DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-153 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 July 12, 2007, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s 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  April  10,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his total commissioned service (TCS) date from 
May 21, 1986, to July 1, 1992, for the purpose of determining when he will attain 30 years of 
commissioned service.  He stated that he graduated from the United States Coast Guard Acad-
emy and was commissioned an ensign on May 21, 1986.  Upon failure to be selected for promo-
tion to lieutenant, he was discharged from the regular Coast Guard on June 30, 1992, and was 
appointed an ensign in the Reserve on July 1, 1992.  However, based on his prior commissioned 
service on active duty, the applicant’s date of rank as a Reserve ensign was set at August 2, 1991.  
In 2002, he began serving on extended active duty as a Reserve Program Administrator.   

 
The applicant stated that upon reviewing his record in 2005, he “realized the implications 
in my personal total commissioned service (TCS).”  He stated that if his TCS is calculated from 
his date of appointment as an ensign in the regular Coast Guard in 1986, he will be “handicapped 
from contributing at the apex of my career.  Not adjusting the TCS date precludes me from any 
chance of achieving meaningful participation as a Captain in the RPA Corps.  In addition, given 
the high-3 retirement system, this handicap precludes me from the ability to earn a full CAPT 
retirement.”   

 
Therefore, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that only his commis-
sioned service as a Reserve officer would count toward his TCS, and so that his years as a com-
missioned active duty officer from May 21, 1986, to June 30, 1992, would not count toward his 
TCS.  The applicant argued that he is entitled to this correction because the Reserve accession 

date in his record is not in accordance with 14 U.S.C. § 740(d) or Article 8.A.6. of the Reserve 
Policy  Manual.    Title  14  U.S.C.  §  740  concerns the mandatory separation of Reserve officers 
who have failed twice of selection for promotion and states the following: 

 
(d)  For the purpose of this section, the total commissioned service of an officer who has 
served continuously in the Reserve following appointment in the grade of ensign shall be 
computed  from  the  date  on  which  that  appointment  was  accepted.  A  Reserve  officer 
initially  appointed  in  a  grade  above  ensign  is  considered  to  have  the  actual  total 
commissioned service performed in a grade above commissioned warrant officer or the 
same  total  commissioned  service  as  an  officer  of  the  Regular  Coast  Guard  who  has 
served continuously from an original appointment as ensign, who has not lost numbers or 
precedence, and who is, or was, junior to the Reserve officer, whichever is greater. 
 
Article 8.A.6.a. of the Reserve Policy Manual states the following: 
 
All commissioned officers in pay grades O-6 and below shall be removed from an active 
status after completion of 30 years total commissioned service, if they are not carried on 
an approved list of selectees for promotion to the grade of rear admiral (lower half). 
 
(1)    The  total  commissioned  service  of  an  officer  who has served continuously in the 
Reserve following appointment in the grade of ensign shall be computed from the date 
on which that appointment was accepted. 
 
(2)  A Reserve officer initially appointed in a grade above ensign is considered to have 
whichever period of commissioned service is greater of the following: 
 
(a)    The  total  commissioned  service  actually  performed  in  a  grade  above 
commissioned  warrant  officer  (including  commissioned  service  performed  in  other 
components prior to appointment in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve), or 
 
(b)    The  same  total  commissioned  service  as  an  officer  of  the  regular  Coast 
Guard who has served continuously from an original appointment as ensign, who has not 
lost  numbers  or  precedence,  and  who  is,  or  was  at  the  time  of  original  appointment, 
immediately junior to the Reserve officer. 
 
(3)  The TCS Years column of the Register of Reserve Officers, COMDTINST M1427.2 
(series) is used as a guide for determining when officers will be removed from an active 
status.  They will normally be removed on 30 June immediately following completion of 
30 years total commissioned service. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On December 18, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) with a recom-
mendation that the Board deny the requested relief but grant alternative relief by correcting the 
“expected loss date” in the applicant’s record from June 30, 2016, to June 30, 2022.   

 
CGPC  stated  that  neither  14  U.S.C.  §  740(d)  nor  Article  8.A.6.  of  the  Reserve  Policy 
Manual explicitly addresses how to calculate the TCS of an officer with two successive ensign 
commissions.  However,  under  the  Coast  Guard’s  Personnel  Management  Information  System/ 
Joint Uniform Military Pay System (PMIS/JUMPS) Analysis Manual, TCS is calculated for all 

members as “the cumulative commissioned service (total years, months, days) of a commissioned 
officer for all prior military service.”   

 
CGPC stated that because § 740(d) includes the phrase “[f]or the purpose of this section,” 
the  calculation  provided  therein  is presumably only for the purpose of calculating an officer’s 
mandatory separation date and not his TCS for pay purposes or other entitlements.  Given the 
requirement in § 740(d) that “the total commissioned service of an officer who has served con-
tinuously in the Reserve following appointment in the grade of ensign shall be computed from 
the date on which that appointment was accepted” (emphasis added), CGPC concluded that the 
applicant’s commissioned service prior to “that appointment”—i.e. his Reserve appointment as 
an ensign—should not be included in the calculation of his TCS in determining his mandatory 
loss date.  Therefore, CGPC recommended that his record be corrected to show that his expected 
loss date is June 30, 2022, instead of June 30, 2016. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSES TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  December  21,  2007,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to submit a response 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: 
 
 
The application was timely filed. 
 

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

1. 

2. 

Title  14  U.S.C.  §  740(d)  states  that  “[f]or  the  purpose  of  this  section  [which 
concerns the mandatory separation of a Reserve officer upon twice failing of selection for promo-
tion], the total commissioned service of an officer who has served continuously in the Reserve 
following  appointment  in  the  grade  of  ensign  shall  be  computed  from  the  date  on  which  that 
appointment was accepted.”  (Emphasis added.)  The phrase “that appointment” appears to refer 
to  the  officer’s  Reserve  appointment  as  an  ensign  and  does  not  appear to contemplate a prior 
appointment as an ensign in the regular Coast Guard or other military service.  The result of this 
provision—excluding  the  applicant’s  six  years  of  commissioned  service  as  an  ensign  and 
lieutenant  junior  grade  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  in  calculating  his  TCS  for  the  purpose  of 
determining his mandatory separation date—is anomalous because the same statute provides that 
an officer who is originally appointed to the Reserve in a rank higher than ensign has all of his 
commissioned service above the grade of warrant officer in any military service included in his 
TCS.  Although the exclusion of the applicant’s prior commissioned service as an active duty 
officer in the calculation of his TCS for any purpose is counterintuitive, the Board will accept the 
Coast Guard’s interpretation of the statute because of the language used therein and the lack of 
any contrary information.1  The Board notes that the statutory language for computing TCS for 

                                                 
1  See  Chevron  U.S.A.,  Inc.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  467  U.S.  837,  866  (1984)  (holding  that 
“[w]hen a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the 

the purpose of determining the mandatory separation dates of Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
Reserve personnel is similar, except that appointments as lieutenants junior grade are treated the 
same as appointments as ensigns.2   

The way both the statute and the Coast Guard’s regulation at Article 8.A.6. of the 
Reserve  Policy  Manual  are  written,  the  calculation  of  a  Reserve  officer’s  TCS  for  mandatory 
separation  purposes  includes  all  of  his  periods  of  commissioned  service  above  the  grade  of 
warrant officer in any military service unless the officer accepts appointment in the Reserve as an 
ensign.  For example, an officer with ten years of prior commissioned service in the Army who 
receives  a  Coast  Guard  Reserve  commission  as  a  lieutenant  junior  grade  is,  under  14  U.S.C.  
§ 740(d), considered to have ten years of TCS for mandatory separation purposes upon accepting 
the Reserve appointment, but he will be considered to have zero years of TCS if he accepts the 
Reserve commission as an ensign.  The applicant in this case accepted a Reserve commission as 
an ensign on July 1, 1992, and so under 14 U.S.C. § 740(d), his TCS for mandatory separation 
purposes should be computed from that date. 

CGPC  stated  that  to  avoid  subtracting  six  years  from  the  computation  of  the 
applicant’s TCS for pay purposes and still correct the applicant’s TCS for mandatory separation 
purposes, the Board should order the Coast Guard to correct his “expected loss date” from June 
30, 2016, to June 30, 2022.  The applicant did not object to this recommendation. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the “expected loss date” in the 

applicant’s record from June 30, 2016, to June 30, 2022. 

 
3. 

  
4. 

 
5. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                                                                                                                             
wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the 
challenge must fail”). 
2 Under 10 U.S.C. § 6389, titled “Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve; officers: elimination from active status; 
computation of total commissioned service,” paragraph (d) states the following: 

  
(d) For the purposes of subsection (c), the total commissioned service of an officer who has served 
continuously in the Navy Reserve or the Marine Corps Reserve following appointment therein in 
the permanent grade of ensign or second lieutenant, as the case may be, shall be computed from 
June 30 of the fiscal year in which he accepted the appointment.  Each other officer is considered 
to have for this purpose as much total commissioned service as the years of active commissioned 
service of any regular officer on the active-duty list of the Navy not restricted in the performance 
of  duty,  or  any  regular  officer  on  the  active-duty  list  of  the  Marine  Corps  not  restricted  in  the 
performance of duty, as appropriate, who has served continuously since original appointment as an 
ensign on the active-duty list of the Navy or as a second lieutenant on the active-duty list of the 
Marine Corps, has not lost numbers or precedence, and is, or has been after September 6, 1947, 
junior  to  that  other  officer.    However,  the  total  commissioned  service  that  the  other  officer  is 
considered  to  have  may  not  be  less  than  the  actual  number  of  years  he  has  served  as  a 
commissioned officer in a grade above chief warrant officer, W-5. 

The  application  of  LCDR  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of 
his  military  record  is  granted.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  the  “expected  loss  date”  in  his 
record to show the date June 30, 2022 (instead of June 30, 2016). 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 
 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER