DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-224 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application  on  August  6,  2011,  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  May  17,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant, a storekeeper second  class (SK2/E-5) on  active duty,  asked the  Board to 
correct  her  record  to  show  that  she  was  assigned  to  a  cutter  instead  of  a  shore  unit,  Group 
xxxxxx, from January 31, 2002, to January 9, 2003, so that she will receive sea pay and credit for 
sea duty for that period. 
 
 
The  applicant  explained  that  while  in  basic  training,  she  was  told  that  she  and  another 
female member “were going to take part in an ‘experiment’ involving the assignment of women 
to  a  river  tender,”  which  had  no  female  berthing.    She  was  issued  orders  to  the  Group  at  the 
tender’s  homeport  and  lived  in  an  apartment.    However,  she  alleged,  she  worked  aboard  the 
tender  just  as  if  she  had  been  transferred  to  it.    The  applicant  alleged  that  she  worked  as  a 
member  “of  the  duty  and  watch  schedule  [on  the  tender],  worked  as  a  member  of  the  Deck 
Force, went underway, and [her Enlisted Employee Review (EER)] rating chain was same as all 
other personnel assigned to the Cutter.”  In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted the 
following documents: 
 

  Her EER counseling receipt dated January 27, 2003, is signed by her supervisor aboard 
the tender, BM2 F, and the approving official, BMCS H, who was the officer in charge 
(OIC) of the tender.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Her  seaman  performance  qualifications  record,  with  all  but  one  requirement  initialed, 
includes a chart entitled “Signature of Supervisor.”  The chart shows that personnel from 
the  following  units  signed  off  on  her  seaman  qualifications  as  her  “supervisor”  for  the 
exercises on the following dates:  March 7, 2002, Group Engineering Division; March 7, 
2002, SSD [Shore-Side Detachment] XXXXX; April 11, 2002, SSD XXXXX; April 11, 
2002, a BM3 on the tender; April 23, 2002, SSD  XXXXX; May 22, 2002, the BM3 on 
the tender. 

  Her  “MRN”  Record  of  Military  Requirements,  with  only  a  few  of  the  requirements 
initialed,  includes  a  chart  entitled  “Signature  of  Supervisor,”  and  personnel  aboard  the 
tender signed the chart on February 20, 2002, April 17, 2002, and May 23, 2002.   

  Her  “Watchstander  JQR”  states  that  “completion  within  30  days  of  reporting  aboard 
cutter”  is  mandatory  and  shows  that  she  completed  the  qualifications  on  the  following 
dates in 2002: February 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 28; March 1, 2, 14, 
19, 21, and 31; and April 2.   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 11, 2012, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   In so doing, he 
adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  in  a  memorandum  provided  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center 
(PSC). 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  although  the  applicant  submitted  documentation  showing  that  she 
sometimes  performed  work  on  the  tender,  her  “evidence  is  inconclusive  in  justifying  that  she 
should  be  entitled  to  receive  credit  for  one  year  of  sea  time  or  any  special  pay  or  allowances 
related to such duty.  The applicant appeared to have a limited association with the cutter when 
compared to the vessel’s permanent  party.”  PSC stated that the applicant did get underway on 
the tender for some day trips but qualified as a watchstander only when the tender was in port.  
PSC stated that based on her limited association with the cutter, “she is not found to have met the 
intent  for  entitlement  to  career  sea  pay”  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  473/01.    PSC  stated  that  the 
applicant’s  permanent  unit  was  the  Group  but  she  “appears  to  have  been  operating  in  a 
‘temporary  assigned  duty’  (TAD)  status  and  was  never  intended  to  be  a  permanent  member  of 
the cutter’s crew.”  In support of these allegations, PSC submitted the following: 
 

  A  career  summary  print-out  from  the  Coast  Guard’s  Direct  Access  database  shows  that 
the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Group  from  January  31,  2002,  through  February  7, 
2003, when she was transferred to attend SK “A” School. 

  An email from a chief warrant officer (CWO) dated September 16, 2011, states that the 
applicant was assigned to the SSD and “may be entitled to 30 days sea time total” for the 
days she was underway on the tender while assigned to the SSD.  The CWO stated that 
because the tender had only two racks, females “normally only did day trips.”  The CWO 
stated  that  personnel  aboard  the  tender  probably  prepared  her  EER  because  “there  was 
always  a  struggle  between  the  cutter  command  and  the  Group.    Technically  the  SSD 

 

 

 

 

 

belonged to the Group, but in reality they worked for the cutter as the Group did not want 
the Admin burden.  When the cutter was inport, the SSD personnel worked hand in hand 
with the cutter crew.  We had a rack in the SSD office building where the females would 
sleep when they stood nighttime duty on the ship.  When the cutter got [underway], the 
SSD folks typically stayed behind and worked Trop hours M-F.” 

  An undated report based on interviews with the command cadre of the tender during the 
applicant’s  assignment  to  the  Group.    The  interviewer  concluded,  based  on  interviews 
with three CWOs and the applicant, that the applicant “made up to thirty day patrols with 
the  cutter.    She  was  qualified  to  stand  watch  on  the  cutter  while  it  was  in  port  and  she 
worked with  the deck force male non-rates while the cutter was in  homeport.   She paid 
for her meals [in the galley] because she was entitled to SEPRATS while assigned to the 
Shore Detachment.  After speaking with the member, she indicated that she only did day 
trips with the [tender], never overnight.” 
 

  ALCOAST  473/01,  issued  on  October  18,  2001,  and  titled  “Career  Sea  Pay  Reform,” 
states that “level  one” career sea pay  (CSP) is  payable to  eligible personnel  assigned to 
tenders.    It  also  states  that  “[e]ligible  members  must  be  permanently  or  temporarily 
assigned  for  duty  to  a  vessel,  ship-based  staff  (including  a  mobile  unit),  or  ship-based 
aviation  unit  pursuant  to  orders  issued  by  competent  authority  and  the  vessels/units 
primary mission must be accomplished underway.” 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On January 13, 2012, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited her to submit a response within thirty days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article  4.B.7.c.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Pay  Manual  in  effect  in  2002  stated  the  following 

about personnel assigned to administrative support units for cutters: 

 
Administrative  Shore  Unit.  An  administrative  shore  unit  exists  when  a  vessel  cannot  berth  all 
assigned personnel at the same time and neither Government owned or leased UPH is available for 
all personnel in pay grades E6 and below, who have no dependents. Personnel are not eligible for 
CSEAPAY. Since personnel are not in receipt of CSEAPAY, time does not count for CSEAPAY 
purposes or as cumulative time toward CSEAPAY PREM. 

  

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.  

The application was timely filed.1   
 

2. 

 The applicant alleged that she was unjustly denied sea pay and credit for sea duty 
for the period January 31, 2002, to January 9, 2003, because she is female.  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 his  record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving by a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed  information  is  erroneous  or  unjust.2    Absent 
evidence to  the contrary, the Board presumes that  Coast  Guard officials and other Government 
employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”3  

 
3. 

In 2002, the applicant  was permanently  assigned to  a shore unit, the Group, and 
her records show that she performed duties at the Group, the shore-side detachment (SSD), and 
on  the  tender.    The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  she  completed 
certain ship-board qualifications, such as in-port watchstanding, and got underway on the tender 
for approximately 30 day trips—i.e., about three day trips per month, on average, while assigned 
to the Group from January 2002 through January 2003.  Although the applicant alleged that she 
worked as much on the tender as any regular crewmember and was only deprived of the pay and 
credit  for  sea  duty  because  of  her  gender  and  lack  of  berthing  for  females  on  the  tender,  the 
preponderance of the evidence shows that she was assigned to and at least sometimes worked at 
the Group and SSD.  Article 4.B.7.c. of the Coast Guard Pay Manual clearly states that personnel 
assigned to an administrative shore unit because “a vessel cannot berth all assigned personnel at 
the same time” are not entitled to sea pay or credit for sea duty.  Therefore, the Board finds that 
the applicant was not entitled to sea pay or credit for sea duty by regulation. 

 
4. 

The  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  has 
been  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  perform  sea  duty  because  she  is  female  or  that  males 
assigned  to  the  SSD  in  2002  received  sea  pay  and  credit  for  sea  duty.    Therefore,  she  has  not 
proved that she has been discriminated against because of her gender in this regard. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
5.   
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 

                                                 
1 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that, under § 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil 
Relief  Act  of  1940,  the  BCMR’s  three-year  limitations  period  under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b)  is  tolled  during  a 
member’s active duty service). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
 

 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for correction of her military 

record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 
Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 
Barbara Walthers