ADT  were  just  completed,  but  we  still  have  time  to  cancel  them  and  do  the 
changes … .  

 
•  An email message from a lieutenant dated December 1, 2003, stating that “[p]er my 
conversation  with  [a  lieutenant  commander],  we  cannot  authorize  ADT-AT  after  the 
fact.  [The applicant] should use IDT for the 22Oct03 to 04Nov03 time period.  This will 
get him paid and allow those ADT-AT funds to go to those who are training for mobili-
zation. … [P]lease see to it that any orders for ADT-AT for [the applicant] are canceled 
immediately.” 
 
•  An email message from YNC N dated December 2, 2003, telling YN3 A to cancel the 
ADT orders and to make sure that the applicant’s authorization for IDT drills for the 
period in question was approved and that the applicant was paid. 
 
•  An  email  dated  July  19,  2004,  from  YN1  P  noting  that  the  applicant  had  asked  to 
participate in the MGIB when he signed his EAD contract on October 11, 2003; that she 
had  submitted  paperwork  for  a  determination  as  to  his  eligibility  to  participate;  and 
that she had not received an answer. 
 
•  An  email  from  MCPO  E  dated  August  31,  2004,  noting  that  the  applicant  did  not 
qualify for participation in the MGIB because he did not have any period of active duty 
at least two years in length.  MCPO E noted that although the applicant was serving on 
Title  10  orders  until  October  21,  2003,  and  began  EAD  on  November  5,  2003,  “the 
service  was  not  continuous  and  cannot  be  added  to  the  current  period  to  equal  2  or 
more years.” 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On January 11, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard rec-
ommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  In making his recommenda-
tion,  the  JAG  relied  on  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC), which the JAG adopted.   
 

CGPC stated that Article 3.B.1. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) “directs that 
orders  be  issued  in  writing  in  advance  of  the  member  reporting for  duty,  except that 
verbal orders may be issued in time critical or emergency situations.”  CGPC pointed 
out that Article 3.B.6. of the RPM requires that all ADT-AT orders of 30 days or less be 
authorized  by  the  regional  Integrated  Support  Command,  or  “ISC(pf).”    In  addition, 
Article  3.A.3.  stated  that  ADT-AT  is  to  be  scheduled  “for  the  purpose  of  providing 
‘individual and/or unit readiness training.’” 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  ISC  erroneously  issued  the  applicant’s  ADT-AT  orders 
 
after the fact without approval from the “order issuing authority,” which is the Force 
Optimization and Training Division (FOT), as required by the Reserve Policy Manual.  
CGPC  stated  that  orders  were  properly  canceled  because  they  were  not  issued  or 
approved in advance by the FOT, which is ISC(pf).  CGPC argued that “[s]ince this was 
not  an  emergency  or  time  sensitive  ADT,  duty  should  not  have  commenced  without 
proper written authority.”  CGPC stated that the emails show that the ISC denied that 
any  advance  verbal  agreement  had  been  made  to  bridge  the  gap  between  the  appli-
cant’s release from active duty and the start of his EAD with ADT-AT orders.  CGPC 
stated that the applicant’s service was “properly documented and compensated for as 
IDT drill periods.” 
 
 
Regarding MGIB benefits, CGPC stated that the requested correction would not 
qualify  the  applicant  for  benefits  because  the  Department  of  Veterans’  Affairs  (DVA) 
does not count ADT as active duty for this purpose.  CGPC directed the Board’s and the 
applicant’s attention to a DVA website, www.gibill.va.gov, which states that a member 
may be eligible for MGIB benefits if the member has performed two years of continuous 
active duty, and that full-time service performed by a reservist under Title 10 “is con-
sidered  active  duty  for  purposes  of  qualifying  for  VA  education  benefits,  unless  the 
service  is  active  duty  for  training  [ADT].”    In  support  of  its  allegations,  CGPC 
submitted copies of the following: 

 

•  Standard Travel Orders showing that the applicant was called up under Title 10 to 
performed involuntary active duty for nine months beginning on January 23, 2003. 
 
•  An EAD contract signed on October 30, 2003, which obligated the applicant to serve 
about 20 months of active duty from November 5, 2003, through June 30, 2005. 
 
•  The first page of an EAD contract form that states that the applicant “shall remain on 
active duty for a term of service approximately   2   year(s) and   00   month(s) com-

mencing on the   11th   day of   October  , 2003, and terminating on the   10th   day of   
October   2004, [sic] both dates inclusive … .”   
 
•  An email from LT H of the ISC(pf), dated November 7, 2005, who stated that con-
trary  to  the  applicant’s  claims,  his  request  for  ADT  orders  had  been  disapproved  by 
ISC(pf) and “yet somehow orders were cut sometime after that date.” 
 
•  An email from YNC P, dated November 7, 2005, who stated that while she was out 
of the office, the applicant and the unit’s Executive Officer signed an EAD contract and 
“attempted to bring him on before the approved date of 05NOV and it was rejected at 
HQ.  ADT-AT request was rejected based on the conversation that ADT-AT was not to 
be used for the purpose of bridging Title 10 with EAD, but the money rather used for 
the purpose of training … not deployment augmentation.  The only thing I had done 
was to attempt to assist the member with the ADT orders he had requested, of which he 
had told me ‘HE’ [had] spoken with FOT and the PERSRU and had a verbal approval.  
My email was based on that conversation.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 13, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond in writing.  No response was received.  
 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Chapter  2.A.1.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (RPM),  COMDTINST  M1001.28A, 
defines “inactive duty” as “authorized training or other duty performed by reservists 
not  on  active  duty.    The  primary  purpose  of  inactive  duty  is  to  provide  individual 
and/or unit readiness training.  Inactive duty is a period of duty, under orders, sched-
uled for the performance of:  a. Augmentation (on-the-job) or formal training in support 
of Coast Guard readiness (mission support may be a key element in developing training 
programs, but training shall be the paramount consideration).  b. Readiness administra-
tion  and  maintenance  (e.g.,  SWE  participation,  physical  exams).    c.  Funeral  honors.”  
Chapter 2.A.4. defines a “multiple drill” as two 4-hour periods of inactive duty training 
(IDT) scheduled in a single calendar day.  Chapter 2.B.2.b. of the RPM stated that “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  require-
ments 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.” 
 

Chapter 3.A.1.a. defines “active duty” as “[f]ull-time duty in the active military 
service of the United States.  Such term includes full-time training duty, annual training 
duty, and attendance, while in the active  military service, at a school designated as a 
service  school  by  law  or  by  the  Secretary  of  the  military  department  concerned.”  
Chapter 3.A.2. states that for reservists, “active duty is comprised of the following cate-
gories:  Active  Duty  for  Training  (ADT)  and  Active  Duty  Other  than  for  Training 
(ADOT).  Sub-categories of ADT include IADT, ADT-AT, or ADT-OTD. Sub-categories 
of ADOT include ADSW-AC, ADSW-RC, EAD, RPA, ADHC, or Involuntary Recall.” 
 
Chapter  3.A.3.  states  that  active  duty  for  training  (ADT)  “is  used  to  provide 
 
reservists  with  structured  individual  and/or  unit  training,  or  to  provide  formal  courses  of 
instruction through resident or exportable training.  ADT in the form of on-the-job training may 
support Active component operational missions and requirements, thereby adding substance to 
the  total  Coast  Guard  Force;  mission  support  may  be  a  key  element  in  developing  training 
programs, but training shall be the paramount consideration.  The sub-categories of ADT are: 
 

“a.  Initial  Active  Duty  Training  (IADT),  which  includes  basic  military  training 
and technical skill training. … 
“b.  Active  Duty  for  Training  –  Annual  Training  (ADT-AT),  which  is  the 
minimum  period  of  active  duty  that  reservists  must  perform  each  fiscal  year  to 
satisfy 
their 
assignments.    The  primary  purpose  of  ADT-AT  is  to  provide  individual  and/or 
unit readiness training. For all members of the SELRES, ADT-AT shall be for not 
less than 12 days and not more than 15 days (exclusive of travel time) each fiscal 
year.  Accomplishing  Active  component  operational  requirements  or  mission 

training  and  participation  requirements  associated  with 

the 

support,  as  a  consequence  of  conducting  training,  may  be  a  key  element  in 
planning and conducting ADT-AT. 
“c.  Active  Duty  for  Training  –  Other  Training  Duty  (ADT-OTD),  which  is 
authorized  training  in  addition  to  IADT  or  ADT-AT,  to  include  on-the-job 
training,  for individuals or units to enhance proficiency. … Training  conducted 
using  ADT-OTD  must  have  a  clear  end  result  such  as  certification,  re-
certification,  qualification,  completion  of  performance  qualifications,  or 
graduation from a formal course of instruction. …” 
 
Chapter  3.A.4.  states  that  ADOT  is  “used  to  provide  Reserve  support  to  either 

 
Active component or Reserve component missions. … The types of ADOT are: 

 
“a.    Active  Duty  Special  Work  (ADSW),  for  the  Active  Component 
(ADSW-AC) or for the Reserve Component (ADSW-RC),  which is active 
duty for reservists, authorized from applicable military or reserve appro-
priations  (AC  funded  or  RC  funded)  to  support  AC  or  RC  programs, 
respectively.  The  purpose  of  ADSW  is  to  provide  the  necessary  skilled 
manpower  assets  to  temporarily  support  existing  or  emerging  require-
ments. 
“b.  Extended Active Duty (EAD), which is active duty for reservists who 
serve  in  an  Active  component  duty  status. It  is  used  to  provide  Reserve 
support to fill occasional personnel shortages in specific pay grades, rat-
ings  or  specialties  when  active  duty  Coast  Guard  resources  fall  short  of 
requirements. 
“c.  Reserve Program Administrator (RPA) duty… . 
“d.  Involuntary Active Duty, which is used in support of military opera-
tions when the President or the Congress determines that Reserve forces 
are required to augment the Active component.  It is also used in support 
of response to domestic emergencies when the Secretary of Transportation 
determines that augmentation of Coast Guard Active forces is required. … 
“e.  Active Duty for Health Care … .” 

