DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-174 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed application and military records on May 14, 2010, 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 February 24, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to void her discharge from the Reserve.  She alleged that 
when she failed to achieve the Coast Guard weight or body fat standard while on weight proba-
tion, she asked to transfer from the Ready Reserve to the Inactive Status List (ISL), and she was 
told that she had until February 2010 to meet the standards and return to an active status.  How-
ever,  she  was  discharged  from  the  Reserve  on  December  2,  2009,  without  notice.    When  she 
asked why she had been discharged, she was told that her enlistment, which would have ended 
on May 25, 2009, had been extended only through December 2, 2009, and that her request to 
extend her enlistment for two years had not been processed.  The applicant alleged that if she had 
known of her discharge date, she would have reported to weigh in earlier because she met the 
body fat standard before December 2, 2009.  However, because she had been told she needed to 
meet the standards only by February 2010, and she wanted to meet the weight standards, as well 
as the body fat standard (meeting only one of the standards is required), she did not weigh in 
before she was discharged without warning on December 2, 2009.  The applicant noted that she 
had 19 years and 9 months of service in the Reserve when she was discharged. 

 
In support of her request, the applicant submitted a copy of a Page 7 dated January 16, 

2009, which states the following: 
 

On this date, your probationary period has come to an end.  You weighed 189 pounds and had a 
calculated  38%  body  fat.  You  have  not  achieved  your  maximum  allowable  weight  and  percent 
body fat.  In accordance with the weight and body fat standards for Coast Guard military person-
nel, COMDTINST M1020.G8, you are hereby notified that you will be transferred to the ISL.  If 

transfer to the ISL is granted, you have 12 months to reduce your weight to 179 pounds or body 
fat to 37% or below.  If you do not meet Coast Guard weight standards within 12 months, you will 
be recommended for discharge.   
 
In addition, the applicant submitted a copy of her approved request to transfer to the ISL, 
which is dated January 20, 2009, and a copy of a Coast Guard weigh-in form, dated February 12, 
2010, showing that she weighed 182 pounds and her body fat percentage was 37%.  The form is 
signed by the applicant, a petty officer, and a lieutenant junior grade and shows that it was com-
pleted pursuant to the applicant’s request to transfer back to the Selected Reserve. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 29, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief.  In so doing, he 
adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Per-
sonnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
PSC stated that after the applicant did not meet her MAW when her probationary period 
ended on January 16, 2009, she was transferred to the ISL on February 19, 2009, and “given 12 
months to meet requirements.”  However, she was discharged on December 2, 2009, before those 
12  months  ended,  even  though  she  had  until  February  19,  2010,  to  be  incompliance  with  the 
weight standards.  PSC noted that Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G states that mem-
bers who are transferred to the ISL have one year to attain their proper weight or body fat and 
that the applicant was discharged 79 days before the end of her year on the ISL. 
 
 
PSC recommended that the applicant be allowed to extend her Reserve enlistment and be 
placed into the ISL and given 79 days to meet the weight or body fat standards.  If she can meet 
the standards, then she would be retained in the Reserve for the duration of her enlistment, but if 
not, she would be discharged. 
 
 
PSC also submitted a copy of ALCOAST 512/09, dated September 8, 2009, which autho-
rizes  new  weight  and  body  fat  standards  that  became  effective  on  October  1,  2009.    The 
ALCOAST shows that the MAW of a member who is, like the applicant, 67” tall, is 175 pounds 
and the maximum allowable body fat percentage of any female over 40 years old is now 36%.  
Paragraph 6 of the ALCOAST states the following: 
 

Members  currently  on  weight  probation  (based  on  current  [old]  standards)  set  to  expire  after  
1 October 2009, shall adhere to the terms of that probation until the expiration of probation. …  
 
C) If a member on weight probation becomes compliant with the terms of their current probation 
(based on old standards) during or after the October 2009 weigh-in but before the expiration of 
their probationary period, they will be removed from probation and will be subsequently screened 
against  the  new  weight/body  fat  standards.    If  the  member  is  non-compliant  with  the  new 
weight/body fat standards, a supplemental probationary period will commence for an appropriate 
period as outlined in 3.2.4. of [COMDTINST M1020.8 (series)].  This supplemental probationary 
period shall not count for the purposes of the 14-month probationary period rule, where members 
are subject to separation for being placed on probation three times within 14 months. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  November  10,  2010,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  reply  to  the  views  of  the 

 
 
Coast Guard.  She stated that she did not object to the recommendation.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions based on the applicant’s sub-

 
 
missions and military records, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  
The application is timely because it was filed within three years of the applicant’s discovery of 
the alleged error or injustice in her record, as required under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 

The applicant alleged that she was improperly discharged from the Reserve, with-
out notice and contrary to regulations.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming 
that  the  disputed  information  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  correct  as  it  appears  in  her 
record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
disputed information is erroneous or unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Absent evidence to the con-
trary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have car-
ried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in  good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 
1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

Under Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G, a reservist who fails to meet 
both the weight and the body fat standards during a weight probationary period is normally trans-
ferred to the ISL for one year, during which the reservist may try to meet the standards.  Accord-
ing to PSC and the Page 7 dated January 16, 2009, because the applicant did not meet the stan-
dards while on weight probation, she was transferred to the ISL on February 19, 2009, pursuant 
to Chapter 3.3.5.  The record shows and the Coast Guard has admitted, however, that the appli-
cant was erroneously discharged  from the  ISL  on December 2, 2009, 79 days shy of one full 
year. 

Under Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G, if a reservist achieves either 
the weight or body fat standard during her year in the ISL, she may request transfer back into the 
Ready  Reserve.    If  not,  she  may  be  discharged  or  retired.    Therefore,  to  avoid  discharge,  the 
applicant had to meet either the weight or the body fat standard by February 19, 2010.  The Page 
7 dated January 16, 2009, and the weigh-in form dated February 12, 2010, show that her weight 
standard was 179 pounds and her body fat standard was 37%.  The weigh-in form shows that she 
weighed 182 pounds but met the body fat standard of 37% on that date.  Therefore, the Board 
finds that, had she not been erroneously discharged on December 2, 2009, the applicant would 
have  been  able  to  request  to  transfer  back  to  the  Ready  Reserve  in  accordance  with  Chapter 
3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G because she met the body fat standard prescribed in the Page 
7 before the expiration of her year on the ISL. 

PSC  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  by  returning  the  applicant  to  the 
ISL and giving her 79 days to meet the standards because on December 2, 2009, she was dis-

charged 79 days shy of one full year on the ISL.  Although the applicant agreed with this recom-
mendation, the Board finds it a bit arbitrary because (a) the applicant actually met her body fat 
standard on February 12, 2010, before the expiration of her year on the ISL; (b) more than a year 
has passed in the interim; and (c) the applicant was unaware of her discharge and so was not 
knowingly deprived of 79 days in a way that can now be restored to her in a meaningful way.  
What  the  applicant  lost  because  of  the  erroneous  discharge  was  not  79  days  in  which  to  lose 
weight, but the opportunity to return to the Ready Reserve when she in fact met her body fat 
standard on February 12, 2010.  Thus, PSC’s recommendation for relief does not put the appli-
cant back in the position she would have been in had the Coast Guard not erroneously discharged 
her because, if she had not been discharged, she would likely have been transferred to the Ready 
Reserve when she met the body fat standard during her weigh-in on February 12, 2010.  Under 
10 U.S.C. § 1552, an applicant is entitled to “placement in the same position he would have been 
had no error been made.”1  Although it cannot now be known whether the applicant’s request to 
transfer from the ISL to the Ready Reserve would have been granted in February 2010 had she 
not been erroneously discharged in December 2009, the Board finds that she should be returned 
to the Ready Reserve (either the Selected Reserve or the Individual Ready Reserve) because the 
Coast Guard’s error deprived her of the opportunity.2 

Under ALCOAST 512/09, the applicant’s weight standard has been reduced from 
179 to 175 pounds, and the body fat standard for a female over 40 years old has been reduced 
from 37% to 36%.  The ALCOAST does not address how or when the new standards were to be 
implemented for reservists on the ISL trying to meet the old standards prescribed in their Page 
7s.  (Nor is it clear whether reservists on the ISL were informed of the new standards.)  How-
ever, paragraph 6(C) of the ALCOAST provided that members on weight probation who met the 
old standards but not the new standards by the end of their probationary period would receive a 
supplemental probationary period in which to meet the new standards in accordance with Chap-
ter 3.2.4. of COMDTINST M1020.8G.3  Therefore, the Board finds that upon her return to the 
Ready Reserve, the applicant should be weighed and, if she does not meet the new standards pre-
scribed in ALCOAST 512/09, she should have a supplemental probationary period to meet the 
new standards in accordance with Chapter 3.2.4. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

PSC stated that because the applicant’s enlistment has expired, a new extension 
contract should be entered in her record.  PSC did not recommend a term for the new contract, 
and there is apparently no contract covering her service after May 22, 2009, even though she was 

                                                 
1 Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188, 199-200, cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975), cited in Bliss v. Johnson, 279 
F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2003); see Kimmel v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 579, 591 (1971) (“The injustice was 
removed by placing plaintiff in the same position he would have been had no error been made.”); Hamrick v. United 
States,  120  Ct.  Cl.  17,  25,  96  F.  Supp.  940,  943  (1951)  (holding  that  “full  correction  of  the  error  would  require 
plaintiff’s being put in the same position he would be in had the erroneous determination not been made”), cited in 
Ramsey v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 504, 506 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 994 (1953). 
2 The Ready Reserve consists of the Selected Reserve, in which members are assigned to a limited number of paid 
billets in which they drill on a regular schedule, and the Individual Ready Reserve, in which members do not fill a 
billet but may drill for pay and retirement points.  The Board notes that Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G 
does not guarantee a return to the Ready Reserve, much less to a billet in the Selected Reserve. 
3  Chapter  3.2.4.  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8G  states  that  “[t]he  probationary  weight  loss  period  shall  equal  the 
amount of time it would take the member to lose: all excess weight at an average of one pound per week, or one 
percent body fat per month, whichever is greater.”   

not discharged until December 2, 2009.  Therefore, the Board finds that her record should be cor-
rected to show that she signed a three-year extension contract on May 22, 2009. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s record to show 
that she signed a three-year extension contract on May 22, 2009, and that she was not discharged 
on December 2, 2009, but instead remained in the ISL.  Furthermore, the Coast Guard should 
transfer  the  applicant  from  the  ISL  to  the  Ready  Reserve—either  the  Selected  Reserve  or  the 
Individual Ready Reserve—within 120 days of the date of this decision and may, if she does not 
meet the weight or body fat standard under ALCOAST 512/09, impose a supplemental weight 
probationary  period  on  her  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST  512/09  and  Chapter  3.2.4.  of 
COMDTINST M1020.8G.   

 
8. 

 
 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of her military 

ORDER 

 

record is granted as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct her record to show that on May 22, 2009, she extended her 
Reserve enlistment for three  years and that she was not discharged on December 2, 2009, but 
instead remained in the ISL.  In addition, the Coast Guard shall transfer the applicant from the 
ISL to the Ready Reserve within 120 days of the date of this decision and may then, if she does 
not meet the new weight or body fat standard under ALCOAST 512/09, impose a supplemental 
weight probationary period on her in accordance with ALCOAST 512/09 and Chapter 3.2.4. of 
COMDTINST M1020.8G.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 
 Katia Cervoni 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito