DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2010-197 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 upon receipt of the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  June  15,  2010,  and  subsequently  prepared  the  final  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  March  10,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the time he spent as a 
midshipman  at  the  U.S.  Naval  Academy  (June  30,  1969  to  August  16,  1971)  is  counted  in 
calculating his Reserve retirement points.  
 
 
The applicant stated that on June 19, 1968, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve for 6 years 
and that on June 30, 1969 he received an appointment to the Naval Academy. A copy of a DD 
214  shows  that  he  was  not  discharged  from  the  Reserve  upon  receiving  his  midshipman 
appointment, but continued in a dual status.   On August 16, 1971, he was discharged from the 
Naval Academy due to academic reasons and returned to enlisted status in the Naval Reserve.  A 
DD 214 shows that he had 2 years, 1 month, and 17 days of total active service, with a note that 
the service “includes midshipman service from 30 Jun 69 to 16 Aug 71.”   Subsequently, on June 
20,  1974,  the  applicant  was  discharged  from  his  enlisted  status  to  accept  a  Naval  Reserve 
commission.  On February 1, 1977, he was discharged from the Naval Reserve and transferred to 
the Coast Guard.  A February 5, 2010 retirement points statement shows that the applicant has 29 
years, 2 months, and 2 days of satisfactory service. The time he spent as a midshipman was not 
included in his retirement point calculation.     
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error when reviewing his retirement 
 
points statement on February 5, 2010. He stated he noticed at that time that his retirement points 
calculation did not include the period he spent as a midshipman.      

 
 
The applicant’s record shows that upon his transfer from the Navy to the Coast Guard, the 
Navy provided the Coast Guard with a statement of his Navy service.   The statement shows the 
applicant’s periods of active and inactive duty, but does not include his time at the U.S. Navy 
Academy in either category.  The Navy notes in a separate paragraph that the applicant was a 
midshipman at the Naval Academy from June 30, 1969 to August 16, 1971.   
 

The  applicant’s  military  record  also  shows  that  he  was  transferred  to  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve Retired List without pay (RET-2) on June 22, 1998.   The applicant’s retirement points 
statement  dated  April  24,  1998,  included  with  the  letter  transferring  him  to  RET-2,  does  not 
include the time he spent as a midshipman in calculating his retirement points or years of service.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

PSC  stated  that  the  application  is  not  timely  because  the  applicant’s  last drill with the 

 
 
On  October  27,  2010,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-
mended  that  the  Board  deny  relief,  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum  from  the  Commander 
Personnel Service center (PSC).    
 
 
Coast Guard occurred in April 2005, which exceeds the Board 3-year statute of limitations.   
 
 
With respect to the merits of the claim, PSC stated that according to 10 U.S.C. § 971, 
time spent as a midshipman cannot be counted in computing a member’s length of service.   PSC 
quoted the pertinent provision of the law as follows: 
 

a.  The period of service under an enlistment of period of obligated service while 
also performing service as a cadet or midshipman or serving as a midshipman 
in the Navy Reserve may not be counted in computing, for any purpose, the 
length  of  service  of  an  officer  of  an  armed  force  or  an  officer  in  the 
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service. 

b.  In  computing  length  of  service  for  any  purpose,  service  as  a  cadet  or 

midshipman may not be credited to any of the following officers: 
(1) An officer of the Navy or Marine Corps. 
(2) A commissioned officer of the Army or Air Force. 
(3) An officer of the Coast Guard. 
(4) An officer in the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service.   

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On December 8, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the Coast 
 
Guard.  He disagreed with the Coast Guard that his application was not timely.  In this regard, he 
stated that on or about February/March 2010, he received his retirement package from the Coast 
Guard, which included his retirement points summary.  He stated that pursuant to the instruction 
on page 2 of the summary, he immediately informed the Coast Guard on March 15, 2010, and 
April 8, 2010, about the alleged problem.  Therefore, his application is not untimely.   
 

 
The applicant argued that pursuant to Vol 7A, Chap.1.010101.D.4., of the DoD Financial 
Regulation, he is entitled to have his retirement points calculation include the period he spent as 
a midshipman.  This provision states that service as a cadet or midshipman at a military academy 
is  always creditable service for an enlisted  member.  The provision refers to Table 1-1 of the 
instruction to determine whether such service is creditable for commissioned or warrant officers.  
Table  1-1  states  the  following  two  pertinent  rules:    “When  a  member  currently  serving  as  an 
officer  has  had  service  as  a  cadet  or  midshipman  in  any  of  the  military  academies  to  which 
appointed  and  the  member  held  no  concurrent  enlisted  and/or  Reserve  status  then  the  period 
involved  is  not  creditable.”        However,  Table  1-1  goes  on  to  state  that  “When  a  member 
currently serving as an officer has had service as a cadet or midshipman in any of the military 
academies to which appointed after June 25, 1956, and [t]he member had an enlistment contract 
or period of obligated service that was not terminated then the period involved is not creditable.”  
The applicant argues that he held a dual status while serving as a midshipman and therefore his 
time counts. 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

 
 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military record must be submitted within three years after the alleged error or injustice was or 
should have been discovered.  See 33 CFR 52.22.  The applicant stated that he discovered the 
alleged error on February 5, 2010 and acted diligently to have the alleged error corrected after 
receiving his retirement package in February 2010.  However, the alleged error should have been 
discovered when he received his April 24, 1998 retirement points statement because it shows that 
he was not given credit for his time at the Naval Academy.  The Board agrees with the Coast 
Guard that at the very least, the applicant should have discovered the alleged error  within three 
years of the time he performed his last drill, which according to the Coast Guard was in April 
2005 (apparently he was recalled to duty or given permission to perform additional drills).  The 
applicant did not explain why he was not aware of the error any earlier than 2010.  Therefore, the 
application was untimely.   
 

3.    The  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  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  in  assessing  whether  the  interest  of  justice  supports  a  waiver  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.”  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C.  Cir.  1995).    The  Board  is  not  persuaded  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  based  upon  the 
applicant’s reason or lack thereof for not filing his application sooner.  However, the Board must 
still  review  the  merits  to  determine  whether  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the 
untimeliness. 

 
4.  Regarding the merits, 10 U.S.C. § 971(a) states that service under an enlistment period 
or period of obligated service while also performing service as a cadet or midshipman or serving 

as a midshipman in the Navy Reserve may not be counted in computing, for any purpose, the 
length  of  service  of  an  officer  of  an  armed  force.1    Subsection  (b)  makes  clear  that  the  law 
applies to Coast Guard officers.  The applicant is an officer in the Coast Guard Reserve and is 
not eligible to have his midshipman service included in his retirement points calculation.   

 
5.    The  applicant  disagrees  with  the  above  and  relies  on  Table  1-1  to  Vol  7A, 
Chap.1.010101.D.4.,  of  the  DoD  Financial  Regulation  (January  2010),  which  states  in  part: 
“When a member currently serving as an officer has had service as a cadet or midshipman in any 
of the military academies to which appointed and the member held no concurrent enlisted and/or 
Reserve  status  then  the  period  involved  is  not  creditable.”    The  applicant  argued  that  he  is 
entitled  to  credit  under  this  provision  because  he  held  an  enlisted  status  concurrent  with  his 
appointment as a midshipman.  However, the subsequent rule in Table 1-1 makes the applicant 
ineligible for credit.  This portion of the Table states that “When a member currently serving as 
an officer has had service as a cadet or midshipman in any of the military academies to which 
[the member was] appointed after June 25, 1956 and the member had an enlistment contract or 
period of obligated service that was not terminated then the period involved is not creditable.” 
(Emphasis  added.)    Even  under  the  DOD  instruction,  the  applicant’s  service  in  not  creditable 
because  he  was  appointed  as  a  midshipman  after  June  25,  1956  and  his  enlistment  was  not 
terminated.  Therefore, under the rule applicable to the period of time in which the applicant was 
a  midshipman,  he  is  ineligible  to  receive  credit  for  his  midshipman  service  in  his  reserve 
retirement points.   
 
 
because it lacks merit. 

6.    Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  because  it  is  untimely  and 

 
 

                                                 
1   A note to 10 U.S.C. 971 states that “Section 652(a)(1)(B) of Pub.L. 101-189 provided that:  “the limitation in 
section 971(a) of title 10, United Stated Code . . . shall not apply with respect to a period of service referred to in that 
section while also serving under an appointment as a cadet or midshipman accepted before June 26, 1956.” 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCGR  (Ret.),  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 
 Megan Gemunder 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.