DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2008-059 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 application on January 
11, 2008, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and subsequently prepared the 
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  “authorize  a  civilian 
clothing monetary allowance.”  The applicant stated that he is assigned to an overseas OCONUS 
(outside  the  continental  United  States)  billet  with  the  Department  of  Justice  in  Anchorage, 
Alaska, where he is required to wear civilian clothing 100% of the time in the performance of his 
duties.   
 
 
The applicant stated that he believes that the Coast Guard’s May 3, 2007 denial of his 
request  for  the  civilian  clothing  allowance  is  unjust.    In  denying  the  applicant’s  request,  the 
Commandant  informed  the  applicant  that  Alaska  was  considered  OCONUS  for  travel  and 
transportation  purposes,  but  was  not  deemed  outside  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of 
authorizing the civilian clothing allowance.  The Commandant further stated:  “By law, an officer 
is  only  authorized  a  civilian  clothing  allowance  when  their  permanent  duty  station  is  located 
outside the United States.  This includes a Special Temporary Duty Civilian Clothing Monetary 
Allowance when performing TDY travel in either the United States or in a foreign country.” 
 
 
The  applicant  requested  that  the  Board  use  its  equity  powers  to  correct  the  alleged 
injustice.    He  states  that  it  is  unfair  to  have  extensive  procedure  and  policy  requirements  to 
qualify for an OCONUS PCS transfer, but then penalize the member by saying Alaska is not an 
Overseas OCONUS transfer for the purpose of the civilian clothing allowance.  In this regard the 
applicant further stated:   

In  order  to  be  approved  for  an  Overseas  .  .  .  (OCONUS)  assignment,  I  was 
required to go through a rigorous process that included reviewing both myself and 
my  family’s  financial,  medical  and  mental  status.    I  was  required  to  seek  entry 
permission to go Overseas after being educated on the hardships and tribulations 
of an OCONUS Permanent Change of Station (PCS) transfer.  For pay purposes, 
travel  and  transportation  purposes,  and  medical  purposes,  the  Coast  Guard 
manuals  and  regulations  consider Alaska  to  be  an  Oversea  OCONUS  location.  
The Coast Guard has a very thorough process to complete in order to be able to 
transfer  OCONUS.    Indeed,  other  federal  agencies  also  classify  Alaska  as  an 
overseas billet and give it hardship designation.   

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 

 
 

United States Code 
 
 
Section  419  of  title  37  of  the  United  States  Codes  states,  in  pertinent  part,  that  under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, an officer of an armed force who is assigned 
to a permanent duty station at a location outside the United States may be paid a civilian clothing 
allowance if the officer is required to wear civilian clothing all or a substantial portion of the 
time in the performance of the officer’s official duties.    
 
DOD Financial Management Regulation  
 
Paragraph 290403 of the DOD Financial Management Regulation states that an officer is 
 
authorized a Civilian Clothing Allowance if directed by competent authority to dress in civilian 
clothing more than half the time when performing official duty and if his or her permanent duty 
station is outside the United States.   
 
Coast Guard Pay Manual 
 
 
Chapter 3.I.5. of the Pay Manual states that under pertinent law, officers assigned to a 
permanent duty station outside the United States may be paid a civilian clothing allowance if the 
officer is required to wear civilian clothing in the performance of the officer’s official duties 50% 
or more of the time.    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 20, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief, as recommended by the Commander, 
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) in a memorandum attached to the views of the Coast 
Guard.   
 

 
CGPC stated that while Alaska is classified outside of the continental United States, it is a 
state of the United States. Therefore the civilian clothing allowance is not authorized for officers 
assigned to duty in Alaska.  CGPC further stated: 
 

The applicant has not substantiated that the denial of his request was erroneous or 
unjust.  The statute of 37 USC § 419 . . . clearly defines the requirement that the 
permanent duty station must be outside the United States. 
 
The Coast Guard fairly and equitably applied the provision of policy and statute 
with regard to the Applicant’s request.  If the BCMR in fact deems merit to the 
applicant’s  case,  such  would  represent  a  significant  policy/legislative  change 
requiring DHS Chief Counsel review.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  July  24,  2008,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  reply  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard.  The applicant stated the following: 
 

The  myriad  different  applications  of  the  term  OCONUS  and  overseas  is 
perplexing.  I recognize that for many different reasons it had different meanings, 
and it requires a substantial amount of work to apply it across the board.  I am 
requesting  that  somehow  a  clear  definition  or  application  as  to  its  use  be 
maintained  and  that  the  Board  use  its  equity  powers  to  grant  me  the  Civilian 
Clothing Monetary Allowance as it is the right thing to do.  Certainly the spirit of 
the  law  was  to  provide  for  those  servicemembers  who  are  required  to  wear 
civilian clothes while stationed in expensive, high cost OCONUS locales.  While 
the letter of the law states it is for those outside of the United States, the use of 
OCONUS  was  likely  more  appropriate  as  in  many  other  laws,  regulations  and 
manuals  Overseas  and  OCONUS  are  synonymous.    The  terms  are  often 
intertwined and interchangeable, and not often do you run across the actual phrase 
“outside of the United States.”   
 
I  hope  that  a  [Coast  Guard]  member  is  not  denied  the  fullest  possible  benefits 
provided  merely  because  it  might  require  further  “review”  at  the  DHS  Chief 
Counsel  level.   Additionally,  the  advisory  review  was  one  sentence  and  can  be 
summed up by the one word “concur.”  It seems to me that such a significant issue 
in the wording of the regulations may merit study and correction and that could be 
accomplished if the BCMR grants relief.    
 

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: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.    

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

 

 
 
2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pursuant 
to  33  C.F.R.  § 52.51,  denied  the  request  and  recommended  disposition  of  the  case  without  a 
hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

           3.  There  is  a  controlling  statutory  definition  of  the  term  “United  States”  as  used  in  37 
U.S.C. § 419.  Section 101(1)(A) of title 37 provides that, for purposes of title 37 of the U.S. 
Code, “[t]he term ‘United States’, in a  geographic sense, means the States and the District of 
Columbia.”  Section 419 uses the term “United States” in a geographic sense and it is undisputed 
that Alaska is a State.  Therefore, a duty station “outside the United States” by definition cannot 
include a duty station in Alaska.  We note as well that Congress has provided a separate title 37 
definition of the term ‘continental United States” as meaning “the 48 contiguous States and the 
District  of  Columbia”.   37  U.S.C.  §  101(1)(B).    In  addition,  the  DOD  Financial  Management 
Regulation defines the United States as “[t]he contiguous states, the District of Columbia, and 
the  states  of Alaska  and  Hawaii”  and  the  Joint Federal Travel  Regulations  defines  the  United 
States as “the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”  If Congress had intended civilian clothing 
allowances to be provided to officers stationed in Alaska, it would have used that term in section 
419.   
 

4.  Moreover, injustice is defined as “treatment by military authorities that ‘shocks the 
sense of justice.’”  Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 869 (Cl. Ct. 1989) (citing Reale v. 
United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (Ct. Cl. 1976), cert denied, 429 U.S. 854 (1976).   The 
applicant has presented no evidence that he was treated differently than any other officer who 
has been in the same or a similar situation.   The denial of the applicant’s request for a civilian 
clothing allowance is not an injustice.  Under the Statute and regulation, he was not entitled to it.   
 

5. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

 
 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer