Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-119.TechAm
Original file (2009-119.TechAm.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-119 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT 

 

 
 

 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.73 upon a request from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) that the 
Board amend the order rendered in this case on November 12, 2009.  This technical amendment, 
dated June 16, 2010, is approved by the three duly appointed members who were designated to 
serve as the Board in this case. 
 

BACKGROUND SUMMARY 

On March 2, 2006, the applicant requested a two-year temporary release from active duty 
under the temporary separation program  to attend college.   See Article 12 F. of the Personnel 
Manual.    The  applicant’s  temporary  release  from  active  duty  was  effective  June  26,  2006. 
However,  the  Coast  Guard’s  Direct  Access  electronic  database  erroneously  recorded  that  the 
applicant’s separation as a discharge instead of a release into the Reserve, which created a break 
in service. In his original application, the applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show 
that he was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), as he had requested, from June 27, 2006 until 
June 3, 2008.   
 
 
In the Findings and Conclusions of the original proceeding, the Board agreed with the 
Coast Guard that the applicant suffered an injustice and was entitled to relief because he acted 
reasonably in believing that he was released into the Reserve.  The Board reached this conclusion 
based upon the counseling the Coast Guard provided to the applicant, his specific request to be 
released into the Reserve, and his DD 214 that shows  he was  released, not discharged,  from 
active  duty  in  2006.  As  the  advisory  opinion  stated,  the  information  in  Direct  Access  (Coast 
Guard’s computerized personnel database) was not available to the applicant.  Accordingly, the 
Board, on the recommendation of the Coast Guard, entered the following order correcting the 
applicant’s record on November 12, 2009: 
 

The application of [applicant’s name], for correction of his military record is granted.  
His  record  (including  Direct  Access)  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was 
transferred to the IRR on June 26, 2006, instead of being discharged.   

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT 

On  March  31,  2010,  the  Coast  Guard  informed  the  Board  that  it  required  a  technical 
amendment  to  correct  the  applicant’s  military  record  as  the  Board  directed  in  the  original 
proceeding, the intent of which was to eliminate any break in service in the applicant’s record 
from participating in the temporary separation program.  At the time the Coast Guard submitted 
the advisory opinion in the original proceeding, it believed that the applicant’s eight year military 
obligation began on June 27, 2000, the date he began serving on active duty.1    However, the 
Coast  Guard  belatedly  determined  that  the  applicant’s  original  eight-year  military  obligation 
actually  began  on  February  23,  2000,  the  date  he  entered  the  delayed  entry  program  and  it 
terminated on February 22, 2008, which was several months short of the June 3, 2008, the date 
the  applicant  returned  to  active  duty.    Therefore,  the  applicant  has  an  unintentional  break  in 
service  from  February  23,  2008  until  June  3,  2008.  The  Coast  Guard  requested  and 
recommended that the Board issue a technical amendment extending the applicant’s enlistment 
by  five  months  to  cover  any  break  in  service  because  the  applicant  did  not  request  to  be 
discharged and was unaware that he would suffer any break in service when he was separated 
under  the  temporary  separation  program.    The  applicant  agreed  with  the  Coast  Guard’s 
recommendation.  The Board also agrees and issues the following amended order in Docket No. 
2009-119.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
1 By way of explanation, when the applicant enlisted on February 22, 2000, he was placed into the delayed entry 
program and discharged from that program on June 26, 2000 to begin four years of active duty on June 27, 2000.  
The applicant’s eight-year military obligation began to run from the date he entered the delayed entry program.  The 
Coast  Guard  indicated  that  in  recommending  that  the  Board  correct  the  applicant’s  record  to  show  that  he  was 
released  into  the  reserve  on  June  26,  2006  in  the  original  proceeding,  it  failed  to  account  for  the  period  that  the 
applicant  served  in  the  delayed  entry  program  in  calculating  his  eight-year  military  obligation.    Therefore,  the 
applicant’s 2000 enlistment expired on February 22, 2008 instead of June 26, 2008, which left the applicant without 
a contract for the period between February 23, 2008 and June 3, 2008.  The failure to account for the five months in 
calculating the applicant’s total military obligation created a break in service from February 23, 2008 until June 3, 
2008, when the applicant and the Coast Guard believed he was or should have been in the Individual Ready Reserve 
(IRR). 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

No other relief is granted. 

