DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-054 
 
xxxx, xxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxx, YN3 (former) 
   

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 case after receiving the 
completed application on December 9, 2008, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare 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 September 10, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that in November 1995 she was erroneously denied Reserve Transi-
tion Benefits (RTB) when she was removed from a Selected Reserve (SELRES) pay billet and 
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Active Status Pool (ASP).  She stated that she 
was told that she was eligible for RTB and did the paperwork to receive them but never did.  She 
asked to receive the RTB. 

 
In addition, the applicant alleged that she was erroneously discharged from the Reserve in 
September 2003.  She was still in the IRR at the time and should have been sent a contract in the 
mail so that she could reenlist in the Reserve, but she never received the reenlistment contract 
from the Coast Guard.  Moreover, she was not informed of her discharge.  The applicant stated 
that when she was transferred to the IRR in 1995, she was told that she “was to remain a reserv-
ist, participate in the program as able, and receive [a] reenlistment contract six months prior to 
my pay base date to inform the Coast Guard of my intentions.”  However, she was not sent a 
contract in 2003, and the Coast Guard apparently assumed that she wanted to be discharged and 
separated her without asking for her input.  She alleged that the Coast Guard “had my address as 
far as I know” and that she would have reenlisted if given the option. 

 
The applicant alleged that she discovered her failure to receive RTB in 1995 and her dis-
charge in May 2007.  She alleged that she has pursued her RTB for “thirteen years making phone 
calls whenever I could.”  In addition, she argued, it would be in the interest of justice for the 

Board to excuse her delay in filing her application because she was erroneously denied RTB and 
she was not notified of the need to reenlist in 2003. 

 
In  support  of  her  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  dated  October  20,  2008, 
which a retired chief warrant officer (CWO) in the Reserve wrote on her behalf to the Chief of 
the Reserve Management Branch in the Personnel Command.  The CWO stated that the appli-
cant served in the SELRES from 1986 to 1995, when she was transferred to the  IRR “due to 
downsizing.”  The CWO stated that the applicant believes she is entitled to RTB because she was 
removed from active service in the SELRES due to downsizing.  The CWO asked that the appli-
cant’s  record  “be  given  a  thorough  review.”    The  applicant  also  submitted  copies  of  official 
records, which are included in the summary of the record below. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On September 8, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for eight years.  
She drilled in a pay billet in the SELRES and received more than 50 points, thus earning satis-
factory  years of service  for retirement purposes, in each of her  anniversary  years (AY)1 from 
1987 through 1995, except for AY 1990, in which she earned 40 points. 

 
On December 20, 1993, the Commandant issued ALDIST 345/93 with the regulations for 
implementing RTB for members of the SELRES being involuntarily transferred to the IRR due 
to reserve force reductions.  ALDIST 345/93 states the following in pertinent part: 

 

 
2.  Involuntary separation defined:  The discharge of a  member of the Coast Guard Reserve or 
transfer of such member from the Selected Reserve which is effective during the period beginning 
on October 1, 1991, and ending on September 30, 1999, shall be considered an involuntary sepa-
ration for the purposes of the programs implemented by this guidance unless one or more of the 
following conditions applies: 
 

A.  The member was discharged or transferred from the Selective Reserve: 

(1) At the member’s request … 
(2)  As the result of the member’s unsatisfactory participation or unsatisfactory 
performance in the Selected  Reserve or  under adverse conditions as char-
acterized by the Secretary of Transportation … 

4.  Requirement to inform members of the Reserve component of their rights and benefits:  All 
members of the Coast Guard Selected Reserve involuntarily separated after October 1, 1991, are 
to be informed of the rights and benefits set forth in P.L. 102-484 as amended.  The Coast Guard 
shall ensure that any materials which may serve to make this regulation more understandable to 
members  of  the  Reserve  component  is  made  available  without  delay  to  all  Reserve  component 
members. 

●●● 

●●● 

7.  Separation pay for members with 6 to 15 years of service: 

A.  During the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on September 30, 1999, 

 

(1)    is  involuntarily  discharged  or  transferred  from  the  Selected  Reserve  (as 

a member of the Coast Guard Selected Reserve who: 
 
defined in section 2), and 
                                                 
1 A reservist’s anniversary year (AY) begins on the anniversary of the date she entered the Reserve and ends on the 
day before the anniversary the following year.  Thus, for example, the applicant’s AY 1988 began on September 8, 
1987, and ended on September 7, 1988. 

 

(2)  has completed at least six years or service computed under section 1332 of 
 
title 10, United States Code, and has not completed 15 years of such service, as of the date of the 
member’s involuntary separation, shall be eligible for separation pay computed in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section. 

●●● 

8.  Waiver of continued Selected Reserve service requirement for educational assistance under the 
Montgomery G.I. Bill … 
9.  Commissary and exchange privileges … [a member involuntarily discharged or transferred as 
defined in section 2] shall be authorized to continue to use commissary and exchange stores … for 
a  period  of  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  member’s  involuntary  separation  from  the  Selected 
Reserve … 
 
On July 9, 1994, the applicant reenlisted in the Reserve for two years, to July 8, 1996. 
 
On November 3, 1995, the Commanding Officer (CO) of the applicant’s unit prepared 
the following Page 7 for her record.  The Page 7 in the applicant’s military record bears her sig-
nature at the bottom in acknowledgement. 

 
95NOV03:  This is an adverse administrative remarks entry for [the applicant].  [She] was placed 
on  performance  probation  for  a  period  of  six  months  in  February  of  this  year  because  of  low 
evaluations and failure to be recommended for advancement.  [She] is a 1986 direct entry YN3 
reserve petty officer.  Since that time she has not advanced despite completing the YN basic and 
advanced  courses  at  Petaluma  in  1990  and  1992.    She  has  completed  several  correspondence 
courses, but only passed the MRN E-4 EOCT in 1993 and has failed the MRN E-5 EOCT three 
times since June of 1994.  On 20 OCT 95 [the applicant] was tested on several basic E-4 perform-
ance qualifications: computing active service time with prior service and no broken service; com-
puting leave balance; draft a letter requesting discharge for “Care of a Newborn Child” scenario.  
[She] took from 100 until 1600 to complete these three basic questions.  Prior to the test, [she] was 
taught how to do service time computations, and then she did two on her own while being super-
vised.  She stated that she understood how to do these computations.  Yet, on the test she did not 
complete  the  calculations  correctly.    With  the  second  question  on  computing  leave  balance  she 
was reminded twice to subtract the leave taken, and yet she still got the answer wrong.  The third 
problem  showed  numerous  errors  in  drafting  a  basic  letter,  including  the  format,  spacing,  and 
heading.  Despite all the time available on the third problem her draft letter showed that she didn’t 
even look in the correspondence manual. 
 
Even  though  [the  applicant]  displays  a  willingness  to  learn,  she  requires  retraining  in  the  most 
basic tasks for each drill she performs at this unit.  Based on the test given and the admin staff’s 
normal working experience with [her], it is clear that [she] cannot perform the basic Yeoman skills 
for her pay grade, and general duties in the Admin department of this unit. 
 
This entry is to officially notify [the applicant] that I am recommending she be transferred to IRR 
status. 
 
On November 21, 1995, the District Commander sent the applicant a letter regarding her 

transfer to the IRR-ASP, which stated the following: 

 
1.  Effective 1 December 1995 you are assigned to the [IRR-ASP], Ninth Coast Guard District.  
Your  Commanding  Officer  is  Chief,  Personnel  Reporting  Unit,  Ninth  Coast  Guard  District.  
Because you were removed from a pay billet, you are entitled to [RTB].  You will be receiving 
more information from Commandant in regards to your RTB. 
 
2.    While  assigned,  no  active  duty/inactive  duty  training  is  required.    You  must,  however:    (1) 
advise  us  of  any  address  or  status  change;  (2)  receive  permission  to  travel  outside  CONUS  for 

more than 30 days; (3) promptly answer all Reserve-related correspondence, and (4) retain all pre-
viously issued uniform items while in the ASP. 
 
3.  As a Coast Guard Reservist you are also liable for active duty in time of war … 
 
4.  As a member of the ASP, you may participate in the Coast Guard correspondence course pro-
grams,  perform  Special  Active  Duty  for  Training  (SADT)  and  also  perform  Temporary  Active 
Duty (TEMAC). … 
 
5.    It  is  advantageous  to  actively  participate  in  the  Reserve  Program  through  correspondence 
courses  and  SADT  when  available,  because  you  can  continue  to  earn  credit  towards  Reserve 
retirement pay and full military retirement benefits at age 60.  To qualify for retirement you must 
earn a minimum of 50 Reserve Retirement Points each year for at least 20 years prior to age 60.  
By remaining a  member of the  Coast Guard  Reserve  you  will automatically  earn 15 retirement 
points per year.  You can earn the additional 35 points needed for a satisfactory year by complet-
ing correspondence courses (at 2 to 68 points per course) and performing SADT (at one point per 
day of duty performed).  Additional information regarding SADT and TEMAC opportunities can 
be obtained by writing or calling the Force Optimization Branch … 
 
6.    You  may  also  retain  your  Reserve  affiliation  by  reenlisting  for  periods  of  2  to  8  years.  
Approximately six months prior to the end of your current enlistment/obligation you will be con-
tacted by this office to determine if you desire to reenlist in the Coast Guard Reserve.  If you so 
desire, you simply complete the enlisted contract forwarded to you with instructions for its execu-
tion. 
 
7.  If you want to drill with a Reserve Unit in the future, and thus earn drill pay, submit a letter t 
this office indicating the unit you desire to join. … 
 
8.  If you were released from active duty after 4 years, or if you were placed into the IRR from a 
drilling  status prior to completing 20 satisfactory  years  service,  your eligibility for SGLI termi-
nated … 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  In so doing, he adopted 
                                                 
2 The applicant’s military record does not contain copies of the reenlistment/extension contract(s) that covered the 
period July 9, 1996, through September 8, 2000. 

 

On August 14, 2000, the Integrated Support Command in Cleveland sent the applicant a 
letter advising her that her Reserve enlistment2 would expire on September 8, 2000, and asking 
whether she intended to reenlist or to be discharged.  The letter stated that she would be dis-
charged on September 8, 2000, if no response was received by that date.  On September 8, 2000, 
the applicant reenlisted in the Reserve for three years, through September 7, 2003. 

 
In AY 1996, the applicant earned 27 points, including 15 points for membership and 12 
for the drills she performed from September 8, 1995, until her transfer to the IRR.  From AY 
1997  through  AY  2003,  she  received  just  the  15  points  for  membership  that  every  reservist 
receives annually because she earned no points by performing SADT or TEMAC or by taking 
correspondence courses.  The Coast Guard also credits the applicant with 5 prorated membership 
points for the period September 8, 2003, to January 6, 2004, for reasons unapparent in the record. 
 

the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case submitted by Commander, Per-
sonnel Service Center (PSC), who also recommended that the Board deny relief.   
 

The PSC stated that the application was not timely filed and should be denied due to its 
untimeliness and lack of merit.  Regarding the alleged lack of merit, the PSC stated that the Page 
7 dated November 3, 1995, shows that the applicant was transferred to the IRR due to substan-
dard performance.  Therefore, the PSC argued, she did not meet the conditions for RTB under 
ALDIST 345/93.  With respect to the applicant’s allegations about her discharge in 2003, the 
PSC simply stated that her “record does not support this.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 27, 2009, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  She alleged 
that her military record contains no Page 7s subsequent to 1994.  She stated that the last Page 7 
she  remembers  receiving  documented  the  fact  that  she  was  put  on  weight  probation  in  1994.  
However, she lost weight and met the weight standards within three months. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  Page  7  regarding  her  alleged  substandard  performance  is 
dated November 3, 1995, which was a Friday and a non-drill day for her.  She alleged that she 
“had no knowledge of this entry” and never received it.  She alleged that her drill day was Satur-
day,  November  4,  1995,  and  on  that  day  she  was  told  only  that  she  could  not  drill  any  more 
because the unit was disbanding at the end of the year.  She pointed out that the PSC did not 
mention any signature at the bottom of the Page 7. 
 
 
The applicant stated that she was transferred to the IRR because of downsizing and unit 
disbandment and that the letter she received dated November 21, 1995, “said it all and it should 
be considered.”  The letter told her that she would receive more information soon, but she did 
not.  In addition, she never received anything telling her that she would be denied RTB. 
 

 

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: 
 

1. 

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

2. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant knew or should have known that she was not 
receiving RTB by 1996 and, since she signed a three-year reenlistment contract dated September 
8, 2000, and did not sign another in September 2003, she knew or should have known that she 
had been discharged in September 2003.  Therefore, her application is untimely. 
 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 

3. 

of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”  Id. at 164-65; see also Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

The applicant did not explain her delay in filing her application with the Board 
but alleged that she has sought RTB for thirteen years by making telephone calls and that she 
only discovered that she had been discharged from the Reserve in May 2007.  The Board does 
not find her explanations for her delay to be compelling. 

A cursory review of the merits of this case indicates that the applicant’s claim for 
RTB  cannot  prevail.    The  Board  begins  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  military 
records are correct,3 and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evi-
dence  that  the  military  records  are  erroneous  or  unjust.   The  Page  7  in  the  applicant’s  record 
dated November 3, 1995, bears her signature.  While she may have signed it on November 4, 
1995, she was clearly informed that her CO was initiating her transfer to the IRR because of sub-
standard performance.  The letter dated November 21, 1995, however, supports the applicant’s 
contention that she was entitled to RTB because the unit was disbanding and she was transferred 
to the IRR due to the disbandment of the unit.  Therefore, the record contains documentary evi-
dence of two possible causes for the applicant’s transfer to the IRR:   

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

(a) 

First,  the  applicant  may  have  been  transferred  to  the  IRR  because  of 
substandard performance.  It is possible that the letter dated November 21, 1995, was sent 
to all SELRES members assigned to her unit, since it was being disbanded, and that on 
that date her name had not yet been removed from the unit roster even though her CO had 
initiated  her  transfer  to  the  IRR  for  substandard  performance  on  November  3,  1995.  
Under ALDIST 345/93, if her CO’s recommendation that she be transferred to the IRR 
for substandard performance was approved, she was not entitled to RTB. 

 
(b) 

Second, it is possible that the CO’s recommendation that she be moved to 
the  IRR  because  of  substandard  performance  was  disapproved  and  that  she  was  trans-
ferred only because of downsizing and unit disbandment, as she alleged.  In this case, she 
would have been entitled to RTB under ALDIST 345/93. 

6. 

 
 
The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that she was trans-
ferred to the IRR because of the disbandment of her unit rather than because her CO’s recom-
mendation  was  approved.    Moreover,  she  has  delayed  so  long  in  contesting  the  matter  that 
whether her CO’s recommendation was approved or not can no longer be determined; there is no 
evidence of either approval or disapproval in her military record.  However, the applicant appar-
ently did not receive RTB, and the Coast Guard’s failure to pay her RTB is presumptively cor-
rect.4  Therefore, the applicant’s request for RTB cannot prevail on the merits. 

                                                 
3 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
4 Id. 

 
7. 

The applicant’s claim concerning her discharge in 20035 likewise cannot prevail 
on the merits.  The applicant claims that she received no warning that her enlistment was ending.  
However, she should have known the end date of her own enlistment and, if she failed to hear 
from the Coast Guard, she should have timely inquired.  The letter dated November 21, 1995, 
stated, “Approximately six months prior to the end of your current enlistment/obligation you will 
be contacted by this office to determine if you desire to reenlist in the Coast Guard Reserve.”  
(Emphasis added.)  The Coast Guard apparently fulfilled this promise because the applicant was 
reenlisted when her enlistment ended in 1996.  The letter did not promise that the Coast Guard 
would indefinitely remind her of her need to reenlist if she wanted to remain a member of the 
Reserve.  Moreover, neither the applicant nor anyone else is entitled to remain indefinitely in the 
IRR. 
 
 
the merits, relief should be denied. 

Because the application was untimely and the applicant’s claims cannot prevail on 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

8. 

 

 

                                                 
5 The Board notes that the actual date of discharge is unclear because the Coast Guard has credited the applicant 
with five prorated membership points for the period September 8, 2003, to January 6, 2004. 

The application of former YN3 xxxxxxxxxx xxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

of her military record is denied.