DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-222 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

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  upon 
receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  on August  3,  2011,  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  June  21,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant,  a  former  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  asked  the  Board  to 
reinstate her in the Reserve, with no loss of time in service or other negative consequences.  She 
also requested that “the monies taken from [her] paycheck due to assessed travel overpayments 
be  refunded  to  [her].”    Last  she  requested  that  her  release  from  active  duty  (RELAD]  in 
September 2006 be reviewed for errors.   
 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 

The applicant was an enlisted member of the Reserve until September 22, 2002 when she 

was commissioned as an ensign. 
 

From March 31, 2003, through September 25, 2006, the applicant served on active duty. 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  served  the  first  six  months  on  active  duty  in  New  Orleans,  her 
hometown, and the remainder of her active duty in Washington, D.C. on temporary duty (TDY).  
She stated that lodging expenses while on TDY were reimbursed on a dollar-for-dollar basis and 
claims for reimbursement were submitted on a monthly basis.   

 
 According  to  a  December  18,  2006,  Coast  Guard  letter  to  the  applicant’s  senator,  she 
served under title 10 contingency orders from June 2003 to September 2003.  The Coast Guard 

 

 

stated in that letter that beginning in October 2003 her orders changed to Active Duty for Special 
Work (ADSW) non-contingency orders.1  
 

On or about the end of the applicant’s first year of active duty she and the Coast Guard 
disagreed on reimbursements for lodging and per diem.  She stated that the Coast Guard notified 
her at the end of that year that she had been overpaid by $20,000.00.  According to the applicant, 
the Coast Guard at one point began withholding money from her then-current travel claims.  The 
Coast  Guard  also  began  an  investigation  into  allegations  that  she  was  submitting  fraudulent 
claims.  (Neither the applicant nor the Coast Guard submitted a copy of the investigation into the 
applicant’s travel claims.)   
 

The  applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  on  September  25,  2006  into  the  Reserve 
upon the completed of her last set of ADSW orders. She returned to the Selected Reserve in New 
Orleans.  During the processing of her RELAD, the Coast Guard refused initially to pay her for 
the  approximately  45  days  of  leave  that  she  had  earned  and  to  provide  her  with  healthcare 
benefits under TAMP (Transitional Assistance Management Program).  However, in its letter to 
the applicant’s senator, the Coast Guard indicated that upon a review of the circumstances, she 
had  been  reimbursed  $6616.71  for  her  unused  leave.    The  letter  also  stated  that  she  had  been 
ruled eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select  (TRS)2   Tier 1 benefits  (not TAMP)  on November 
21,  2006.  (TRS  is  not  TAMP.)    Although  the  coverage  would  not  start  for  approximately  6 
weeks, it would be retroactive to her RELAD date of September 25, 2006.    
 

On October 14, 2006, the applicant  submitted a request  to  resign from the Coast  Guard 

Reserve, effective immediately.  She offered the following reasons for her resignation:   
 

I have concluded that the Coast Guard Reserve program is hopelessly broken, and 
the  indications  are  that  it  will  remain  so  into  the  indefinite  future.    The  Coast 
Guard does a terrible job of looking after its people, its Reservists in particular.  I 
have  completely  fulfilled  any  and  all  obligations  I  have  to  the  Coast  Guard  and 
therefore, respectfully request that I be released from any future commitments or 
obligations.    

 

                                                 
1   The following OERs show that the applicant was a Reserve office serving on ADSW during most of 
her active duty:   
 
 
September 27, 2002 to June 30, 2003 
 
July 1, 2003 to July 30, 2004 
 
August 1, 2005 to January 31, 2006 
 
July 31 2004 to January 31, 2005 
February 1, 2005 to July 31, 2005 
 
February 1, 2006 to September 26, 2006  
 

91 days of ADSW; 38 IDT drills 
 Shows status as ADSW 
198 days  ADSW 
184 days ADSW 
212 days ADSW 
238 days ADSW 

 

2  TRS  is  a  discounted  premium-based  health  insurance  for  eligible  members  of  the  Reserve  following 
demobilization. 

 

 

According  to  documents  in  the  record,  on  December  14,  2006,  the  Commander  for  the 
Eighth Coast Guard District requested that the applicant’s resignation be held in abeyance until 
completion of the final review of the CGIS investigation into her travel claim.   
 

On  August  15,  2007,  CGPC  (rpm-1)  accepted  the  applicant’s  resignation  from  the 

Reserve on behalf of the President, with an effective date of September 1, 2007. 

 
On  August  16,  2007,  the  applicant  sent  an  email  to  in  CDR  S,  asking  to  withdraw  her 
request to resign her commission.  She stated that the resignation request was submitted during a 
very difficult RELAD, but that she had reconsidered the decision six months earlier and that she 
has been drilling with her unit regularly since June.  CDR  S told the applicant that he accepted 
her email as initial notification of her request to withdraw her resignation but that a formal letter 
from her to CGPC was required.   
 

On  August  17,  2007,  the  applicant  submitted  a  formal  request  to  withdraw  her 
resignation.    She  stated  that  she  continued  to  believe  there  were  problems  with  the  Reserve 
program, but that she   wanted to work toward positive changes in the program rather than giving 
up on the entire system.    
 

On  August  24,  2007,  CGPC  (rpm-1)  denied  the  applicant’s  request  to  rescind  her 

resignation and directed that she be discharged effective October 1, 2007.   
 

On or about September 20, 2007, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of 
CGPC’s decision not to accept her resignation from the Coast Guard.   She complained that the 
Coast Guard did not offer a reason for refusing her request to withdraw her resignation.   

 
On October 1, 2007, the applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve.  At the 

time of her discharge, the applicant had approximately sixteen years of military service.   
 

ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that due to the Coast Guard’s failure to adhere to its own policies 
and procedures, she was subjected to prolonged stress, which ultimately led to severe depression 
that was exacerbated by  her improper  RELAD.   She stated that in  the midst  of her depression, 
which was untreated and in frustration, she requested to resign.  She stated that before the Coast 
Guard  granted  her  resignation,  she  withdrew  it  and  began  drilling  again.      She  argued  that  she 
was discharged over her objection and against her will.    
 
 
her will, she has suffered a tremendous injustice and has been deprived of the following: 
 

She argued that because of the Coast Guard’s unilateral decision to discharge her against 

1)Retirement.    With  16  years  of  creditable  service,  I  was  four  years  away  from 
vesting;  
2)Medical benefits, in the form of ongoing treatment for conditions I was still being 
treating for at the time of discharge; and ongoing health care benefits for my family.  
We are currently without coverage.   
3)Economic benefits, in the form of IDT and ADSW; 

 

 

4) Professional benefits, in the form of ongoing training, support and experience.   

 
 
The applicant  stated that when she  asked to resign, she was  emotionally  and physically 
spent, and suffering from untreated depression.  She stated that when she began to recover from 
her depression she returned to drilling.  After she had been drilling for approximately 3 months, 
the Coast Guard informed her that it was approving her request to resign.  The applicant stated 
that  she  thought  her  request  had  been  officially  withdrawn.    She  stated  that  she  followed  the 
proper procedure to avoid being discharged.  She stated that she felt embarrassed and humiliated 
before her command.  She stated that because the District 8 legal office was always short-handed 
and  her  skills  seemed  to  be  needed,  it  made  no  sense  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  exacerbate  that 
personnel  shortage by discharging her when she was clearly willing to  remain.  She stated that 
the  decision  devastated  her  again  in  her  still  somewhat  fragile  state.    Her  statement  concluded 
with the following: 
 

I  want  to  be  allowed  to  return  as  a  reservist,  serve  honorably,  and  retain  my 
retirement.    I  want  to  have  the  last  four  years  credited  toward  my  retirement;  I 
would  like  to  be  advanced  in  accordance  with  the  time-in-service  requirements 
and without regard for my lack of performance over the past four years. 
 
I would also like to be refunded all the monies the Coast Guard wrongfully took 
away  from  me  in  the  form  of  Travel  Claim  Money,  and  for  my  appeal  of  the 
Coast  Guard’s  PSC’s  decision  to  recoup  those  monies  reviewed  and  solved.    I 
would like my record cleared of any wrong doing associated with travel claims, or 
to be formally charged and be provided a full evidentiary hearing on the matter.   
 
I request an opportunity to appear and present my case in person before the Board 
. . .    
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 28, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion, in which he recommended that the Board deny relief.  The JAG argued that 
the applicantion was not timely.  In this regard, the JAG stated that the applicant was discharged 
on October 1, 2007 and that the Board’s receipt of her DD 149 on October 1, 2010, exceeded the 
Board’s three year statute of limitations.   The JAG asserted that the applicant had not provided 
any justification for her untimely application. 

 
With regard to the merits of her application, the JAG stated that the applicant had failed 
to  substantiate  an  error  or  injustice  regarding  the  Coast  Guard’s  decision  not  to  allow  her  to 
rescind her resignation request.  The JAG stated that on August 23, 2007, a panel of officers at 
PSC reviewed the applicant’s request to withdraw her letter of resignation in accordance with the 
Coast Guard Reserve Policy Manual.  Her request to withdraw her resignation was denied.   

 
The  author  of  the  advisory  for  the  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  bears  the  burden  of 
proving  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  which  she 
failed  to  do  in  this  case.    He  stated  that  the  evidence  suggests  that  the  applicant  probably 

 

 

requested  immediate  resignation  based  on  a  pending  CGIS  investigation  of  possible  UCMJ 
violations.    However,  the  JAG  noted  in  a  footnote  that  although  this  is  speculation,  it  is  a 
common practice for officers to request resignation in lieu of UCMJ action.  
 

The JAG attached a memorandum from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC) 
to the advisory opinion.  He adopted the facts and analysis provided by PSC and asked the Board 
to accept PSC’s comments as a part of the advisory opinion. 
 
PSC Memorandum 
  
 
 
PSC recommended that  the application be denied for untimeliness.  PSC stated that the 
only  explanation  offered  by  the  applicant  for  the  untimeliness  was  that  “[d]ue  to  the  Coast 
Guard’s  actions,  I  was  deprived  of  medical  care  that  would  have  allowed  me  to  address  these 
issues sooner; as a result, I have suffered from largely untreated depression since my RELAD in 
2006, exacerbated by my discharge in 2007.”   
 
 
PSC stated that with regard to  the substantive merits  of her claim,  the applicant  did  not 
submit any documentation with her application that would substantiate any error or injustice with 
how  the  Coast  Guard  administratively  separated  her.    PSC  stated  that  her  separation  was  in 
accordance with the Reserve Policy Manual.   
 
 
PSC submitted a copy of Article 8.A.3.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual.  This provision 
states  that  unqualified  resignations  may  be  submitted  up  to  one  year  in  advance,  but  shall  be 
submitted in sufficient time to reach CGPC-rpm at least three months prior to the requested date 
of  resignation.    Subsection  c.  states  that  resignations  may  be  withdrawn  with  the  approval  of 
CGPC-rpm.    Subsection  d.  states  that  the  Commandant  may,  at  his  or  her  discretion,  retain  an 
officer beyond the requested resignation date on the needs of the Service.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  January  31,  2012,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast  Guard.    She  disagreed  with  them.   The  applicant  argued  that  her  application  was  timely 
because it was submitted by October 1, 2010, within three years of October 1, 2007, the effective 
date of her discharge.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  although  she  believes  that  she  should  be  allowed  to  return  to 
Reserve  status  in  the  grade  that  she  would  have  achieved  had  she  remained  in  the  Active 
Reserve, she is willing to accept reinstatement of her reserve status at the level of LT.  She also 
asked to be allowed to exercise TAMP and the TRS benefits that were denied to her in 2006. 
 
 
The applicant stated that because the Coast Guard continues to malign her character and 
integrity by repeatedly suggesting, in spite of its inability to prove that she had engaged in any 
improper  conduct  with  regard  to  travel  claims,  that  she  must  be  guilty,  she  is  expanding  her 
request to ask that the Coast Guard either “1) formally charge me with a violation, bring me onto 
active  duty  and  formally  prosecute  me,  or;  2)  completely  expunge  my  record  of  any  and  all 
accusations, innuendo, suggestion, or reference at all that I engaged in any wrongdoing.” 

 

 

 
 
The applicant denied that she requested an “immediate” resignation.  She stated that she 
cooperated fully with the CGIS Investigation and remained on active duty for a full year after the 
investigation started at the request of her superiors.  She stated that she refused another year of 
active duty because she missed her family and that it was time to go home.  She stated that upon 
her REALD she received a Coast Guard Achievement Medal for her work while on active duty 
and  that  she  was  assigned  to  the  Selective  Reserve  upon  her  RELAD.    She  stated  that  the  last 
thing on her mind was avoiding a UCMJ investigation, as suggested in the advisory opinion.  She 
stated that she would have welcomed it at the time and insists upon it now to clear references to 
the investigation from her files.  
 
 
The  applicant  complained  that  her  RELAD  was  a  disaster  and  her  Servicing  Personnel 
Office  (SPO)  and  Coast  Guard  Headquarters  failed  to  complete  a  single  task  on  the  17-step 
demobilization  checklist  provided  for  guidance  in  the  Personnel  and  Pay  Procedures  Manual 
(PPPM).  She stated that she did not know this guidance existed until after her RELAD. 
 
  
In this regard, the applicant addressed several steps on the checklist that were omitted in 
her case.  She cited Step 1 of the guidance, which states that responsible personnel should ensure 
that a member is  physically qualified for  release for active duty.   It  also  states that a  discharge 
physical is required if one has not been done within the previous 12 months, and that if one has 
been    done,  a  health  screening  assessment  is  required.    The  provision  further  states  that  all 
medical  problems should be documented in  the  member’s health record  and that a line of duty 
determination  is  made  if  there  is  a  medical  problem.      Contrary  to  this  guidance,  the  applicant 
contended that the Coast Guard released her from active duty even though she was being treated 
for a severe case of carpel tunnel syndrome and her treating physician recommended that she be 
retained  on  active  duty  until  she  had  completed  treatment.    She  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard 
ignored the recommendation and released her “with an ongoing medical problem and absolutely 
no means to continue treatment.”  (Emphasis in original.)   
 
The applicant stated that the medical benefits issue was a huge matter because on the day 
 
before she began terminal leave her husband was laid off.  Therefore TRS/TAMP was their sole 
means for continuing medical benefits.  She stated that “with both [she and her husband] being 
out of work at the same time, they could not afford COBRA, and without TRS/TAMP, she would 
have a break in coverage and be denied coverage under any new policy for her preexisting carpel 
tunnel, which she states is what happened.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  Step  2  of  the  demobilization  checklist  stated  that  responsible 
 
personnel should ensure that the member has notified the SPO of desires concerning disposition 
of  accrued  leave  at  least  45  days  prior  to  separation  or  departure  on  terminal  leave.      The 
applicant  again  mentioned  the  fact  that  she  was  initially  denied  her  request  to  sell  back  her 
unused leave.  As stated earlier in  this decision, the applicant  was  subsequently  allowed to  sell 
back her accrued leave.   
 
The  applicant  stated  that  Step  4  of  the  demobilization  checklist  stated  that  responsible 
 
personnel should “[c]ounsel members concerning transition health–care benefits. . .  Ensure that 
health-care benefits are recorded in the DEERS database.”  The applicant  stated that this never 

 

 

happened.  She stated that it was early September 2006 before she had any inkling that there was 
a  problem  with  her  TRS/TAMP  benefits.    She  stated  that  up  until  that  point,  she  and  other 
reservists had been assured that they were entitled to TRS and TAMP upon their RELAD.   
 

According to the applicant, Step 12 of the demobilization guidance stated that responsible 
personnel should ensure that the member has no pending UCMJ action.  Although there was an 
investigation into the applicant’s travel claim, there is no evidence in the record of any pending 
UCMJ action against her.   
 

 

The applicant stated that step 16 of the demobilization guidance provides that responsible 
personnel should deliver the DD 214 to the member.  The applicant received her DD 214, albeit a 
month after her RELAD.   

 
The applicant asked to be afforded the following minimum relief: 
 
1)   The Coast Guard should either formally charge me with a violation under the 
UCMJ,  bring  me  onto  active  duty  and  formally  prosecute  me,  or  completely 
expunge  my  record  of  any  and  all  accusations,  innuendo,  suggestions,  or 
reference at all that I engaged in any wrongdoing.  An apology would be nice 
as well.  

2)  I be allowed to return to an active reserve status at the rank of LT and allowed 

to drill accordingly and earn toward my retirement. 

3)  I  be deemed  eligible for TAMP and /or TRS and allowed to  use the benefits 

which were denied me upon my discharge.    

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

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

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.    
 
 
2.  The application was timely with regard to allegations related to her discharge because 
it was received at DHS Headquarters on September 31, 2010, even though it was not received in 
the  BCMR  office  until  October  1,  2010.    The  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve on September 31, 2007, with an effective date of October 1, 2010.  
 
 
3.  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.   
  
 
4.  In June 2003, the applicant was recalled to active duty under title 10 orders in support 
of a national  contingency.  She served under these orders until  September 2003.  Although she 
remained on active duty, in October 2003 her orders were changed from title 10 to ADSW non-
contingency orders.  She served continuously under several sets of ADSW orders.  On September 

 

 

6.    Article  8.A.3.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  permits  a  Reserve  officer  to  request 

25, 2006, she was RELAD after her orders for that period of service expired.  After her RELAD 
she returned to the Selected Reserve.  On October 14, 2006, she submitted her request to resign 
from  the  Reserve.    It  was  approved  by  CGPC-rpm  on  August  15,  2007.    On  August  16,  the 
applicant emailed LCDR S requesting to withdraw her resignation and on August 24, 2007, the 
applicant’s  request  to  rescind  her  resignation  was  denied  and  she  was  given  an  effective 
discharge  date  of  October  1,  2007.    On  or  about  September  20,  2007,  the  applicant  requested 
reconsideration of the Coast Guard’s decision not to allow her to withdraw her resignation. The 
record  does  not  contain  a  response  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration.      She  was 
discharged  from  the  Reserve  effective  October  1,  2007.    (Two  important  dates  in  this  case:  
September  25,  2006,  the  date  the  applicant  went  from  active  duty  back  to  her  non-active  duty 
Reserve status and October 1, 2007, the date she was discharged from the Reserve,  completely 
terminating her status as a Coast Guard officer.)   
 
 
5.      The  applicant  now  asks  this  Board  to  reinstate  her  into  the  Reserve  and  grant  her 
constructive  service  credit  from  the  effective  date  of  her  discharge  until  reinstated.    For  the 
Board  to  order  reinstatement  and  constructive  service  credit,  the  applicant  must  show  that  the 
Coast  Guard’s  action  in  approving  her  resignation  and  discharging  her  was  wrongful.  For  the 
reasons  discussed  below,  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  commit  an  error  by 
approving the applicant’s request to resign and discharging her from the Coast Guard. 
 
 
resignation from the Reserve, and on October 14, 2006, the applicant submitted such a request.   
The applicant argues essentially that her request to resign was involuntary and wrongful because 
she  was  suffering  from  undiagnosed  and  untreated  depression  at  the  time  she  submitted  her 
request  and  that  her  depression  was  caused  in  part  by  the  manner  in  which  the  Coast  Guard 
handled her RELAD.   The applicant submitted no medical evidence that she was diagnosed with 
or  suffered  from  depression  at  the  time  she  submitted  her  resignation.    In  addition,  while  the 
applicant  encountered some problems while on  active duty such as  with  her travel  claim and a 
related investigation, with  selling unused leave, and  with  being denied certain  medical  benefits 
upon  her  RELAD,  there  is  no  medical  evidence  in  the  record  that  these  problems  were  so 
unusual  that  they  caused  the  applicant  to  be  unable  to  make  rational  and  intelligent  decisions 
about resigning from the Reserve.  Therefore, the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence 
to prove that she suffered from depression at the time she submitted her resignation or that the 
problems she encountered with her RELAD were so severe as to make her voluntary resignation 
involuntary.   
 
7.  The applicant also argued that the Coast Guard’s refusal to allow her to withdraw her 
 
resignation request was an error.   However, Article 8.A.3.c. of the Reserve Policy Manual makes 
clear that resignations, once submitted, may be withdrawn with the approval of the CGPC-rpm.   
The Coast Guard refused to permit the applicant to withdraw her resignation stating only that the 
request had been carefully reviewed and denied.    The applicant argued that it was an error or 
injustice  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  deny  her  request  for  withdrawal  of  her  resignation  without  an 
explanation  when  the  unit  to  which  she  was  assigned  was  always  short  of  staff.    However,  the 
Reserve  policy  Manual  does  not  require  that  the  Coast  Guard  provide  a  reason  for  disallowing 
the withdrawal of a resignation request.  It states only that “Resignations may be withdrawn with 

 

 

approval of CGPC-rpm.”  Therefore, while an explanation might have satisfied the applicant, no 
such explanation is required under the Reserve Policy Manual.   
 
 
8.    The  applicant  next  argued  that  she  withdrew  her  resignation  prior  to  approval  by 
CGPC-rpm.    However,  the  record  shows  that  CGPC  approved  the  resignation  on  August  15, 
2007  and  that  on August  16,  2007,  the  applicant  requested  to  withdraw  her  resignation.    The 
Board  notes  that  under  the  regulation  as  stated  above,  when  she  submitted  her  request  to 
withdraw  her  resignation,  the  decision  to  permit  the  withdrawal  of  a  resignation  is  up  to  the 
discretion  of  CGPC-rpm.    CGPC-rpm  exercised  that  discretion  and  denied  her  request  to 
withdraw her resignation.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Coast Guard did not commit an 
error  by  refusing  to  allow  the  applicant  to  withdraw  her  resignation  and  by  discharging  her  in 
accordance with her approved voluntary resignation request.   
 

9.    The  applicant  argued  that  the  decision  to  discharge  her  against  her  will  was  an 
injustice because she was just 4 years away from earning a 20 year retirement, because it left her 
without medical benefits even though at the time discharge she was being treated for a medical 
problem,  because  it  deprived  her  of  economic  benefits  in  the  form  of  IDT  and  ADSW,  and 
because  it  deprived  her  of  ongoing  training,  support  and  experience.      However,  these  are  all 
issues  that  the  applicant  should  have  considered  before  she  submitted  her  resignation  request.  
The  Coast  Guard  did  not  force  her  to  resign  and  is  not  responsible  for  the  loss  of  any  of  her 
service-related benefits.  
 
 
10.  One issue before the Board that requires further discussion is whether the applicant 
was  entitled  to  180  days  of  healthcare  under  TAMP  upon  her  RELAD  from  the  Reserve.  
Healthcare is available for 180 days for members who were involuntarily separated from active 
duty  or  who  served  under Title  10  or  other  orders  in  support  of  a  contingency  operation.    See 
Chapter  10,  sec.  5.1  of  the  TRICARE  Policy  Manual  6010.54-M  (August  8,  2002)  and 
Enclosures  12  &  13  to  COMDTINST  1900.2A  (2003).    The  Coast  Guard  admitted  that  the 
applicant was first  recalled to active duty under title 10 orders in support of a contingency and 
served under them until  September 2003.  However,  in  October 2003 her orders were changed 
from  title  10  contingency  orders  to  ADSW  non-contingency  orders.    ADSW  is  active  duty  for 
reservists  authorized  from  applicable  military  or  reserve  appropriations  (AC  (Active  Component) 
funded  or  RC  (Reserve  Component)  funded)  to  support  AC  or  RC  programs,  respectively.  The 
purpose  of  ADSW  is  to  provide  the  necessary  skilled  manpower  assets  to  temporarily  support 
existing or emerging requirements.   Article 3.A.4.a. of the Reserve Policy Manual.    The applicant’s 
OERs  covering  the  period  from  July  1,  2003  to  September  26,  2006  support  the  Coast  Guard’s 
statement that the applicant’s orders for most of the three-year period were ADSW non-contingency 
orders.    Therefore,  when  the  applicant  was  RELAD  on  September  25,  2006,  she  was  not  serving 
under  title  10  or  any  other  contingency  orders  and  had  been  off  active  duty  for  approximately  one 
year  when  she  was  discharged  from  the  Reserve.    Therefore  she  was  not  entitled  to  TAMP 
Healthcare. See Chapter 11 of the Coast Guard Pay and Procedures Manual (2002).     Although the 
applicant was probably eligible for TAMP healthcare at the end of her title 10 orders in September 
2003, the 180-day coverage began to run at the end of her title 10 orders.  The Board has found no 
authority  which  indicates  that  the  commencement  date  for  TAMP  healthcare  can  be  suspended  for 
use at a later date.  The Board notes that according to the letter to the Applicant’s Senator, she was 
approved for TRS benefits, but upon discharge she was no longer eligible for TRS.   The Board will 
note  that  neither  the  applicant  nor  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  the  actual  orders  for  the  applicant’s 

 

 

approximately 3  years of  active duty.  However, under the Board’s regulation the applicant has the 
burden of proof in this case.  
 
 
11.  The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard  violated the demobilization checklist by not 
ensuring that she was medically qualified for RELAD.  She stated that at the time of her RELAD she 
was  suffering  from  carpal  tunnel  and  that  her  doctor  had  recommended  that  she  remain  on  active 
duty for treatment.  There is a note in the applicant’s health record that on September 14, 2006, Dr. V 
recommended  that  she  be  placed  on  medical  hold  on  active  duty  for  6  to  12  months  to  allow  for 
further medical and possible surgical management of lateral epicondylitis.   Article 12.A.10.b. of the 
Personnel Manual states that a scheduled separation or release date may be delayed only if a question 
exists about a member’s unfitness for continued service so as to require convening a medical board 
under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) or if a serious disease or injury intervenes.  
Article  12.A.10.a.  defines  “unfit  for  continued  service”  as  a  physical  disability  that  renders  the 
member unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  In this case although 
the applicant was being treated for lateral epicondylitis the physician did not state that her condition 
was  a  physical  disability  that  rendered  her  unfit  for  continued  service.    Moreover,  the  applicant’s 
medical  record  indicates  that  she  had  a  separation  physical  on  December  14,  2005,  where  she  was 
found  fit  for  separation.    The  Personnel  Manual  does  not  require  a  physical  examination  upon 
separation if the member has had one within the past 12 months.    The applicant has failed to prove 
that  she  had an  unfitting condition  at  the  time  of  her  RELAD.    Although  the  applicant complained 
that she was not able to immediately receive treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs 
because she did not have her DD 214, to the best of the Board’s knowledge, she received her DD 214 
about 30 days after her RELAD and treatment through the DVA was accessible to her at that time. 
 
12.  The applicant also asked that “the monies taken from [her] paycheck due to assessed 
 
travel  overpayments  be  refunded  to  [her].”    However,  the  applicant  did  not  present  any 
documentation or evidence establishing that she is owed money by the Coast Guard.  Therefore, 
she has failed to prove any error or injustice in this regard.   
 
 
13.  She also requested that her record be completely expunged of any and all accusation, 
innuendo, suggestion, or reference that she engaged in any wrongdoing with regard to her travel 
claim.    However,  the  applicant  did  not  present  the  investigation  and  it  is  not  in  her  military 
record.    Therefore,  she  had  not  proven  that  her  military  record  contains  references  to  the 
investigation  or  that  the  investigation  itself  contained  erroneous  findings  that  should  be 
corrected.  The Board’s decision is based upon the evidence of record, of which the investigation 
was not a part.   
 
14.    The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  or 
 
injustice  in  discharging  her  from  the  Reserve.    Therefore,  she  is  not  entitled  to  reinstatement.  
Nor has she proved that she was suffering from an unfitting condition or that she was improperly 
denied TAMP healthcare benefits at the time of her RELAD or discharge from the Reserve.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

15.  Accordingly, her application should be denied.      

  

 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.