DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-001 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  October  5,  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 November 15, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The applicant, a reservist who served on continuous active duty from July 31, 2006, until 
she was released from active duty (RELAD) on October 22, 2010, asked the Board to correct her 
record to show that she was RELAD on May 31, 2011, instead, and to award her back pay and 
allowances from October 23, 2010, through May 31, 2011.  The applicant stated that she became 
incapacitated while serving on active duty and was RELAD even though she was unfit for duty 
or  civilian  work  and  about  to  undergo  surgery.    In  addition,  she  alleged  that  she  was  denied  a 
pre-separation physical.   

 
The applicant explained that while serving on active duty on August 26, 2006, she was in 
a  traffic  accident  and  “sustained  a  lumbar  sprain  to  the  neck,”  which  was  diagnosed  in  a  local 
emergency room.  The next day, a Coast Guard clinic referred her for physical therapy.  For the 
next four years, she attended physical therapy whenever a pinched nerve in her neck was painful.  
The therapy would relieve the pain  for a while, but it would return.  Then in August 2010, her 
left hand began “locking up,” and she was referred to a neurologist.  An MRI of her neck inci-
dentally revealed that she also had thyroid disease, and she was scheduled for thyroid surgery on 
October  26,  2010.    In  addition,  the  applicant  noted  that  while  on  active  duty,  a  dentist  began 
treating her for periodontal gum disease.   

 
The applicant stated that her active duty orders were supposed to end on September 17, 
2010, and she was told there was no more work for her.  The applicant alleged that  because of 

 

 

her medical conditions, she should have been “placed on medical hold” when her orders ended 
so that she could continue receiving dental treatment and therapy for her pinched nerve. 

 
The applicant stated that her supervisor extended her active duty through September 30, 
2010, but told her that the decision about whether she would be placed on medical hold would be 
made by two other officers and that he had taken care of it and she did not need to worry or to 
contact  those  officers.    She  heard  nothing  from  the  officers,  and  when  the  extension  ended  on 
September  30,  her  supervisor  issued  her  another  extension  through  October  22,  2010,  and  told 
her not to worry, that it would be taken care of, and that she would receive medical hold orders 
by October 22.  However, she did not receive any orders, and her supervisor went on leave from 
October 18 through 22 without informing anyone else about the status of the orders and did not 
respond when others in the office tried to contact him on her behalf. 

 
The applicant alleged that when she went to the office on October 22, 2010, another staff 
member  called  their  Servicing  Personnel  Officer  (SPO),  who  said  that  the  applicant  would 
receive orders to work at the District office in the Deepwater Horizon Awards Unit.  However, 
45 minutes later, her supervisor called another member and told that member to tell the applicant 
that “today is her last working day with the Coast Guard.”  Therefore, she was RELAD without 
warning or a pre-separation physical examination after serving more than four years on continu-
ous active duty. 

 
The applicant alleged that her supervisor knew about her medical issues long before she 
was RELAD and “that is why he told me to make sure to get them taken care of.  He told me to 
set up my demo [pre-separation] physical, which I did.  The demobilization physical was never 
completed.    I  did  not  receive  a  complete  demobilization  physical  prior  to  being  discharged.    I 
never signed off on any physician’s report to be released from active duty.” 

 
The applicant alleged that she underwent thyroid surgery on October 26, 2010, as sched-
uled  but  could  not  get  her  prescription  for  pain  medication  filled  because  she  had  no  TriCare 
coverage since she had been discharged.   She did not receive a Notice of Eligibility (NOE) for 
the  surgery  until  November  5,  2010.    After  the  surgery,  she  was  incapacitated  and  could  not 
communicate verbally for at least four months, and yet she had no income and was often denied 
insurance coverage. 

 
The applicant alleged that when she reported for speech therapy in January 2011, she was 
denied  treatment  by  TriCare,  but  the  therapist  told  her  about  some  exercises  she  could  do  at 
home.    The  applicant  stated  that  she  also  could  not  apply  for  unemployment  benefits  or  food 
stamps because the Coast Guard did not issue her a DD 214 until January 2011.  Therefore, she 
used up all of her savings and relied on her credit card.  Although the Coast Guard told her she 
would be covered for 180 days  after her discharge under a TriCare TAMP, she was sometimes 
told that she was not covered and so could not get treatment.  For example, she was not author-
ized any physical therapy for the pinched nerve in her neck and she was refused coverage when 
she  visited  the  neurologist  on  April  6,  2011, to  get  the  results  of  nerve  conduction  studies  that 
had been conducted on December 7, 2010.  A lieutenant told her she was not eligible for TAMP 
because  Hurricane  Katrina  Salvage  and  Debris  Operations,  pursuant  to  which  her  active  duty 

 

 

orders were issued, was not  a Contingency Operation.  Therefore, she began receiving medical 
care through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA). 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  on  February  18,  2011,  she  submitted  Physician’s  Report/Dis-
ability Certification forms that the Coast Guard had sent her to be completed by her doctors so 
that  she  could  get  back  on  active  duty  and  receive  insurance  coverage,  but  she  never  received 
any kind of response from the Coast Guard.  In support of her allegations, the applicant submit-
ted various military and medical records, which are included in the summary below. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The  applicant  was  called  to  active  duty  on  July  31,  2006.    On  August  26,  2006,  she 
strained  her  neck  and  left  shoulder  when  another  vehicle  rear-ended  her  vehicle.    Her  medical 
records show occasional tests and treatment for neck and shoulder pain thereafter. 

 
A February 13, 2007, ultrasound of the applicant’s neck, performed following an abnor-
mal  MRI  result,  revealed  “benign  multinodular  goiter  with  dominant  mixed  cystic  and  solid 
lesion noted.  Will refer to  endo for further evaluation.”  Another ultrasound on November 19, 
2009, also showed the goiter and a history of thyroid disease. 

 
A  December  18,  2009,  MRI  of  the  left  shoulder  showed  “tendinitis  and  possible  small 
partial tear of the anterior supraspinatus tendon, rotator cuff.  Complete tear and retraction is not 
seen.  Small inferior spur at the AC joint noted.  The inflammation is more prominent than seen 
on the prior study of 09 January 2007.” 

 
A  January  15,  2010,  MRI  of  the  cervical  spine  showed  disc  protrusion  at  C5-C6  with 
mild canal stenosis but no cord impingement; disc protrusion at C6-C7 with no significant steno-
sis;  a  stable  1-centimeter  lipoma  in  the  C3  vertical  body;  and  a  3.3-centimeter  multinodular 
goiter with a multicystic mass. 

 
A May 4, 2010, TriCare Referral/Authorization form authorized treatment for the appli-

cant’s goiter and chronic shoulder pain. 

 
On July 26, 2010, the applicant visited a Primary Care Clinic to undergo a pre-separation 

physical examination. 

 
In  an  email  dated  August  16,  2010,  a  Coast  Guard  health  services  technician  reminded 
the applicant that she needed to see the medical officer to get “labs, pap, mammo and a cg-4057 
[on  which  a  member  agrees  or  disagrees  with  the  physician’s  finding  of  fitness]  filled  out”  to 
complete  her  separation  physical.    In  an  email  dated  August  20,  2010,  the  applicant  was 
reminded that she had an appointment on August 24, 2010. 

 
In an email dated August 23, 2010, the applicant’s supervisor sent her an email telling her 
to schedule an appointment with the chief health services technician “regarding coordination of 
your  currently  scheduled  surgery  with  your  scheduled  demobilization”  and  to  “go  over  your 
medical condition which requires surgery and also discuss the post-surgery prognosis within the 

 

 

context of your scheduled demobilization date.  The doctor will then provide me with guidance 
when and if you can be scheduled for demobilization and discharge.  Your current orders sched-
ule  you  for  discharge  on  17  September.    If  your  condition  requires  that  additional  orders  be 
issued, we will take care of that in house.  I just need medical to provide me with the appropriate 
date.” 

 
On  October  24,  2010,  the  Eighth  District  Commander  issued  the  applicant  a  Notice  of 
Eligibility  (NOE)  for  “medical  care  and  treatment  appropriate  for  thyroid  surgery  and  the 
accompanying  post-operative  period  for  four  (4)  weeks.  …  The  continued  provisions  of  this 
NOE are contingent upon final determination of service connection and the absence of miscon-
duct  or  fraud  regarding  your  condition.    Treatment  and  medication  are  authorized  only  for  the 
condition  covered by this NOE  at  the treatment  facility designated by this command.   You are 
required to obtain updated prognosis and duty status information from your designated provider. 
… This NOE shall remain in effect no longer than four weeks unless extended by me or by Coast 
Guard Personnel Command.” 

 
An October 26, 2010, surgical report shows that the applicant underwent a robotic trans-
axillary  subtotal  thyroidectomy  because  of  a  “multinodular  goiter  with  suspicious  nodule  and 
compressive  symptoms.”    One  of  the  risks  of  the  surgery  discussed  with  the  applicant  was 
“injury  to  the  recurrent  laryngeal  nerve  with  temporary  or  permanent  hoarseness  of  voice.”  
Medical records show follow-up appointments on November 1, 2010, and November 19, 2010.   