 
 
Chapter  3.B.1.  states  that  “active  duty  orders  shall  be  generated  in  writing,  in 
advance of reservists reporting for duty.  Normally, orders should be issued at least one 
month  before  the  scheduled  duty  to  allow  reservists  time  to  provide  notification  to 
civilian  employers  and  family  members.    …  a.  Requests  for  ADT-AT,  ADT-OTD  and 
ADSW  orders  must  be  submitted  by  the  member  following  the  instructions  on  form 
CG-3453.  Supervisors in the chain of command or commanding officers shall forward 
active duty requests to their servicing ISC (pf) in order for written orders to be issued 
well  in  advance  of  duty  dates.    Verbal  orders  may  be  issued  in  time-critical  or  emer-
gency situations, but orders in writing must follow as soon as possible.” 

 

 

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 application was timely. 
 

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

1. 

2. 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he per-
formed ADT from October 22 through November 4, 2003, so that he would have two 
years of continuous active duty and be eligible for MGIB benefits.  As CGPC pointed 
out, such a correction would not make the applicant eligible for MGIB benefits because 
the DVA does not count ADT as active duty that may qualify a member for educational 
benefits.    This  response,  however,  raises  the  question  of  whether  the  applicant  is 
entitled  to  have  the  period  October  22  through  November  4,  2003,  accounted  for  as 
some other type of active duty that would qualify him for MGIB benefits. 

 
3. 

4. 

 
The record indicates that on October 11, 2003, someone at the applicant’s 
unit prepared an EAD contract form that, if properly approved, would have cut short 
the  applicant’s  Title  10  orders  and  placed  him  on  EAD  effective  as  of  the  same  date.  
The  email  of  YNC  P  indicates  that  the  unit’s  Executive  Officer  may  have  done  this.  
However,  the  record also  indicates  that  the  proposed  contract  was  not  approved  and 
that on October 30, 2003, another EAD contract was prepared, signed, and approved to 
place the applicant on EAD as of November 5, 2003. 
 
 
If the applicant had been verbally ordered by his commanding officer to 
report for active duty from October 22 through November 4, 2003, he might be entitled 
to have his record corrected to reflect that he was on active duty during that period.  In 
Skaradowski  v.  United  States,  200  Ct.  Cl.  488  (1973),  the  plaintiff’s  commanding  officer 
(CO) issued him a verbal order to continue serving on ADT for an extra five days after 
the termination date of his orders and to assume command during that period because 
the CO was going on leave.  The plaintiff complied with the verbal order.  The Army 
BCMR  held  that  the  applicant  was  not  serving  on  active  duty  during  those  five  days 
because no written orders had been issued.  The Court of Claims held that these facts 
alone,  which  were  stipulated  by  both  parties,  were  sufficient  to  render  the  Army 
BCMR’s decision arbitrary and capricious.  Id. at 489.  The court noted that “[o]ne can 
only conjecture as to what effect it would have had on plaintiff’s career as an officer in 
the  active  reserve,  had  he  disobeyed  that  [verbal]  order.    It  is  too  crabbed  a  view  to 
suggest that this period was not active duty, and that plaintiff’s initial period of active 
duty  had  not  been  ‘extended  by  proper  authority’  just  because  the  order  was  oral 
(VOCO),  and  was  not  later  confirmed  by  written  order.    The  military  services  could 
hardly function without competent orders, delivered orally.”  Id. at 495. 
 

5. 

 The applicant, however, has not presented any evidence to show that he 
was ordered to perform active duty during the period in question.  The evidence shows 
that he performed and was paid for full days of work from October 23 through Novem-
ber  4,  2003.    In  addition,  his  LESes  for  October  and  November  2003  show  that  no 
changes were made in the Coast Guard’s pay database, and so he continued to be paid 
as  if  on  active  duty  until  December  2003,  when  corrections  were  made  to  reflect  his 
service during the period as paid IDT.  However, there is no evidence that the applicant 
performed this work pursuant to a written or verbal order by his command to remain 
on  involuntary  active  duty  or  to  begin  extended  active  duty.    Although  the  record 
indicates  that  the  applicant  wanted  to  be  on  continuous  active  duty  and  that  the  XO 
may have taken action to try to keep him on continuous active duty, these facts do not 
prove that from October 22 through November 4, 2003, the applicant was compelled by 
a lawful verbal or written order to serve on active duty. 

 
6. 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 George J. Jordan  

 

 

 
  Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.