DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2011-242 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

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 case after receiving the 
completed application on September 1, 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). 
 
 
who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated May 17, 2012, is signed by the three duly appointed members 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he will be reimbursed for the 
full  cost  of  flying  his  two  dependents  from  Xxxxxx  to  Hawaii,  which  was  $2,460.46.    The 
applicant stated that only $840.00 of this expenditure was allowed, and yet he was not informed 
of this limitation.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  never  counseled  about  airfare  for  dependent  travel 
before  he  transferred  to  Hawaii.    His  unit’s  yeoman  was  stationed  in  xxxxxxxxx,  across  Lake 
xxxxxx,  and  the  yeoman  “never  contacted  me  with  any  questions  or  concerns  about  my  PCS 
[permanent change of station] departing worksheet or orders.”  Therefore, he was unaware of the 
limitations  under  paragraph  U3002  of  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulations  (JFTR),  which 
required him to use a Schedule Airline Traffic Office (SATO), when he purchased his airfare for 
his dependents.  The applicant further alleged that he was unaware that his dependents could fly 
through SATO.  In support of his allegation, the applicant submitted the following documents: 

 

  The applicant’s travel orders, which he signed on June 9, 2011, state, “Issuance of these 
orders entitles you to PCS allowances IAW the JFTR.  Contact your SPO and Transporta-
tion  Office  to  verify  your  entitlements.”    The  travel  orders  do  not  expressly  state  the 
limitation under paragraph U3002 of the JFTR, but do state that the tickets must be pur-
chased “on GTR accounts.” 
 

 

 

 

  The applicant’s Travel Vouchers, which he submitted to be reimbursed for his own travel 
on June 14, 2011, and his dependents’ travel on June 27, 2011, both state that the appli-
cant “was reimbursed using city pairs.  Depns traveled from xxxxxxxxx to Honolulu, HI.  
Contract travel office (SATO) was not used to purchase airfare [in accordance with] JFTR 
U3002.” 
 

  A  “PCS  Departing/Separation  Worksheet”  that  the  applicant  completed  on  March  24, 
2011,  states,  “PURPOSE:    Use  this  form  to  request  PCS/Separation  entitlements  and 
provide  information  needed  for  completion  of  Official  Travel  Orders.    If  you  have  any 
questions,  ASK  YOUR  YEOMAN.”    The  applicant  requested  advances  for  “Advance 
Dislocation Allowance”  and  “Government  Procured  Transportation”  for  his  dependents 
from xxxxxxxx to Honolulu. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On January  11, 2012, the Judge Advocate General  (JAG) of the Coast  Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.  The JAG stated that 
the  applicant  “failed  to  follow  mandated  travel  requirements  which  he  knew  or  should  have 
known it was his  duty to follow.  Also, applicant’s endorsement on his  original orders … indi-
cates he was counseled on his travel entitlements.”  The JAG also adopted the findings and anal-
ysis  provided  in  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).  
PSC  stated  that  the  JFTR  and  the  applicant’s  travel  orders  required  the  applicant  to  purchase 
airfare  on  a  GTR  (Government  Travel  Request)  account.    PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  is  not 
entitled  to  reimbursement  for  purchasing  tickets  on  a  common  carrier  and  was  reimbursed  the 
authorized amount for his dependents’ travel. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 2, 2012, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He stated 
that his yeoman “failed to inform me that my dependents had to travel using SATO travel.  When 
I asked my yeoman about purchasing plane tickets for my dependents, he just said to buy them, 
never mentioning that I had to go through SATO travel to purchase the plane tickets.”  The appli-
cant  stated  that  he  had  never  used  SATO  for  prior  transfers  and  was  unaware  his  dependents 
could do so. 
 

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  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.    The 

application was timely.  
 

2. 

 The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  fully  counseled  about  his  travel  entitle-
ments and has been unjustly denied full reimbursement for his dependents’ travel expenses.  The 
Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information in the appli-

 

 

cant’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.1  
Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Gov-
ernment employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”2  

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that when he asked a  yeoman about his dependents’ plane 
tickets,  the  yeoman said  simply,  “Buy them,”  and did  not  expressly  tell  him that he had to  use 
SATO.  He did not allege or prove that anyone actively miscounseled him about how to purchase 
his  dependents’  tickets.    Unfortunately,  the  applicant  clearly  did  not  ask  enough  questions  and 
erroneously  assumed  that  he  could  simply  buy  airline  tickets  from  any  common  carrier  and  be 
fully  reimbursed  for  them  by  the  Government.    The  Board  finds  that  this  assumption  was  not 
reasonable for any member of the Armed Forces, especially one with as many years of military 
service as the applicant has.  Although the cost of the mistake was very expensive for the appli-
cant,  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  refusal  to  reimburse  him  for  the  full  cost  of  his 
dependents’ travel on a common carrier is neither erroneous nor unjust.3 

 
4. 

 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
1 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
2 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
3 See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989),  rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing  Reale v. 
United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976)  (finding  that  for  purposes  of  the  BCMRs  under  10  U.S.C.  § 1552, 
“injustice” is treatment by military authorities that “shocks the sense of justice”). 

 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
Lillian Cheng 

 

 

 
Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 
Barbara Walthers