 
A January 11, 2011, memorandum ordered the applicant’s command to perform a line of 
duty determination for her.  A January 29, 2011, report from the investigating officer found that 
the  applicant’s  injury  was  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty  when  her  vehicle  was  rear-ended  by 
another  vehicle  in  August  2006.    The  investigating  officer  recommended  that  the  applicant’s 
orders be extended, that  she be placed on medical  hold  until  her medical  issues were resolved, 
and that she receive incapacitation pay starting from her RELAD date. 

 
On January 28, 2011, a petty officer wrote an email stating that the applicant’s supervisor 
advised her in July 2010 that she would be “demobed due to lack of work available for her.”  The 
applicant was given instructions on how to get a “demob physical,” but the applicant “expressed 
concerns  regarding  her  pending  surgery  and  believed  that  she  could  not  complete  her  demob 
because of it. … In November 2010, [the applicant] contacted me regarding an error on her DD 
214.  I informed her that [another petty officer] was the person to contact, and I sent an email to 
[that petty officer] regarding the error.” 

 
On January 28, 2011, another petty officer wrote an email stating that in early 2010 the 
applicant began mentioning medical issues she wanted to have taken care of and was diligent in 
going  to  appointments.    However,  the  applicant’s  supervisor  stopped  by  their  office  more  than 
once asking the applicant whether she had completed her demob physical, and the applicant told 
him that “it was being taken care of.” 

 
On February 18, 2011, a doctor completed Physician’s Report and/or Disability Certifi-
cation forms on which he noted that the applicant’s post-thyroidectomy prognosis was excellent 

 

 

but that she needed speech therapy.  He reported that she was medically incapacitated and would 
be unfit for military duties through April 18, 2011. 

 
A March 1, 2011, TriCare Referral/Authorization form authorized treatment for a neuro-
logical consultation, motor nerve conduction test, and muscle test in one limb due to a cervical 
disc disease and left arm weakness. 

 
On  March  14,  2011,  following  a  speech  pathology  evaluation,  a  doctor  noted  that  the 
applicant  had  experienced  “moderate  dysphonia  and  voice  dysfunction”  following  the  thyroid-
ectomy  and  that  her  speech  therapy  had  been  delayed  due  to  insurance  problems.    The  doctor 
recommended  weekly  speech  therapy  for  four  weeks.    Medical  reports  show  that  the  applicant 
began speech therapy on March 16, 2011. 

 
On March 22, 2011, the District Commander extended the applicant’s NOE through May 

31, 2011. 

 
Medical records show that the applicant was scheduled for tests at a Radiology Imaging 

Center on April 27 and May 3, 2011. 

 
On  August  29,  2011,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for  transfer  to  Retired  Awaiting 

Pay status instead of electing to receive retired pay prior to age 60. 

 
Undated  claims  for  incapacitation  pay  show  that  the  applicant  requested  incapacitation 
pay for the periods November 24, 2010, to December 24, 2010, and December 25, 2010, to Janu-
ary 25, 2011, and submitted affidavits from her civilian employer, the U.S. Post Office, that she 
did  not  work  during  those  periods.    Statements  of  Earnings  and  Leave  show  that  the  applicant 
received incapacitation pay for October 24, 2010, to January 25, 2011. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 15, 2012, the Judge Advocate General  (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, the JAG adopted the 
findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Personnel Service 
Center (PSC). 
 
 
PSC first summarized the facts as follows.  The applicant “completed 17 separate volun-
tary orders issued under the authority of Title 10 USC § 12301(h) with no break in service from 
July  31,  2006,  through  October  22,  2010,”  when  she  was  RELAD  to  the  Individual  Ready 
Reserve (IRR).  PSC stated that if the applicant had not had a pending medical issue, she would 
have been RELAD to the inactive status list pending her request for retirement because she had 
more than 30 years of service. 
 
 
PSC stated that pursuant to COMDTINST M6150.3, since December 2008, reservists on 
active duty have been required to  schedule and undergo an annual  Periodic Health  Assessment 
(PHA)  during  their  birth  month.    PSC  stated  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  applicant  ever 
scheduled  or  underwent  a  PHA  between  December  2008  and  her  RELAD  date  but  she  was 

 

 

treated for a variety of  medical  conditions  while on active duty.   PSC stated that on  only  three 
occasions,  the  applicant  was  released  from  the  Coast  Guard  clinic  with  temporary  work/duty 
limitations:  From December 28, 2006, through January 11, 2007, she was not to lift more than 
20 pounds due to cervicalgia; from February 2 to 23, 2007, she was not to do physical therapy, 
sports,  heavy  lifting,  or  prolonged  standing  or  sitting  due  to  cervicalgia;  and  on  January  29, 
2009, she began 72 hours of sick in quarters status due to a back muscle spasm. 
 
