DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-014 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J.  
 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on October 23, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records.   
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  13,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a retired reservist, asked the Board to correct his records so that he can be 
paid for drills he performed in March, April, May, June, July, and September 2006.  He alleged 
that due to an administrative error by the Coast Guard, he was not informed until October 2006 
that he had been retired from the Reserve on his 60th birthday, February 28, 2006, and should 
stop drilling.  He stated that he did not receive retirement orders and a letter notifying him that he 
had completed 20 years of service toward retirement until October 2006.  The applicant further 
stated that the Coast Guard Personnel Services Center (PSC) paid him for the drills he performed 
after his 60th birthday but then recouped them as overpayments.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
From January 6, 1966, through March 20, 1968, the applicant served on active duty in the 
Marine Corps (2 years, 2 months, and 15 days).  On December 11, 1987, the applicant enlisted in 
the Coast Guard Reserve.  He became a marine science technician and drilled regularly to earn 
satisfactory years of service until 2006, except for one unsatisfactory anniversary year ending on 
December 10, 1989. 
 

On September 13, 2005, the applicant submitted a “Request for Waiver” to the Comman-
dant through his  chain of command in which he asked to remain in the  Reserve past his 60th 

birthday,  February  28,  2006,  because  his  20-year  anniversary  date  as  a  reservist  would  be 
December 11, 2006.  On September 16, 2005, the applicant’s command forwarded his request for 
an “age waiver” to the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) Reserve Personnel Manage-
ment Division.  
 

On October 31, 2005, the Commandant sent the applicant a letter stating that his request 
to “defer mandatory separation beyond age 60, forwarded to this office for disposition, is disap-
proved.”  The letter noted that the law allowed members who did not yet have 20 years of satis-
factory service to defer their retirement to age 62, but that the applicant would have 19 years of 
satisfactory service as of December 11, 2005, and could earn a 20th qualifying year prior to his 
60th  birthday  on  February  28,  2006.    The  letter  advised  the  applicant  to  contact  the  PSC  and 
review Chapter 8.C.11. of the Reserve Policy Manual to learn how partial years may count as a 
satisfactory year of service toward retirement. 
 

A Summary of Points in the record shows that because of the applicant’s prior service in 
the Marine Corps, he would have 19 years, 2 months, and 15 days of satisfactory service on his 
anniversary date December 11, 2005. 
 

On February 27, 2006, the applicant signed a Reserve Retirement Transfer Request show-
ing that he requested transfer to “RET-1 [status] (Retired with Pay) Transfer is effective on your 
60th birthday.  Note:  No Drills or ADT will be authorized or approved after the above Effective 
Date of Transfer.”  The form shows that the applicant had filled in December 2006 as the “Effec-
tive Month/Year of Transfer”  and noted in another block on the form that he planned to drill 
until  December  31,  2006.    The  form  shows  that  his  request  to  transfer  to  RET-1  status  was 
approved on March 2, 2006, by a senior chief yeoman at his command and on March 13, 2006, 
by a master chief  yeoman at the regional  Integrated Support Command, who wrote above his 
signature, “RETIREMENT EFFECTIVE 28 FEB 2006.” 
 

In an email dated July 13, 2006, a senior chief yeoman in the Reserve Personnel Manage-
ment Division asked the applicant’s command about his status since he had already turned 60 
years old but was still assigned to an operational unit, did not have an age waiver, and had not 
yet submitted a Reserve Retirement Transfer Request through that office.  In response, a Reserve 
Enlisted Assignment Officer sent a copy of the applicant’s Reserve Retirement Transfer Request 
dated February 27, 2006, and stated that it had been approved by a master chief petty officer sev-
eral months earlier.  The senior chief yeoman replied that Reserve Retirement Transfer Requests 
were supposed to go directly to the PSC and that the PSC did not have one for the applicant. 
 

In  further  follow-up  emails  dated  in  July  and  August  2006,  personnel  specialists  dis-
cussed what paperwork was missing and needed for the applicant to begin receiving retired pay, 
which he had never requested, and the fact that his partial anniversary year from December 11, 
2005, through February 28, 2006, qualified as a satisfactory year toward retirement under Chap-
ter 8.C.11. of the Reserve Personnel Manual. 
 

On October 3, 2006, the PSC issued the applicant’s retirement orders, which state that he 
was “hereby transferred to the United States Coast Guard Retired Reserve with pay as a MST1 
effective FEBRUARY 28, 2006.”  In addition, the PSC notified the applicant in a letter retroac-

tively dated February 27, 2006, that he had completed 20 years of satisfactory service and was 
“eligible to receive retired pay when [he] reach[ed] age 60 on February 28, 2006.”   
 
 
A database print-out dated December 14, 2006, shows after the applicant’s anniversary 
date  December  11,  2005,  he  completed  drills  in  December  2005  and  in  January,  February, 
March, April, May, June, July, and September of 2006. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On March 26, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   

 
The JAG stated that under Chapters 8.B.3. and 8.B.12. of the RPM, the applicant was not 
entitled to remain in an active status past his 60th birthday unless his request for a waiver was 
approved because of a compelling need of the Coast Guard.   The JAG stated that the applicant 
was notified on October 31, 2005, that his request for such a waiver had been disapproved and 
yet despite receiving notice of his mandatory retirement in February 2006, he “continued to drill 
and collect payment for drills performed beyond his mandatory retirement date.”  Therefore, the 
JAG argued, the applicant was on “notice that he would be retired on the day he reached the 
mandatory  retirement age.  As soon as the Coast Guard discovered the erroneous payments it 
sought to recoup them and at the same time award the Applicant back pay for retirement which 
he became eligible to receive on his mandatory retirement date.”  The JAG argued that the Coast 
Guard’s recoupment and payment actions were not erroneous or unjust because the applicant was 
on notice that he would not be allowed to serve beyond his 60th birthday. 

 
The JAG submitted and adopted a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.  CGPC 
stated  that  the  applicant’s  September  13,  2005,  request  for  an  age  waiver  had  been  properly 
processed and denied since under the regulations he could qualify for retirement prior to his 60th 
birthday.  CGPC stated that the applicant was timely notified of the disapproval of his request 
and has not shown that he was unaware of it.  CGPC stated that when the applicant completed 
the Reserve Retirement Transfer Request on February 27, 2006, he should have had “no expecta-
tion that a retirement date of December 2006 would be approved given the disapproval of his 
request to remain in the active Reserves beyond age 60.”  However, the applicant “continued to 
drill without any specific authority even in light of his disapproved waiver.” 

 
CGPC stated that although the applicant continued to drill, there was no legal authority 
for him to do so past February 28, 2006.  CGPC admitted that the applicant’s 20-year notification 
letter and retirement orders were issued retroactively in October 2006, but argued that he had 
been paid retirement pay effective as of February 28, 2006, and cannot receive both retirement 
pay and drill pay for the same period.  CGPC recommended that the Board deny his request. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 4, 2007, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He objected 
 
to the Coast Guard’s recommendation and stated that although he notified the Coast Guard of his 
intention to retire six months before his intended retirement date of December 31, 2006, he was 

never  officially  notified  to  stop  performing  his  duties.    The  applicant  argued  that  “it  was  the 
Coast Guard[’s] responsibility to inform me officially in writing to stand down and retire and not 
call me by phone almost 4 months later.” 
 

The applicant also claimed that he did not earn a 20th satisfactory year toward retirement 
until September 2006.  He alleged that when he first enlisted, he was told that he had until age 62 
to complete 20 satisfactory years toward retirement. 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 

Chapter  8.C.  of  the  RPM  contains  the  regulations  for  the  “non-regular”  retirement  of 
reservists under 10 U.S.C. § 12731.  Chapter 8.C.3.b. states that “[f]or the purpose of determin-
ing entitlement to retired pay in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12732, years of satisfactory federal 
service  are  computed  by  totaling  all  anniversary  years  in  which  at  least  50  points  have  been 
credited  on  the  following  basis:    (1)  One  point  for  each  day  of  active  duty  in  an  Active  or 
Reserve component of an Armed Force … (2) One point for each authorized IDT drill … per-
formed.  (3) 15 points a year for membership in a Reserve component of an Armed Force. (4) 
Points earned by satisfactory completion of authorized correspondence courses. “ 
 

Chapter  8.C.3.  provides  that  a  qualifying  year  of  satisfactory  service  toward  a  “non-
regular,” Reserve retirement is any full year in which the member “is credited with a minimum 
of 50 retirement points.  An accumulation of 20 such years is one requirement necessary to qual-
ify for non-regular retired pay.”  However, paragraph a.(3) states the following: 
 

A member who has a break in service that occurs during an anniversary year shall be credited with 
a partial year for non-regular retirement.  When a partial year occurs, the member must meet the 
minimum retirement point requirements set out in Section 8.C.11. of the chapter for the member’s 
service to be credited as a partial year towards a qualifying year.  Partial years of qualifying ser-
vice may be combined and credited toward total qualifying service. 

Chapter 8.C.11. provides a chart which shows that a partial year of either 2 months and 
15 days—such as the applicant’s partial year at the end of his Marine Corps enlistment—or 2 
months and 17 days—such as the applicant’s partial year from December 11, 2005, to his birth-
day on February 28, 2006—counts as qualifying service if the reservist earns at least 11 points 
during the period.  In addition, the chart shows that during any partial year of at least 61 days but 
no more than 85 days, a reservist earns 3 gratuitous membership points of the 15 such points he 
would normally earn during a full year.   

