DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-067 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 January 27, 2012, 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  September  7,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his date of separation from the Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR) from August 18, 2008, to August  18, 2012.  He explained that when he tried to 
enlist in the Army Reserve in September 2011, his Army recruiter advised him that the Reserve 
Obligation  Termination  Date  (ROTD)  on  his  DD  214  from  the  Coast  Guard  was  incorrect  and 
would not enlist him until the ROTD was corrected.  Therefore, he asked the Coast Guard to cor-
rect  his  ROTD  from  August  18,  2012,  to  August  18,  2008—the  date  he  separated  from  active 
duty.   In  response, the Coast  Guard  corrected his ROTD  and issued a  DD 215 correction form 
changing his ROTD in block 6 of his DD 214 to “not applicable.”   
 

However, as a result of the correction of his ROTD, he is now deemed to be indebted for 
$713.79.    The  debt  stems  from  the  recoupment  of  drill  pay  he  received  for  drills  performed  in 
November  and December 2008 and January 2009, when he thought  he  was a reservist  because 
his DD 214 showed that he had been released into the Reserve with a military service obligation 
through August 2012.  Therefore, he asked the Board to return his ROTD to August 18, 2012, so 
that his drill pay will not be recouped.  He noted that the correction would also place him back in 
the IRR and allow him to drill again. 
 
 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  enlistment  contract  dated  August  19,  2004,  shows  that  he 
enlisted on active duty for four years.  No subsequent period of Reserve duty is indicated.  His 
DD 214 shows that he was released from active duty exactly four years later on August 18, 2008, 
and that before enlisting in the Coast Guard, he had served 8 months and 27 days of active duty 
and 4  years, 9 months, and 17 days of inactive duty.  The ROTD in  block 6 on his  DD 214 is 
August 18, 2012.  However, on September 8, 2011, in response to a request from the applicant, 
the Coast Guard corrected his DD 214 by issuing a DD 215 showing that the ROTD in block 6 is 
“not applicable.”   
 
 
letter stating that a review of his record had shown that he was overpaid $713.79. 
 

On November 16, 2011, the Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center sent the applicant a 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 15, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board grant partial relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis 
provided in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

PSC  submitted  a  Statement  of  Creditable  Service  prepared  by  the  Coast  Guard  after  he 
enlisted in 2004, which shows that the applicant first incurred a military service obligation when 
he enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on February 5, 1999.  PSC noted that under 10 U.S.C.  
§ 651,  

 
(a) Each person who becomes a member of an armed force … shall serve in the armed forces for a 
total initial period of not less than six years nor more than eight years, as provided in regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the armed forces under his jurisdiction and by the Sec-
retary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy 
…. Any part of such service that is not active duty or that is active duty for training shall be per-
formed in a reserve component. 
 
(b) Each person covered by subsection (a) who is not a Reserve and who is qualified, shall, upon 
his release from active duty, be transferred to a reserve component of his armed force to complete 
the service required by subsection (a). 

In  addition,  PSC  noted  that  under  the  manual  for  completing  DD  214s,  COMDTINST 

 
 
M1900.4D, the instructions for completing block 6 state the following: 
 

Block 6. Reserve Obligation  Termination Date.  Enter,  when applicable, the terminal date of the 
member’s Reserve obligation under the Universal Military Training and Service Act.  (Personnel, 
including  women,  entering  service  on  and  after  1  September  1984  acquire  a  statutory  obligated 
service requirement of 8 years per Title 10 USC 651.  Prior to September 1984, the statutory obli-
gated service requirement was 6 years … 

 
 
PSC concluded that because the applicant first entered the military on February 5, 1999, 
his eight-year military service obligation (MSO) was completed on February 4, 2007, before he 
was separated from active duty in the Coast Guard.  However, the applicant’s original DD 214 

 

 

showed  an  ROTD  of  August  18,  2012,  as  if  the  applicant  had  completed  no  military  service 
before enlisting in the Coast Guard on August 19, 2004.   
 

The  Coast  Guard  stated  that  because  the  applicant’s  true  ROTD  had  already  passed 
before he left active duty, he had no reserve obligation upon his separation from active duty and 
block 6 should show the ROTD as “not applicable” as shown on the DD 215.  However, because 
at  the time, his DD 214 reflected  a continuing  reserve obligation through August  18, 2012, the 
applicant was thought to be a reservist and allowed to perform drills.  After his ROTD was cor-
rected,  however,  his  record  showed  that  he  was  discharged  on  August  18,  2008,  rather  than 
released into the Reserve, and as he was no longer a member of the military after that date, his 
drill  pay  would  normally  be  recouped.    However,  PSC  stated,  the  applicant  “should  not  be 
responsible for repaying back the monies paid to him for any service he performed subsequent to 
August 18, 2008.”  Therefore, PSC recommended that the Board correct the record by ordering 
that the applicant not be held responsible for any pay he received after August 18, 2008. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  July  5,  2012,  the  applicant  advised  the  Board  that  he  does  not  object  to  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard’s recommendation.   
 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Chapter  11.F.  of  the  Pay  Manual,  COMDTINST  M7220.29B,  states  that  a  member  or 
former member may submit a written request “for the cancellation of an indebtedness to the U.S. 
Government  which  resulted  from  erroneous  payments  of  pay  and  allowances  made  to  or  on 
behalf of the member or former member. … 10 USC 2774 gives the Secretary of Department of 
Homeland  Security  authority  to  effect  waiver  of  claims  for  erroneous  payments  of  pay  and 
allowances  and  travel  and  transportation  allowances,  when  collection  of  the  claim  would  be 
against equity and good conscience, and not in the best interest of the United States. The author-
ity of the Secretary has been delegated to Commandant (CG-122) [the Office of Military Person-
nel].”  Paragraph 3 limits such waivers to overpayments not exceeding $10,000.00.  Paragraph 5 
provides the following conditions for determining waiver requests: 
 

a.  Claims  for  erroneous  payments  which  may  be  waived  in  whole  or  in  part,  must  have  resulted 
from an erroneous overpayment. 
b. The erroneous payment must not be the subject of an exception  made by the Comptroller Gen-
eral  in  the  account  of  any  accountable  official,  or  which  has  been  transmitted  to  the  General 
Accounting Office (GAO) for collection, or to the Attorney General for litigation. 
c.  Erroneous  payments  of  pay  and  allowances,  and  travel  and  transportation  allowances  may  be 
considered for waiver action provided the application is received by the Coast Guard or the Gen-
eral Accounting Office within a three year period following date of discovery of the error which 
caused the erroneous payment. 
d. Erroneous payments that have been wholly or partially recovered must be considered for waiver 
in the gross amount. 
e. Overpayments must be of such a nature that they would normally go unnoticed or undetected by 
the member. 
f. Collection action  under the claim  would be against equity and  good conscience and not in the 
best interests of the United States. Generally, this criteria will be met by a finding that the errone-
ous  payment  occurred  through  administrative  error  and  that  there  is  no  indication  of  fraud,  mis-

 

 

 

representation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the member or any other person having an 
interest in obtaining waiver of the claim. Any significant, unexplained increase in pay and allow-
ances which would require a reasonable person to inquire concerning the correctness of the pay or 
allowances, ordinarily would preclude a waiver when the member fails to bring the matter to the 
attention of appropriate officials. 

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 is timely. 

 
2. 

The applicant, having previously succeeded in  having  his  ROTD corrected from 
August 18, 2012, to August 18, 2008, has asked the Board to change it back to August 18, 2012, 
so that the Coast Guard will not recoup his drill pay and he can begin drilling again.1   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. 

The record shows that because the applicant first enlisted in the military on Febru-
ary 5, 1999, his eight-year military service obligation under 10 U.S.C. § 651 ended on February 
4, 2007.  Therefore, after the applicant’s four-year active duty enlistment ended on  August  18, 
2008, he had no military service obligation and was no longer a member of the military because 
he signed no new enlistment or reenlistment  contract.  Nevertheless, his  DD 214 was prepared 
erroneously  to  reflect  a  continuing  Reserve  obligation  through  August  18,  2012,  and  the 
applicant apparently performed some drills in November and December 2008 and January 2009.  
After his ROTD was corrected, his record showed that he was no longer a member of the Coast 
Guard or Coast Guard Reserve as of August 18, 2008, and so was not entitled to the drill pay he 
received thereafter.  The Coast Guard therefore sought recoupment of the $713.79 in drill pay the 
applicant received in late 2008 and January 2009. 

 
4. 

The applicant asked the Board to reverse the prior correction of his record so that 
he will not have to repay the money and can continue drilling.  However, the reversal of the cor-
rection would be erroneous because the applicant had no continuing military service obligation 
after August 18, 2008.  Nor would such a reversal entitle him to drill because August 18, 2012, 
has  already  passed.    The  Coast  Guard  recommended,  instead,  that  the  Board  order  the  Coast 
Guard not to recoup the applicant’s drill pay.  The applicant agreed with that recommendation. 

                                                 
1  The  Board  notes  that  because  August  18,  2012,  has  passed,  the  requested  correction  would  no  longer  make  the 
applicant entitled to drill. 
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). 

 

 

5. 

The  Coast  Guard  recommends,  in  essence,  that  the  Board  order  that  the  appli-
cant’s record be corrected to show that his debt has been waived pursuant to Chapter 11.F. of the 
Pay Manual.  Because the Coast Guard issued an erroneous DD 214 in 2008 and thus misled the 
applicant to believe that he was a member of the Reserve and eligible to drill for pay, the Board 
finds  that  the  circumstances  of  his  debt  clearly  fall  within  the  requirements  for  a  waiver  under 
Chapter 11.F. and 10 U.S.C. § 2774.  The applicant received his drill pay in good faith after per-
forming drills for pay as the Coast Guard led him to believe he was eligible to do.  Therefore, the 
Board  finds  that  the  debt  should  be  waived  because  it  would  be  against  equity  and  good  con-
science and not in the best interests of the United States to collect the debt. 

 
6. 

Under  Chapter  11.F.  of  the  Pay  Manual,  the  applicant  could  have  requested  a 
waiver  directly  from  the  Coast  Guard,  instead  of  applying  to  the  BCMR.    The  Coast  Guard 
should have told him to do so in 2011 when he inquired about the debt.  Normally, the Board’s 
regulations  require  applicants  to  exhaust  such  administrative  remedies  before  applying  to  the 
Board.4    Given  the  Coast  Guard’s  apparent  failure  to  timely  offer  the  applicant  the  waiver 
remedy  directly  and  the  Coast  Guard’s  agreement  that  his  debt  should  be  waived  through  the 
Board, the Board will not delay this matter further and elevate form over substance by denying 
his application so that he would have to apply for waiver hereafter.  Instead, the Board will order 
the Coast Guard to waive the applicant’s debt as it has agreed to do.  
 
 
Accordingly, relief should be granted by ordering the Coast Guard to correct the 
applicant’s record to show that any debt he incurred due to payments of drill pay after his sepa-
ration  on  August  18,  2008,  has  been  waived.    Moreover,  if  any  part  of  the  debt  has  been 
recouped, it should be repaid to him. 
 
 

7. 

 
 
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.13(b). 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  his  record  to  show  that  any  debt  he  incurred  due  to  his 
performance of drills and receipt of drill pay after his separation from active duty on August 18, 
2008, has been waived pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2774 and Chapter 11.F. of the Pay Manual.  The 
Coast Guard shall pay him any amount that may be due as a result of this correction. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
 Dana Ledger 

 

 

 
 Adam V. Loiacono