PSC stated that the applicant initiated a demobilization physical examination on July 26, 
 
2010.    PSC  stated  that  the  Report  of  Physical  Examination  does  not  indicate  whether  any 
elements of the examination were left incomplete, “but there are indications that the demobiliza-
tion  physical  was  not  completed  due  to  Applicant’s  scheduled  thyroidectomy  surgery.”    PSC 
stated that the thyroidectomy was apparently not required because a doctor’s note dated May 7, 
2010, states that the applicant “desires thyroidectomy rather than continued follow-up or repeat 
FNA.” 
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant was officially informed that she would be RELAD in July 
2010 and was provided a Career  Intentions Worksheet,  but  she never submitted it.  PSC stated 
that  this  notice  was  adequate  pursuant  to  the  Personnel  and  Pay  Procedures  Manual,  which 
requires 45 days’ notice.   
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant’s thyroidectomy was originally scheduled for September 30, 
2010, and her active duty orders were extended past that date.  However, on Friday, October 22, 
2010,  PSC  learned  that  the  surgery  had  not  occurred  and  had  been  postponed  until  Tuesday, 
October 26, 2010.  On Monday, October 25, 2010, PSC issued a Notice of Eligibility (NOE) for 
authorized medical care to cover the applicant’s surgery and recovery.  The NOE “provided the 
applicant with medical care and treatment  and with the ability to receive incapacitation pay for 
any  documented  loss  of  civilian  earned  income  during  the  authorized  period.    The  initial  NOE 
was issued for 30 days … with the caveat that District Eight would provide the required medical 
documentation and line of duty determination.  PSC-rpm did not receive a line of duty determi-
nation from District Eight until February 2, 2011—well over three months after the initial NOE 
authorization  was  issued.”    In  response,  on  March  22,  2011,  PSC  extended  the  NOE  through 
May 31, 2011, in particular to cover the applicant’s speech therapy, which was needed as a con-
sequence of the thyroidectomy. 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  on  March  22,  2011,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  she  would  be 
transferred to an inactive status as of June 1, 2011, and was eligible to request early receipt of her 
retired  pay  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  399/09.    However,  on  August  29,  2011,  PSC  received  the 
applicant’s request to be placed in Retired Awaiting Pay status as of December 1, 2011, and her 
request was approved. 
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant was paid incapacitation pay for the original, 30-day NOE in 
the  amount  of  $3,704.09.    Her  request  for  incapacitation  pay  for  the  following  60  days,  from 
November 24, 2010, through January 25, 2011, was never received, but  she provided copies in 
the fall of 2011.  On December 5, 2011, however, PSC learned that the transfer of $6,990.34 had 
been  returned  because  the  applicant  had  closed  her  bank  account.    On  December  6,  2011,  the 

 

 

sum was transferred to the applicant’s new bank account, and she verified that she had received 
it. 
 
 
PSC  argued  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  medical  hold  orders  and  full  credit  and  pay 
for  active  duty  through  May  31,  2011,  should  be  denied  because  there  is  no  evidence  that  she 
was incapacitated when she was RELAD even though she was pending surgery.  PSC noted that 
although  there  is  no  signed  demobilization  physical  in  the  record,  the  applicant  was  presump-
tively fit for duty and submitted no documentation showing that she was unable to perform her 
duties when she was RELAD. 
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant’s release from active duty with an NOE to make her eligible 
for medical care and incapacitation pay from her RELAD date through May 31, 2011, “was con-
sistent with established policies and procedures” for someone pending treatment for a condition 
incurred  in  the  line  of  duty.    PSC  noted  that  the  “maximum  amount  of  incapacitation  pay  the 
Applicant can receive would be equal to full active duty pay and allowances (minus federal and 
state taxes).”  PSC stated that the applicant has received a total of $10,694.43 in incapacitation 
pay, after taxes, for the first 90 days of her NOE and has not yet submitted any request for inca-
pacitation pay for the remainder of the NOE. 
 
 
PSC  stated  that  through  the  NOE,  the  applicant  was  authorized  medical  care  and  treat-
ment from her RELAD date through May 31, 2011, and was eligible for incapacitation pay for 
the  same  period,  although  she  only  requested  incapacitation  pay  for  the  first  90  days.    She  is 
eligible to request early receipt of retired pay but has not done so.  PSC concluded that the appli-
cant “has failed to substantiate any error or injustice with regard to her record” and so her request 
should be denied. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 21, 2012, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and  invited  her  to  respond  within  30  days.    The  applicant  requested  an  extension  through 
December 31, 2012, but provided no reason for the extension.  The Chair granted an extension 
through  August  31,  2012,  and  asked  the  applicant  to  let  her  know  the  reason  if  she  needed  a 
longer  extension.    No  reply  to  this  inquiry  was  received,  and  no  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard was received by August 31, 2012.  On September 18, 2012, the Deputy Chair sent 
the  applicant  an  email  noting  that  no  response  had  been  received  and  informing  her  that  she 
could request another extension if necessary.  The Deputy Chair advised her that if no response 
was  received  by  September  30,  2012,  her  case  would  be  considered  ready  for  deliberation  and 
decision by the Board.  The Board has received no further communications from the applicant.   

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Title  10  U.S.C.  §  1074  states  that  a  member  on  active  duty  “is  entitled  to  medical  and 
dental care in any facility of any uniformed service” pursuant to joint regulations prescribed by 
the Secretaries. 
 

 

 

Title 10 U.S.C. § 12301(h) states that a member may be voluntarily ordered to active duty 

 
or retained on active duty to receive authorized medical care. 
 
 
 

Title 37 U.S.C. § 204(g) states the following: 

(1) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed service is entitled to the pay and allowances 
provided by law or regulation for a member of a regular component of a uniformed service of cor-
responding grade and length of service whenever such member is physically disabled as the result 
of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated-- 
 

(A) in line of duty while performing active duty; … 

 
(2)  In  the  case  of  a  member  who  receives  earned  income  from  nonmilitary  employment  or  self-
employment performed in any month in which the member is otherwise entitled to pay and allow-
ances  under  paragraph  (1),  the  total  pay  and  allowances  shall  be  reduced  by  the  amount  of  such 
income. In calculating earned income for the purpose of the preceding sentence, income from an 
income  protection  plan,  vacation  pay,  or  sick  leave  which  the  member  elects  to  receive  shall  be 
considered. 

 
Provisions of the Personnel Manual 
 
 
Article  12.B.6.a.  requires  reservists  being  RELAD  to  undergo  a  pre-separation  physical 
examination.  Article 12.B.6.b. states that “[w]hen the physical examination is completed and the 
member is found physically qualified for separation, the member will be advised and required to 
sign a statement on the reverse side of the Chronological Record of Service, CG-4057, agreeing 
or disagreeing with the findings.”  Article 12.B.6.c. states that “[i]f a member objects to a finding 
of physically qualified for separation, the Standard Form 88 together with the member’s written 
objections shall be sent immediately to [PSC] for review.” 
 
Provisions of the Medical Manual 

 
Article 3.F.1.c. of the Medical Manual states that members “are ordinarily considered fit 
for duty unless they have a physical impairment (or impairments) which interferes with the per-
formance of the duties of their grade or rating.  A determination of fitness or unfitness depends 
upon the individual’s ability to reasonably perform those duties.” 
 

Article 3.B.5. provides that when a member objects to a finding of qualified for separa-
tion or release, PSC will review the record to make a final determination as to whether the officer 
will be separated or processed under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 

 
Article  3.B.6.  provides  that  “[w]hen  a  member  has  an  impairment  (in  accordance  with 
section  3-F  of  this  Manual)  an  Initial  Medical  Board  shall  be  convened  only  if  the  conditions 
listed in paragraph 2-C-2.(b) [of the PDES Manual] are also met.  Otherwise the member is suit-
able for separation.” 
 
Provisions of the PDES Manual  
 
 
who is physically and mentally able to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating.” 

Chapter 2.A.15. of the PDES Manual defines “fit for duty” as “[t]he status of a member 

 

 

 

Chapter  2.A.38.  defines  “physical  disability”  as  “[a]ny  manifest  or  latent  physical 
impairment or impairments due to disease, injury, or aggravation by service of an existing con-
dition,  regardless  of  the  degree,  that  separately  makes  or  in  combination  make  a  member  unfit 
for continued duty.”   
 

