DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2011-247 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

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 on September 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  June  7,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The applicant, a retired senior chief aviation machinist’s mate, asked to be properly reim-
bursed  for  his  travel  from  Air  Station  Elizabeth  City  in  North  Carolina  to  Air  Station  Barbers 
Point in Hawaii, in 1988.  In addition, he alleged that although he was authorized 11 days travel 
time, travel pay, and allowances for himself and his wife, the authorization was revoked and he 
was unjustly charged leave for those days. The applicant alleged that although the command in 
Elizabeth City authorized his travel, shipment of his personal vehicles, and travel time, the com-
mand  in  Hawaii  unjustly  and  erroneously  revoked  the  authorizations,  costing  him  money  and 
days of leave, all because one of his vehicles was shipped from Virginia to Hawaii. 

 
Regarding the timing of his application, the applicant alleged that he submitted his appli-
cation  in  1988  and  when  he  inquired  about  the  status  of  his  application  in  1990,  he  was  told 
“they were still working on it” but he never heard back.  In support of his allegations, the appli-
cant  submitted  his  application  on  a  DD  149  form  that  was  in  effect  in  1988.    He  also  issued  a 
copy of his travel orders, which show the following: 
 

  On March 23, 1988, he was issued orders to transfer from Air Station Elizabeth City to 

Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii, no later than July 1, 1988. 

  Travel  by  private  conveyance  was  authorized  but  travel  by  Government  transport  was 

required, where available, beyond the continental United States. 

 

 

 

 

  Travel by POV [privately owned vehicle], a 1972 Ford pickup, was authorized from Eliz-

abeth City to San Francisco with 8 days of travel time and 4 days of proceed time. 

  He was authorized 3 months of advanced pay “to be liquidated over 12 months.” 

On May 3, 1988, the CO made the following “memorandum endorsement” to the orders: 
 
1.  Authorized GTR [Government Travel Rate] for member & 1 dependent [name and date of mar-
riage].    Authorized  MALT  [monetary  allowance  in  lieu  of  transportation]  &  PER  DIEM  for 
dependent.  Authorized travel via POV from Elizabeth City, NC to San Pedro, CA. POV: 1986 
Buick … . Authorized shipment of 1972 FORD PICK-UP from Norfolk, VA to Honolulu, HI. 

2.  Authorized 28 days [leave], 04 days proceed time, 08 days travel time. 

The applicant submitted an Endorsement on Orders showing that he reported for duty in 
Hawaii on June 10, 1988.  A revised copy of the endorsement, dated July 18, 1988, states:  “Cor-
rected to adjust leave and travel  time.  MBR shipped two vehicles to HI and is only entitled to 
one day travel.” 

 
A  form  concerning  dependent  travel  shows  that  the  applicant’s  wife  was  traveling  in  a 
POV from Elizabeth City to Long Beach and was authorized MALT and an allowance that is not 
visible on the copy submitted. 

 
A travel voucher shows that the applicant was given a travel advancement of $1,712.20 
while  still  in  Elizabeth  City  and  that  he  left  Elizabeth  City  on  May  23,  1988,  arrived  in  San 
Diego on June 4, took leave until June 10, when he drove to Los Angeles International Airport 
and flew to Hawaii the same day.  The applicant claimed 5 days of leave from June 5 through 9, 
1988. 

 
Another document notes the cost of Government (SATO) one-way airfare for two and the 
applicant’s  actual  modes  of  travel,  and  concludes  that  “per  JFTR  U5105  and  U5116  and  MSG 
030045ZJUN87, no per diem due MBR on TLA.”  This document also shows that because of an 
advance he received, the applicant was deemed to owe $49.80.   The applicant also submitted a 
Personnel Action form and a Disbursement and Expenditure Document showing that $49.80 was 
recouped from his pay in October 1988. 

 
Finally, the applicant submitted an approved request chit showing that on December 12, 
1988,  he  asked  to  meet  with  his  commanding  officer  to  discuss  inequities  in  his  travel  reim-
bursement. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORD 

 
 
The applicant retired on October 1, 1990, with more than 27 years of service.  His record 
contains one BCMR decision showing that the Board corrected his position on an advancement 
eligibility list in 1985.  Other documents show that after training to become an aviation machin-
ist’s mate,  the applicant  served  and trained in  many places, including  at  air stations in  Kodiak, 
Alaska (1972-75), the District of Columbia (1975-79), Elizabeth City (1979-81), Hawaii (1981-
84),  Elizabeth  City  (1984-88),  and  Hawaii  (1988-90).    There  are  no  documents  in  his  official 

 

 

military record received from the National Archives that shed additional light on the applicant’s 
travel authorization, leave, and reimbursement pursuant to his transfer to Hawaii in 1988. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 13, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  requested  relief.    The  JAG  stated  that  the 
Board  should  deny  relief  because  the  application  is  untimely,  because  there  is  no  compelling 
reason to excuse the delay, and because of “the probable lack of success on the merits.”   
 