_________________________________ 
Philip B. Busch 

 
 
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is 
granted. His record (including Direct Access) shall be corrected to show that he was transferred 
to the IRR on June 26, 2006, instead of being discharged.  His record shall be further corrected to 
show that on June 27, 2006, he extended his enlistment for the convenience of the government 
for a period of five months.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-119

    Original file (2009-119.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Coast Guard’s database Direct Access shows that the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard. The applicant asserted that Direct Access is in error or unjust because he was not counseled at the time of separation that he was being discharged; that he did not request discharge on his career intentions worksheet that was prepared prior to his separation; and that his DD 214 showed release from active duty with a remaining reserve obligation. The counseling he received from...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-067

    Original file (2008-067.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On May 23, 2006, the applicant was separated from the Coast Guard after 5 years, and 1 day in the active duty Coast Guard. 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]. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant’s record should be corrected to show...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-159

    Original file (2009-159.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant stated that the affidavit from his relative that she remembers the applicant completing papers of his intent to remain in the Inactive Reserve, his own statement in this regard, and a copy of his 2002 letter requesting to affiliate with the drilling Reserve rebut the Coast Guard’s contention that there is no official record or...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-040

    Original file (2010-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    • • • On April 24, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve. of the Pay Manual, COMDTINST M7220.29B, states that creditable service for pay purposes includes “all periods of active duty inactive service … in any Regular or Reserve component.” However, Chapter 2.B.4.a. However, the 1995 RATMAN defines an “anniversary year” as extending “from the date of entry or reen- try to the day preceding the anniversary of entry or reentry” and the 1997 RPM states that a reservist’s...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-017

    Original file (2009-017.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On March 30, 2006, while serving on active duty in Bahrain, the applicant was counseled on a CG-3307 (“Page 7”) about his eligibility for a SELRES Affiliation Bonus as follows: I have been advised that I am eligible for an $1,800.00 dollar SELRES Affiliation Bonus. The JAG asked, “Why would Applicant accept a $1,400 SELRES affiliation bonus, when he could have waited to enlist at the end of the following month and receive a $6,000 prior ser- vice enlistment bonus for a six-year SELRES...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-045

    Original file (2009-045.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his command retained him in the SELRES (Tab T8), and the Coast Guard paid the applicant’s SGLI premiums for December 2005 through May 2006 (Tab O). of the handbook states that “[m]embers who elect to be insured for less than the maximum amount, or elect to decline coverage entirely, must also complete form SGLV 8286, Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Election and Certificate.” Chapter 1.03 of the handbook states that members of the SELRES are eligible for full SGLI coverage,...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-020

    Original file (2009-020.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly appoint- APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a boatswain’s mate, second class (BM2) in the Coast Guard Selected Reserve (SELRES), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a $3,000 SELRES Affiliation Bonus. The Page 7 dated September 27, 2008, which was submitted by the applicant, does not appear among the Page 7s entered in the applicant’s military record, which the...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-054

    Original file (2009-054.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On September 8, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for eight years. 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. The letter dated November 21, 1995, however, supports the applicant’s contention that she was...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-134

    Original file (2007-134.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On June 3, 2005, the applicant signed a Page 7 documenting that he had been counseled that he was eligible for a $10,000 SELRES affiliation bonus, pursuant to ALCOAST 293/05, if he joined the SELRES and extended his Reserve obligation from December 12, 2008, through August 16, 2009. The record indicates that the applicant was counseled with a Page 7 on June 3, 2005, that he was eligible to extend his enlistment to receive a $10,000 SELRES affiliation bonus pursuant to ALCOAST 293/05 if he...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-067

    Original file (2012-067.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Claims for erroneous payments which may be waived in whole or in part, must have resulted from an erroneous overpayment. After his ROTD was corrected, his record showed that he was no longer a member of the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve as of August 18, 2008, and so was not entitled to the drill pay he received thereafter. The Coast Guard recommends, in essence, that the Board order that the appli- cant’s record be corrected to show that his debt has been waived pursuant to Chapter 11.F.