DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-067 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

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 
February  8,  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  October  23,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct  her pay entry base date retroactive to May 23, 
2001, the date she had prior to her temporary separation1 from active duty, with back pay and 
allowances.  She  further requested Reserve service  credit  from May  24,  2006 through July 1, 
2007.     
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant was commissioned an ensign in the regular Coast Guard on May 23, 2001 
upon her graduation from the Coast Guard Academy.  On June 23, 2005, she asked to resign her 
commission effective May 23, 2006, under the temporary separation program.  At that time she 
also requested a commission in the Coast Guard Reserve as of November 23, 2006.   On January 
19,  2006,  the  Secretary  approved  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  Reserve  commission  with  an 
appointment date of May 23, 2006.  The Reserve Acceptance and Oath of Office was delivered 
to  the  applicant  on  January  25,  2006.    She  executed  her  oath  of  office  for  the  Reserve  on 
December 5, 2006. 
                                                 
1      Article  12.F.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  temporary  separation  policy  allows 
members to temporarily separate and pursue  growth or other opportunities outside the service,  while providing a 
mechanism for their return to active duty.  The long-term intent of this program is to retain the valuable experience 
and  training  our  members  possess  that  might  otherwise  be  lost.    Under  this  policy,  career  oriented  officers  and 
enlisted members are allowed a one time separation from active duty for up to two years.   

 
The applicant alleged that upon her discharge from the active duty component she should 
have been accessed directly into the Reserve.  In this regard, she noted that her separation orders 
stated  that  “[a]ccepting  a  Reserve  commission  is  a  condition  of  approval  of  this  resignation 
pursuant to 14 USC 1822 and 10 USC 651.3  She argued that she should have been accessed into 
the Reserve component without a break in service effective May 24, 2006 and that she was under 
a Reserve obligation from that date until July 1, 2007.   She stated that the oath of office she 
signed  on  December  5,  2006  was  never  completed.    The  applicant  further  contended  the 
following: 

 
Upon re-entry to active duty, my pay entry base date was adjusted to [August 15, 
2002].  Active duty base date and DIEMS date reflect May 23, 2001, the date of 
my graduation from the USCG Academy as an ENS.    My pay entry base date 
needs to be corrected to reflect May 23, 2001.  Since returning to active duty on 
July 2, 2007, I have been paid on the O-3 over 4 years scale.  I should have been 
paid  on  the  O-3  over  six  scale.    I  was  not  properly  processed  into  the  Inactive 
Ready Reserve and then the Ready Reserve to complete my obligation while on 
temporary separation.  The error is not mine.  I should receive the back pay due to 
me. 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

On May 23, 2001, the applicant was commissioned as an ensign upon graduation from 

 
the USCG Academy. 
 
On June 23, 2005, the applicant submitted a request to resign her commission under the 
 
temporary  separation  policy  and  requested  that  her  resignation  become  effective  on  May  23, 
2006.    She  resigned  her  commission  to  continue  her  education  and  to  explore  civilian 
employment options.  She requested a commission in the Reserve effective November 23, 2006.  
She  stated  that  she  desired  a  six-month  break  in  service  to  determine  employment,  living 
arrangements and geographic stability.   
 

                                                 
2   Section 182(b)(2)(B) of title 14 of the United States Codes states in pertinent part that upon graduation from  the 
Academy, the cadet will serve on active duty for at least five years.    Section (b)(3)(B) states that if an appointment 
is not tendered of if a cadet is permitted to resign as a regular officer before the completion of the commissioned 
service  obligation  of  the  cadet,  he  or  she  will  remain  in  that  reserve  component  until  completion  of  the 
commissioned  service  obligation  of  the  cadet.    Subsection  (b)(e)  states  that  “commissioned  service  obligation” 
means the period beginning on the date of the officer’s appointment as a commissioned officer and ending on the 
sixth  anniversary  of  such  appointment  or,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  any  later  date  up  to  the  eighth 
anniversary of such appointment. 
3   Section 651 of title 10 of the United States Code states that each person who becomes a member of an armed 
force shall serve in the armed forces for a total initial period of not less than six years nor more than eight years, as 
provided  in  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  Homeland  Security  for  the  Coast  Guard  when  it  is  not 
operating as service in the Navy, unless such person is sooner discharged under such regulations because of personal 
hardship.  Any part of such service that is not active duty or that is active duty for training shall be performed in a 
reserve component.   

On  the  same  date  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  of  understanding  of  conditions  for 

 
temporary separation that included the following provisions: 
 

[O]fficers  returning  to  active  duty  receive  a  subsequent  appointment  to  their 
former grade and an adjusted date of rank . . .  
 
The  member  has  up  to  2  years  from  the  date  of  discharge,  unless  otherwise 
specified, to return to active duty under the temporary separation policy and retain 
the last held pay grade.    

The  applicant  also  submitted  a  notice  of  intention  to  affiliate  with  the  Reserve 

 
 
commencing November 23, 2006. 
 
 
On October 11, 2005, CGPC issues orders approving the applicant’s separation subject to 
acceptance by the Secretary.  She was allowed to execute the separation orders while awaiting 
that acceptance.  The applicant was advised that “accepting a Reserve commission is a condition 
of approval of this resignation pursuant to 14 USC 182 and 10 USC 651.”  She was also advised 
“to contact CGPC-rpm at [phone number] without delay to learn the impacts of your choice on a 
variety of entitlements and the impacts of delaying acceptance of a Reserve commission beyond 
24 hours from your separation date and to learn about the application and selection process.” 
 
 
On  January  19,  2006,  the  Secretary  approved  the  applicant’s  appointment  as  a 
commissioned officer in the Coast Guard Reserve with an appointment date of May 23, 2006, in 
the grade of LT with a May 23, 2005 date of rank.    
 
On  January  25,  2006,  the  Chief  of  the  Reserve  Officer  Personnel  Management  Office 
 
informed the applicant by letter that her request for a Reserve commission had been approved 
and that the Secretary had appointed her a LT with a May 23, 2005 date of rank.  The applicant 
was given the following instruction in that letter: 
 

If you accept this appointment, please sign and completely fill out both original 
Acceptance and Oath of Office forms (CG-9556) . . .  You must completely fill 
out the Employee’s withholding Allowance Certificate (W-4) form, Pay Delivery 
Worksheet,  and  Dependency  Worksheet  and  return  them  with  the  two  original 
Acceptance  and  Oath  of  Office  forms  to  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC-rpm).  You have up to one year from the date of this letter to initiate your 
Acceptance  and  Oath  of  Office  forms.    However,  if  you  do  not  return  the 
previously  stated  forms  within  60  days  from  the  date  of  this  letter,  it  will  be 
assumed that you do not desire this appointment and your file will be placed into 
a “hold status” for a maximum of one year.   

 
 
On May 23, 2006, the applicant was separated from the Coast Guard after 5 years, and 1 
day in the active duty Coast Guard.   She did not execute her Acceptance and Oath of Office in 
the Reserve until December 6, 2005. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  June  26,  2008,  the  Board  received  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General (JAG).  He adopted the fact and analysis provided by CGPC and asked the 
Board to accept CGPC’s comments as the advisory opinion in this case. 
 
 
CGPC recommended that the date on the applicant’s December 5, 2006 Reserve Oath of 
Office be corrected to May 24, 2006, to reflect no break in service and that the applicant should 
be  paid  any  amount  due  to  her  as  a  result  of  the  correction.    In  recommending  relief,  CGPC 
reached the following conclusions: 
 

1.    The  applicant  was  clear  in  her  intent  to  have  a  six  month  break  in  service 
between her resignation  and affiliation with the Coast Guard Reserve . . .  The 
applicant’s request for temporary separation however included a condition that the 
applicant affiliate with the Coast Guard Reserve . . . pursuant to the requirement 
of 10 USC § 651 . . . which requires a minimum of six years of military service.  
At  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  resignation  she  had  completed  the  5  years  of 
required obligated service for Academy graduates . . . and met the requirement for  
. . . temporary separation. 
 
2.  The applicant was approved for affiliation and a commission with the Coast 
Guard reserve . . .  However she delayed execution of the oath of office until more 
than six months post resignation on December 5, 2006 . . .  The applicant provides 
no justification for the delay in executing the oath of office.  The applicant alleges 
that  the  error  is  not  hers.    However,  in  January  2006,  she  was  provided  with 
authority and direction to execute the oath of office . . .  The only apparent error is 
that the Coast Guard failed to ensure that the applicant executed the oath of office 
in  a  timely  manner  to  ensure  that  she  met  the  conditions  placed  upon  her 
temporary separation for affiliation in the reserve as specified in [her separation 
orders]. 
 
3.    The  applicant  had  an  obligation  to  serve  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  as  a 
condition  of  approval  of  her  voluntary  resignation.    As  such,  the  separation 
authorization contained . . .  conditional approval and while the applicant did not 
execute the oath of office in a timely manner the Coast Guard also did not ensure 
that  the  applicant  complied  with  the  provisions  of  the  separation  authorization.  
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant’s record should be corrected to 
show that immediately upon her resignation on May 23, 2006 that she executed an 
oath  of  office  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  in  order  to  meet  the  statutory 
requirement of six years of military service under 10 USC § 651.   

APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On July 7, 2008, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the view of the Coast Guard.  

She had no objection to the views of the Coast Guard.    

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

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

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

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.    
 
 
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.  On May 23, 2001, the applicant was commissioned an ensign in the Regular Coast 
Guard after graduating from the Coast Guard Academy.  On May 23, 2006, the resignation of her 
regular commission under the temporary separation program became effective. She had served 
five  years  and  one  day  on  active  duty.    In  her  resignation  request,  the  applicant  asked  for  a 
commission in the Reserve. On October 11, 2005, CGPC issued separation orders directing the 
applicant’s resignation and stating that it was conditional upon her acceptance of a commission 
in the Reserve pursuant to 14 USC 182 and 10 USC 651.   On January 19, 2006, the Secretary 
approved her commission as a LT in the Coast Guard Reserve with an appointment date of May 
23, 2006.  She was informed of her Reserve commission by letter on January 25, 2006.  On May 
23, 2006, she was discharged from the Coast Guard.  She executed her Reserve Acceptance and 
Oath of Office on December 5. 2006.  When she returned to active duty in July 2007, her pay 
entry base date was adjusted to exclude the period of time that she was not affiliated with the 
Coast Guard.   
 
 
4.  The applicant requested her pay entry base date be corrected to include the period in 
which she was not affiliated with the Coast Guard.  She argued that according to her separation 
orders she should have been processed into the Reserve on May 23, 2006, without a break in 
service because she had a required Reserve obligation.   She asserted that the Coast Guard failed 
to properly process her into the Reserve through not fault of her own.  The applicant’s separation 
orders issued on October 11, 2005, stated that the approval of her resignation was conditional 
upon her acceptance of a Reserve commission pursuant to 14 USC § 182 and 10 USC § 1061.  In 
deed,  the  advisory  opinion  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  to  the  applicant  in  the 
interest  of  justice.    In  this  regard,  the  advisory  opinion  stated  that  “the  applicant  had  an 
obligation to serve in the Coast Guard Reserve  as a  condition of approval [for] her voluntary 
resignation . . . and while the applicant did not execute the [O]ath of [O]ffice in a timely manner, 
the  Coast  Guard  did  not  ensure  that  [she]  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  separation 
authorization.” 
 

5.  The Board disagrees with the advisory opinion’s recommendation for relief and denies 
this application.  In Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) “injustice” is defined 
as  “treatment  by  military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice,  but  is  not  technically 
illegal”; see also Decision of the Deputy General Counsel in BCMR Docket No. 2002-040.   The 
advisory  opinion  notes  the  Coast  Guard’s  only  error  as  its  failure  to  ensure  the  applicant’s 
compliance with her separation orders.  The advisory opinion also noted that the applicant failed 

to execute her Acceptance and Oath of Office in a timely manner without any explanation for the 
delay.  She did not execute the Acceptance and Oath of Office until December 5, 2006, even 
after being told that she needed to execute it within 60 days of January 25, 2006 or it would be 
assumed that she did not want the appointment.  Moreover, her separation orders directed that 
she  contact  the  Reserve  Branch  at  Headquarters  “without  delay”  to  learn  the  impacts  of  her 
choice on a variety of entitlements and the impact of delaying her acceptance beyond 24 hours 
from her separation date.  The applicant presented no evidence that she sought any advice about 
her  Reserve  appointment  from  October  11,  2005,  the  date  of  her  separation  orders  until 
December 5, 2006, the date she executed her Acceptance and Oath of Office.  Her actions in this 
regard corroborate her statement that she wanted a six-month break in service before beginning 
her  Reserve  career,  which  she  obtained  through  her  deliberate  choice  not  to  execute  her 
Acceptance and Oath of office until December 5, 2006.  Only when she returned to active duty 
on July 2, 2007 and discovered that her pay entry date had been adjusted did she complain about 
not executing her Reserve Acceptance and Oath of Office earlier.  More importantly, to change 
the applicant’s pay entry base date to include a period of time that she did not serve is unfair to 
all of those officers who actually performed that duty.  Moreover, it would reward the applicant 
for  being  dilatory  even  when  she  was  advised  in  her  orders  and  in  a  letter  from  the  CGPC 
Reserve Chief to contact that office to discuss the impact her Reserve appointment.   Nothing 
under the circumstances here shocks the Board’s sense of justice.   
 

6.    The  above  findings  are  sufficient  to  deny  this  application.    However,  the  Coast 
Guard’s notation, in its “injustice” assessment, that correcting the applicant’s record would allow 
her  to  meet  her  six  year  service  requirement  under  14  USC  §  182  and  10  USC  §  561  needs 
comment.  In this regard, the Board notes that the separation orders do not state a time certain 
that the applicant was required to begin serving in the Reserve.   Further, the January 25, 2006 
letter from the Chief of the Reserve Officer Division does not mention that the applicant had any 
remaining obligated service requirement.  More importantly, the Board finds that the applicant 
did  not  have  a  statutory  obligation  to  serve  in  the  Reserve  when  she  resigned  her  regular 
commission  because  she  had  already  met  her  five  year  cadet  active  duty  obligation  when  her 
resignation  became  effective.    Section  182(b)(2)(B)  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code 
provides that each cadet shall sign an agreement with respect to the cadet’s length of service in 
the Coast Guard.  The agreement shall provide that the cadet agrees to serve on active duty for at 
least five years immediately after such appointment.   The applicant completed 5 years of active 
duty on May 22, 2006 and her resignation became effective May 23, 2006.   Therefore, she had 
satisfied her five year active duty cadet service obligation and had no further statutory service 
requirement.     

 
7.  Under the statute there is a different service obligation for those academy graduates 
who do not fulfill their five year active duty service obligation after graduation.  In this regard, 
14 USC § 182(b)(3)(A)&(B) states that if no appointment is tendered or if the cadet is permitted 
to resign as a regular officer prior to the completion of the commissioned service obligation of 
the cadet, that the cadet (A) will accept an appointment in the Reserve and (B) will remain in the 
Reserve  until  completion  of  the  commissioned  service  obligation  of  the  cadet.4      “The 

                                                 
4 Section 182(e) of title  14 of the United States Code defines commissioned service obligation as follows: 

 

commissioned  service  obligation”  of  the  cadet  under  this  provision  is  defined  as  “the  period 
beginning on the date of the officer’s appointment as a commissioned officer and ending on the 
sixth anniversary of such appointment or, at the discretion of the Secretary, any other date up to 
the eighth anniversary of such appointment.”   See 14 USC § 182(e).  Again, the applicant had 
completed her five year active duty obligation as required under 14 USC § 182(b)(2)(B) when 
her  resignation  became  effective  on  May  23,  2006  and  therefore  did  not  fall  under  the 
requirements of  14 USC § 182(b)(3)(A)& (B).  While the Board finds these two provisions of 14 
USC  §  182  some  what  ambiguous,  we  are  satisfied  and  persuaded  in  our  finding  that  the 
applicant had no further obligated service requirement because to find otherwise is to invalidate 
14 USC 182(b)(2)(B), Article 1.E.4.f. of the Personnel Manual,5 and the agreement that cadets 
sign with the Coast Guard that upon their appointment to the Academy that they will serve on 
active duty for at least five years after graduation.6   

 
8.  The applicant’s separation orders indicated erroneously that she had further obligated 
service under 14 USC § 182 and 10 USC § 651.  This provision in her separation orders was 
probably an administrative error that was not enforced by the Coast Guard. The applicant has 
produced no evidence that the Coast Guard was obligated to enforce an erroneous provision in 
her  separation  orders.    The  applicant  began  her  service  in  the  Reserve  on  a  date  that  was 
commensurate with her initial request for a Reserve commission.     The applicant received the 
break  in  service  that  she  wanted  and  requested.    She  suffered  no  injustice  under  these 
circumstances  in  this  case  and  is  not  entitled  to  a  pay  entry  base  date  to  reflect  time  in  the 
Reserve that she did not actually perform.     

 
9.  The applicant requested Reserve service credit for the period from May 23, 2006 until 
July 2, 2007.  The Board has disposed of the period from May 23, 2006 through December 4, 
2006 as discussed above.  The applicant has presented no evidence that would allow the Board to 
determine  whether  she  is  entitled  to  or  has  been  denied  any  service  credit  from  December  5, 
2006 through July 2, 2007.  The applicant has the burden of proof in this case and she has only 
made  an  allegation  that  she  has  not  been  credited  with  any  Reserve  time  during  this  period.  
Mere allegations, with corroborating proof, are insufficient to prove error or injustice.    
 
 
that requires any corrective action.  Her request should be denied. 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             

10.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to establish an error or injustice in her record 

[W]ith respect to an officer who is a graduate of the Academy, [it] means the period beginning on 
the  date  of  the  officer’s  appointment  as  a  commissioned  officer  and  ending  on  the  sixth 
anniversary  of  such  appointment  or,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  any  alter  date  up  to  the 
eighth anniversary of such appointment.   

 
5  Article  1.E.4.f.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “when  appointed,  a  cadet  agrees  to  serve  five  years  as  a 
commissioned officer in the Coast Guard on graduation from the Academy.    
6 As a general military statute, 10 USC § 651 is not controlling in this situation.  It is a general statute.  However, 14 
USC 182 is specific about the service obligation an academy graduate owes to the Coast Guard.  It is an established 
legal principle that a specific statute takes precedence over a general one.  See Halverson, et. al. v. Slater, 129 F. 3d 
186 (D.C.C. 1997).   
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

(see below)* 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 

 
military record is denied.   
 
 
The applicant’s December 5, 2006 Reserve Oath of Office shall be corrected to May 24, 
2006 to reflect no break in service.  The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any amount due as a 
result of this correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Richard Walter 

 

 
 
 Ryan Wedlund 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
*This  Board  member  recused  herself  because  of  a  potential  conflict  of  interest.    Under  
33 CFR § 52.11, two members constitute a quorum of the Board.