 
Chapter 8.B.3 of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) in effect in 2006, titled “Mandatory 

Discharge for Age,” states that 
 

reservists serving in the Ready Reserve will be removed from an active status upon reaching age 
60. Any  member qualified for retirement,  who does not request to be transferred to the Retired 
Reserve,  will  be  transferred  to  the  Standby  Reserve,  Inactive  Status  List  (ISL)  on  the  day  the 
member reaches 60 years of age. A member not qualified for retirement (and not statutorily pre-
cluded from discharge) shall be discharged without board proceedings, unless Commandant (G-
WTR) approves the member's request to defer retirement until age 62 (or sooner if the member 
becomes retirement qualified in the interim).  

 

 

Chapter 8.C.12.c. states the following: 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 

 

Reservists who remain in an active status in the Ready Reserve after becoming retirement eligible 
may  request  to  transfer  to  RET-1  status  upon  reaching  age  60.    …  Any  member  qualified  for 
retirement, who does not request to be transferred to the Retired Reserve, will be transferred to the 
Standby Reserve Inactive Status List (ISL) on the day the member reaches 60 years of age.  Mem-
bers who are eligible to receive retired pay will only be retained in the Ready Reserve beyond age 
60 to fulfill compelling needs of the Coast Guard and upon approval of a written request submitted 
by the member to Commandant (G-WTR-1), via the chain of command.  See Sections 8.A.5. and 
8.B.3. 
 
Chapter  8.C.2.  describes  the  two  retirement  categories:  RET-1,  which  is  for  reservists 
who are at least 60 years old and have completed 20 years of satisfactory federal service; and 
RET-2,  which  is  for  “reservists  who  have  satisfied  all  requirements  for  RET-1  except  having 
reached  age  60.”    Chapter  8.C.7.  states  that  the Coast  Guard  “will  notify  members  in  writing 
within  one  year  of  completing  satisfactory  service  for  retirement  purposes,  of  eligibility  for 
retired pay at age 60.  The written notification is commonly called the 20-year letter.” 
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely.  

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  should  be  paid  for  the  drills  he  performed  from 
March through September 2006 because he did not know that he would be retroactively retired 
as of his 60th birthday, February 28, 2006. 

Under Chapters 8.B.3. and 8.C.12.c. of the RPM, the applicant could not continue 
in the SELRES past his 60th birthday unless he received an age waiver.  The applicant clearly 
knew  of  this  law  because  on  September  13,  2005,  he  applied  for  an  age  waiver.    The  record 
shows  that  on  October  31,  2005,  the  Commandant  denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  age 
waiver.  The request was reasonably denied because the applicant would have two partial years 
of qualifying service and could qualify for retirement without drilling past his 60th birthday.  The 
letter  from  the  Commandant  instructed  the  applicant  to  contact  the  PSC  and  review  Chapter 
8.C.11. of the RPM to learn how he could qualify for retirement by his 60th birthday. 

The Commandant’s letter noted that the applicant could earn a satisfactory year of 
service during the partial year between his anniversary on December 11, 2005, and his 60th birth-
day on February 28, 2006.  The applicant did not do so.  Nevertheless, he was still qualified to 
retire by his 60th birthday because his first partial year, which consisted of his last 2 months and 
15 days in the Marine Corps, constituted a qualifying year of service under Chapter 8.C.11. of 
the RPM. 

5. 

The applicant failed to follow the instructions in the Commandant’s letter dated 
October 31, 2005.  Instead, he ignored the fact that his request for an age waiver had been denied 
and continued to drill past his 60th birthday.  He apparently attempted to finagle an unofficial age 
waiver by writing December 2006 as his effective date of retirement on his Reserve Retirement 
Transfer Request dated February 27, 2006.  However, the master chief yeoman at the regional 
Integrated Support Command noticed the error and wrote on the form that he approved the appli-
cant’s transfer to RET-1 status effective as of February 28, 2006. 

The applicant’s own command allowed him to continue drilling and paid him for 
those drills.  In addition, the Coast Guard did not issue the applicant his retirement orders or 20-
year letter until October 2006.  In light of the Commandant’s October 31, 2005, letter denying 
his request for an age waiver, however, these facts do not persuade the Board that the applicant 
was unaware prior to his 60th birthday that he was supposed to contact the PSC to determine how 
he could qualify for retirement and that he was not authorized to drill for pay or points past his 
60th  birthday.    The  applicant  has  not  shown  that  he  attempted  to  follow  the  Commandant’s 
October 31, 2005, instructions or that he was miscounseled about his eligibility for retirement on 
February 28, 2006. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR (Retired), for correction of 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

his military record is denied.