Chapter 2.C.2. states the following: 
 
b. 
The  law  that  provides  for  disability  retirement  or  separation  (10  U.S.C.,  chapter  61)  is 
designed to compensate members whose military service is terminated due to a physical disability 
that  has  rendered  him  or  her  unfit  for  continued  duty.    That  law  and  this  disability  evaluation 
system  are  not  to  be  misused  to  bestow  compensation  benefits  on  those  who  are  voluntarily  or 
mandatorily retiring or separating and  have theretofore drawn pay and allowances, received pro-
motions, and continued on unlimited active duty status while tolerating physical impairments that 
have not actually precluded Coast Guard service.  The following policies apply. 
 
Continued  performance  of  duty  until  a  service  member  is  scheduled  for  separation  or 
   (1) 
retirement for reasons other than physical disability creates a presumption of fitness for duty.  This 
presumption may be overcome if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that: 
 
 
in his or her assigned duties; or 
 
 
acute,  grave  illness  or  injury,  or  other  deterioration  of  the  member’s  physical 
condition occurred immediately prior to or coincident with processing for separation or retirement 
for reasons other than physical disability which rendered the service member unfit for further duty. 
 
    (2)  A  member  being  processed  for  separation  or  retirement  for  reasons  other  than  physical 
disability  shall  not  be  referred  for  disability  evaluation  unless  the  conditions  in  paragraphs 
2.C.2.b.(1)(a) or (b) are met. 
 
c. 
If a member being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical 
disability adequately performed the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating, the member is 
presumed fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates he or she has impairments. 

the member, because of disability, was physically unable to perform adequately 

(a) 

(b) 

     

e. 
An  evaluee  whose  manifest  or  latent  impairment  may  be  expected  to  interfere  with  the 
performance of duty in the near future  may be found  “unfit for continued duty” even though the 
member is currently physically capable of performing all assigned duties.  Conversely, an evaluee 
convalescing from a disease or injury which reasonably may be expected to improve so that he or 
she will be able to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in the near future 
may be found “Fit for Duty.” 

 
Provisions of the Reserve Policy Manual 
 

Chapter 6.A.1. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) provides that  
 
[m]edical  and  dental  care  shall  be  provided  for  reservists  incurring  or  aggravating  an  injury,  ill-
ness,  or  disease  in  the  line  of  duty,  and  physical  examinations  shall  be  authorized  to  determine 
fitness for duty or disability processing. Pay and allowances shall be authorized, to the extent per-
mitted by law, for reservists who are not medically qualified to perform military duties, because of 
an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. Pay and allowances shall 
also  be  authorized,  to  the  extent  permitted  by  law,  for  reservists  who  are  fit  to  perform  military 

 

 

 

duties but experience a loss of earned income because of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or 
aggravated in the line of duty. 

Under Chapter 6.A.2, “earned income” is defined as “[i]ncome from nonmilitary employ-
ment,  including  self-employment. This  includes  normal  wages,  salaries,  professional  fees,  tips, 
or  other  compensation  for  personal  services  actually  rendered,  as  well  as  income  from  taxable 
unemployment benefits,  income protection plans, vacation pay, and sick leave that the member 
elects to receive.” 
 

Under Chapter 6.A.3.a., a “reservist who incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease 
in the line of duty is entitled to medical and/or dental treatment as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1074 
or  1074a  in  an  approved  medical  treatment  facility  or  authorized  civilian  healthcare  provider.”  
However, Figure 6-1 states that the reservist is entitled to “medical and dental care appropriate 
for the disability until it cannot be materially improved by further hospitalization or treatment.”  
 

Chapter 6.A.3.b. provides the following: 
 
Medical and dental care shall be provided until  the  member is found  fit for  military duty, or the 
injury, illness, or disease cannot be materially improved by further hospitalization or treatment and 
the member has been separated or retired as the result of a Coast Guard Physical Disability Evalu-
ation  System  (PDES)  determination  (See  Physical  Disability  Evaluation  System,  COMDTINST 
M1850.2 (series)). Each case in which the member is projected to remain incapacitated for more 
than six months shall be referred to the PDES. 

According to Chapter 6.A.4. of the RPM, 
 
b.    A  reservist  who  is  unable  to  perform  military  duties  due  to  an  injury,  illness,  or  disease 
incurred  or  aggravated  in  the  line  of  duty  is  entitled  to  full  pay  and  allowances,  including  all 
incentive and special pays to which entitled, if otherwise eligible, less any earned income as pro-
vided under 37 U.S.C. 204(g). … 
 
c. A reservist who is able to perform military duties but demonstrates a loss of earned income as a 
result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty is entitled to pay 
and allowances, including all incentive and special pay to which entitled, if otherwise eligible, but 
not to exceed the amount of the demonstrated loss of earned income or the amount equal that pro-
vided  by  law  or  regulation  for  an  active  duty  member  of  corresponding  grade  and  length  of 
service, whichever is less. … 
 
d. Pay and allowances shall be paid only during the period a member remains not fit for military 
duties or demonstrates a loss of earned income as a result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred 
or aggravated in the line of duty. The member’s entitlement to incapacitation pay shall terminate 
on the date that one of the following actions occurs: 

(1) The member is found FFFD, 
(2) The member no longer demonstrates a loss of earned income, 
(3) The member is separated or retired, or 
(4) Commandant (G-WTR) determines that it is no longer in the interest of fairness and 

equity to continue pay and allowances under 37 U.S.C. 204(g) or 204(h). 
 
e. Payment in any particular case may not be made for more than six months without review of the 
case by Commandant (G-WTR) to ensure that continuation of military pay and allowances is war-
ranted.    In  making  the  determination  whether  pay  and  allowances  should  continue  beyond  the 
initial  six  months,  Commandant  (G-WTR)  shall  consider  if  the  member  has  resumed  his  or  her 

 

 

 

 

civilian  occupation,  undertaken  a  new  position  in  the  same  occupation,  or  taken  a  position  in  a 
new occupation. These  factors are to be used  when determining if it is in the interest of fairness 
and equity to continue benefits. 

Under Chapter 6.B.3.a., a “Notice of Eligibility (NOE) for authorized medical treatment 
is  issued to a reservist  not  serving on active duty, to  document eligibility for medical  care as a 
result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty.”  NOEs should 
be issued “as soon as possible but not later than three working days after the initial medical eval-
uation  and  prognosis  is  completed.”    RPM,  Chap.  6.B.3.b.    Under  Chapter  6.b.3.c.,  “[u]pon 
determination that the member will require treatment beyond the first three-month period of the 
NOE,  commands  shall  notify  the  servicing  ISC  (pf)  and  may  request  extensions  in  one-month 
increments. … ISC (pf)s may not authorize extensions to allow an NOE to exceed six months.”  
Chapter 6.B.3.d. provides that “[a]s soon as a medical officer or designated authority determines 
that  a  reservist  is  expected  to  remain  incapacitated  for  more  than  six months,  the  case  shall  be 
referred to the Coast Guard Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).” 
 

Chapter 6.B.4. provides the following instructions for claiming incapacitation pay: 
 
Claims  for  incapacitation  pay  shall  be  submitted  to  the  servicing  ISC  (pf)  via  the  chain  of  com-
mand. … If submitting a claim for pay and allowances due to a NFFD status (unable to perform 
military duties), the member must submit a statement declaring any earned income … , enclose a 
copy of the NOE, medical officer’s certification … , and a letter from his or her civilian employer 
containing: 

(1) The employer’s mailing address, 
(2) Supervisor’s name and phone number, 
(3) Certification and reason that the member has not returned to work, and  
(4) Documentation of any  normal  wages, salaries, professional fees, tips, vacation pays, 

sick leave, disability insurance, or other compensation (if any) that the member has received. 

 
 
ALCGRSV 058/10 was issued on October 19, 2010, to  “outline when a medical hold is 
appropriate.  …  Retention  under  [10  USC  12301(h)  and  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual]  may  be 
appropriate for reservists who become ill or are injured while serving on orders for a period of 31 
days  or  more.    Medical  hold  determinations  will  include  the  following:    the  severity  of  ill-
ness/injury,  prognosis/expected  recovery  time,  anticipated  time  for  return  to  available  for  full 
duty  (AFFD)  status,  line  of  duty  (LOD)  determination,  input  form  the  medical  officer  (e.g., 
assessment of member’s medical condition, identification of disqualifying or pre-existing condi-
tion, referral to MEB, interim LOD determination), and the member’s documented consent to be 
retained on active duty.  Medical holds shall not be used to  complete individual medical readi-
ness  (IMR)  elements  such  as  Periodic  Health  Assessments  (PHA),  dental  examinations  or 
immunizations.”  PSC-rpm was designated as the approval authority for medical holds. 
 
 
Chapter  8.B.4.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  states  that  enlisted  reservists  “shall  be 
removed  from  active  status  after  completing  30  total  years  of  service,”  although  the  Comman-
dant may defer the transfer to inactive status to satisfy a specific Service need. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 

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  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  

The application was timely filed within three years of the applicant’s release from active duty.   
 

2. 

The applicant  alleged that  her RELAD on  October 22, 2010, was erroneous and 
unjust and that she should have been retained on active duty through May 31, 2011.  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.  33 
C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard offi-
cials and other Government employees have carried out their duties  “correctly, lawfully, and in 
good  faith.”  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. 

 The  applicant  alleged  that  her  RELAD  was  erroneous  and  unjust  because  she 
never  completed  a  pre-separation  physical  or  signed  a  CG-4057  form  agreeing  or  disagreeing 
with  the  findings  of  such  a  physical  as  required  by  Article  12.B.6.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
However, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant did undergo a pre-separa-
tion physical examination on July 26, 2010, although it is not clear whether all of the necessary 
laboratory  and  gynecological  tests  were  performed.    In  addition,  although  the  medical  records 
show  that  the  applicant  had  a  goiter  and  had  suffered  from  occasional  neck  and  shoulder  pain 
since a motor vehicle accident in 2006, there is insufficient evidence of permanent disability for 
the Board to conclude that the applicant was not fit for duty at the time she was RELAD.  Under 
Chapter 3.F.1. of the Medical Manual and Article 2.C.2. of the PDES Manual, members are pre-
sumptively fit for duty and may be found fit for separation and administratively separated even if 
they have impairments.  Moreover, the Board notes that there is some evidence that the applicant 
desired to and did delay completion of her pre-separation physical despite repeated reminders to 
complete it and specifically to complete a CG-4057.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded that 
the  applicant’s  RELAD  was  rendered  erroneous  or  unjust  just  because  she  apparently  failed  to 
timely  complete  all  the  elements  of  her  pre-separation  physical  and  a  CG-4057  before  her 
RELAD date even though it was extended for more than a month. 

 
4. 

The applicant alleged that she should have been retained on active duty instead of 
being issued an NOE.  The Board can find no statute or regulation that entitled the applicant to 
retention on active duty.  Whether a reservist is retained on active duty or RELAD and issued an 
NOE providing eligibility for medical care and incapacitation pay  is a discretionary decision to 
be made by PSC based on the severity of the impairment and the prognosis.  The applicant has 
not proved that PSC abused its discretion in determining that she should be RELAD and issued 
an NOE instead of being retained on active duty.  Moreover, whether she was on active duty or 
RELAD  with  an  NOE,  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  no  more  pay  than  her  active  duty  pay  and 
allowances offset by any civilian pay she received.  Correcting her record to show that she was 
retained on active duty would not legally entitle her to both her active duty pay and her civilian 
pay from the U.S. Post Office.  10 U.S.C. § 204(g)(2).  The Board notes that the applicant has 
already applied for and received incapacitation pay through January 25, 2011, and may be eligi-
ble for it from January 26 through May 31, 2011, if she did not receive civilian pay equal to or in 
excess of her military pay and allowances during that period. 

 

 

 
5. 

The applicant complained that she was denied TriCare coverage for treatment of 
her neck and shoulder pain while the NOE was in effect.  However, the NOE was issued only for 
the applicant’s thyroidectomy and recovery therefrom.  She was not entitled to TriCare coverage 
for other service-connected medical conditions under the NOE.  Therefore, the command’s delay 
of the line of duty determination and the expiration of the NOE did not cause the applicant to be 
denied TriCare coverage for her neck and shoulder pain.  However, the applicant was eligible to 
seek  medical  care  through  the  DVA  for  her  neck  and  shoulder  and  other  service-connected 
medical conditions that were not covered by the NOE. 

 
6. 

To  the  extent  that  the  applicant  forwent  medical  care  because  she  was  denied 
insurance  between  her  RELAD  date  and  May  31,  2011,  changing  her  status  during  that  period 
from  RELAD with  an  NOE to  active duty would not  help  her.  To the extent that she paid  for 
medical  care  for  expenses  related  to  her  thyroidectomy,  such  as  expenses  for  speech  therapy, 
without  reimbursement  between  her  RELAD  date  and  May  31,  2011,  the  applicant  is  equally 
entitled  to  reimbursement  whether  under  an  NOE  or  on  active  duty.    The  applicant  has  not 
proved that she paid out of pocket for thyroidectomy-related medical expenses for which she has 
not been reimbursed, but if she did, those medical bills are covered under the NOE and so should 
be covered and reimbursed through TriCare.   

 
7. 

Therefore, the applicant  has not  proved by  a preponderance of the evidence that 
her RELAD with an NOE on October 22, 2010, constituted an error or injustice, and her request 
should be denied.   

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 
 
 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR  (Retired),  for  correction  of 

her military record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

  

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Jennifer A. Mehaffey