The JAG adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case pre-
pared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    PSC  also  stated  that  the  application  should  be 
denied  due  to  its  untimeliness.    PSC  alleged  that  the  Government  would  be  unable  to  pay  the 
applicant’s claim due to the Barring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702, which states the following in perti-
nent part: 
 

(a)  Except  as  provided  in  this  chapter  or  another  law,  all  claims  of  or  against  the  United  States 
Government shall be settled as follows: 
   (1) The Secretary of Defense shall settle— 
      (A)  Claims  involving  uniformed  service  members’  pay,  allowances,  travel,  transportation, 
payments for unused accrued leave, retired pay, and survivor benefits … 
(b)(1) A claim against the Government presented under this section  … must be received … within 
6 years after the claim accrues except— 
      (A) as provided in this chapter or another law … 
•   •   • 

(e)(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive the time limitations set for in subsection (b) or (c) in 
the case of a claim referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A).  In the case of a claim by or with respect to 
a member of the uniformed services who is not under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military 
department,  such  a  waiver  may  be  made  only  upon  the  request  of  the  Secretary  concerned  (as 
defined in section 101 of titled 37). 

 

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 him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

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. 

2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice in his record.  Given the Decem-
ber 12, 1988, request chit that the applicant submitted, the Board finds that he clearly knew upon 
his retirement in 1990 the results of his travel reimbursement request and should have applied to 
the Board within three years of that date.  Although the applicant alleged that he filed a BCMR 
application  about  this  matter  1988,  the  Board  has  no  record  of  receiving  that  application.   The 

 

 

only BCMR case in the applicant’s and the Board’s files is a 1985 case concerning his placement 
on the ADCS advancement list.  Therefore, this application is untimely. 
 

3. 

Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b),  the  Board  may  excuse  the  untimeliness  of  an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.D.C. 
1992), the court stated that to determine 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.”1  The court further instructed that “the longer the 
delay  has  been  and  the  weaker  the  reasons  are  for  the  delay,  the  more  compelling  the  merits 
would need to be to justify a full review.”2     

 
4. 

Regarding  the  delay  of  his  application,  the  applicant  provided  no  compelling 
explanation for why he could not have submitted his application sooner.  Even if, as the applicant 
alleged, he did submit an application in 1988 that went  astray, the applicant’s failure to pursue 
the matter for more than 20 years is unjustified.   

 
5. 

A cursory review of this case shows that insufficient evidence exists to conclude 
that  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  erroneous  or  unjust  and  should  be  corrected.    The  docu-
ments submitted by the applicant show that the command in Elizabeth City authorized 8 days of 
travel time, shipment of one POV from Virginia to Hawaii, and travel by a second POV to San 
Pedro, California, and by air from California to Hawaii.  The command in Hawaii found that he 
was due only 1 day of travel time because both vehicles were shipped to Hawaii.  This document 
appears to assume that the applicant and his wife flew directly from Virginia or North Carolina to 
Hawaii  and  so  were  entitled  to  only  one  day  of  travel  time.   The  Hawaii  command  also  found 
that  the  applicant’s  travel  advance  was  $49.80  more  than  he  was  owed  and  cited  paragraphs 
U5105  and  U5116  of  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulations  (JFTR).    U5105  of  the  JFTR  states 
that a member may choose to travel by a privately owned vehicle or a common carrier, such as 
an  airline,  unless  the  member  is  traveling  outside  the  continental  United  States  (OCONUS),  in 
which case U5116 applies.  U5116 provides that a member traveling OCONUS who chooses to 
travel by mixed means may not be reimbursed in travel expenses and per diem for more than the 
cost and per diem of traveling to the destination by Government procured common carrier.  Thus, 
it  appears  that  the  applicant  may  have  owed  the  Government  $49.80  because  his  mixed  travel 
costs and allowances, for which he received an advance, totaled more than what the Government 
would have paid  for two flights  from Virginia or North  Carolina  to  Hawaii and one day of per 
diem.  However, travel  regulations are very complex and change over time.  The record shows 
that the applicant met with his commanding officer to contest these matters in December 1988.  
Any actual errors regarding the applicant’s leave or reimbursement under the JFTR were presum-
ably  corrected  at  that  time.3   There  is  insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  for  the  Board  to  con-
clude that these matters were not correctly resolved in accordance with the JFTR.  Based on the 
record before it, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 
                                                 
1 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992). 

2 Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 

3  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b)  (requiring  the  Board  to  accord  Coast  Guard  records  and  officials  the  presumption  of 
regularity); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing  Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979),  for  the  required  presumption,  absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that  Government 
officials have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”). 

 

 

 
6. 

The  Board  notes  that  the  Coast  Guard  erroneously  argued  that  the  Barring Act,  
31  U.S.C.  §  3702,  would  prevent  it  from  reimbursing  the  applicant  for  a  claim  more  than  six 
years  old.    This  argument  is  erroneous  because  31  U.S.C.  §  3702(e)(1)  expressly  authorizes 
waiver of the six-year limitation when the Secretary requests it, and paragraph (c) of the BCMR 
statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552, states that “[t]he Secretary concerned may pay, from applicable current 
appropriations,  a  claim  for  the  loss  of  pay,  allowances,  compensation,  emoluments,  or  other 
pecuniary  benefits,  or  for  the  repayment  of  a  fine  or  forfeiture,  if,  as  a  result  of  correcting  a 
record under this section, the amount is found to be due the claimant ….”  However, this argu-
ment is moot because the applicant’s claim cannot prevail on the merits. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied.   

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman