DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2007-112 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This is a proceeding under 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 March 8, 2007, upon receipt 
of the completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare the decision 
for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated November 29, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  amend  his  1978  temporary  additional  duty  (TAD) 
orders to permanent change of station (PCS) orders so that he will be able to receive travel pay 
and allowances.  The applicant stated that when he completed boot camp on July 14, 1978, he 
was  transferred  on  TAD  orders  from  the  training  center  in  New  Jersey  to  a  training  center  in 
California to attend “A” School to become a sonar technician.  He alleged that under paragraph 
2.A.2.a.(17)  COMDTINST  1500.10,  his  “A”  School  orders  should  have  been  PCS  orders  for 
duty under instruction (DUINS), rather than TAD orders, because his “A” School training lasted 
more than 20 weeks.  The applicant stated that if he had been properly issued PCS orders, he 
would have been entitled to significant compensation in travel pay and allowances.  He alleged 
that he discovered the error on February 5, 2007. 
 

In  support  of  his  allegation,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his  Reserve  enlistment 
contract,  dated  April  11,  1978,  which  shows  that  he  was  guaranteed  enrollment  in  the  sonar 
technician “A” School class convening on August 7, 1978.  Other military records show that he 
enlisted in the regular Coast Guard on May 15, 1978; completed boot camp in New Jersey on 
July  14,  1978;  and  attended  ten  months  of  “A”  School  in  California from August 7, 1978, to 
March  30,  1979.    In  addition,  the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  paragraph  2.A.2.a.(17)  of 
COMDTINST M1500.10B, which states the following: 

 

(17)  Type of orders issued.  Upon completion of “A” School, all personnel will be reassigned by 
Commandant (G-PE). 

(a)  Non-rated personnel orders to class “A” school immediately following recruit training 
will  be  issued  orders  for  Temporary  Duty  Under  Instruction  (TEMDUINS).    This  training  is 
considered a continuance of their basic training and per diem is not authorized. 

(b)  Petty officer/non-rated personnel ordered to a course of instruction from other than 
recruit training, whose course length is less than 20 weeks, will be issued orders for Temporary 
Duty Under Instruction (TEMDUINS) (Permanent Change of Station (PCS) for members without 
dependents, and Temporary Additional Duty (TAD) for members with dependents). … 

(c)  Petty officers/non-rated personnel ordered to a course of instruction from other than 
recruit training, whose course length is 20 weeks or more, will be issued orders for Duty Under 
Instruction (DUINS) and PCS. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 31, 2007, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    He  forwarded  to  the  Board  a  memorandum  on  the  case 
prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  adopted the findings and analysis 
therein, and asked the Board to accept it as the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.   
 

CGPC stated that the orders issued for the applicant’s attendance at “A” School in 1978 
are  no  longer  in  his  record.    However, CGPC submitted a copy of the applicant’s assignment 
history from its Direct Access database.  The history shows that was assigned to the New Jersey 
training center for boot camp on May 15, 1978, and that his very next assignment, dated July 25, 
1978, was to attend “A” School at the training center in California.  CGPC stated that “assign-
ments  listed  in  the  Direct  Access  assignment  summary  reflect  permanent  assignments  and 
typically not temporary duty assignments.”  Nevertheless, CGPC argued, the applicant’s analysis 
of the regulation is flawed because subparagraph 2.A.2.a.(17)(a) of COMDTINST 1500.10B 

 
clearly states that orders to “A” School immediately following recruit training will be TAD.  And 
the section he points to in support of his claim reiterates this distinction in that DUINS and PCS 
orders are issued for service members who are ordered to a course of instruction “FROM OTHER 
THAN RECRUIT TRAINING” (emphasis added).  Since the applicant transitioned directly from 
recruit training to Sonar Technician Class “A” School, the provision for DUINS/PCS orders does 
not apply in his case and he should have been issued TAD orders, which is the form of orders he 
asserts were issued. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On  August  2,  2007,  the  Chair  sent  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion  and 

invited him to respond within thirty days.  No response was received.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

3. 

1. 

2. 

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

The Board finds that the applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity 

 
The application was timely.1 
 
 
The Board must begin its analysis by presuming that the applicant’s orders to “A” 
School in 1978 were issued correctly, and the applicant bears the burden of submitting probative 
evidence and of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his orders were incorrect.2   
 
 
that must be accorded his 1978 orders to “A” School for three reasons: 
 
 
(a)  The applicant failed to submit a copy of the disputed orders so the Board is 
unable to determine what type of orders were actually issued.  No copy of these orders appears in 
the military records provided to the Board by the Coast Guard. 
 
 
1500.10B, a regulation that was not issued until 1988. 
 
 
(c)  Even assuming that the regulations in 1978 were the same or similar to those 
in  COMDTINST  1500.10B,  the  applicant  would  not  have  been  entitled  to  PCS  orders.    The 
Coast Guard’s Direct Access database shows that he was transferred directly from boot camp to 
“A”  School.    Paragraph  2.A.2.a.(17)(a)  of  COMDTINST  1500.10B  states  that  temporary  duty 
orders—not  PCS  orders—are  issued  to  all  members  who,  like  the  applicant,  are  transferred 
directly from boot camp to “A” School regardless of the duration of the “A” School training.   
 

(b)    The  applicant  based  his  claim  on  paragraph  2.A.2.a.(17)  of  COMDTINST 

 

 

 

 
 

4. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

  

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
1 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil 
Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active duty”). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(a) and (b). 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer