DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2012-122
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 April 13, 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 January 18, 2013, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was reenlisted on
active duty on August 20, 2011, instead of September 1, 2011. He explained that he was granted
a temporary separation from active duty in 2010 and served in the Reserve in xxxxxxxxxx,
during the temporary separation. When the temporary separation ended in 2011, he received
permanent change of station (PCS) orders to report for active duty in xxxxxxxxxxxxx, on
September 1, 2011. The orders required that he be enlisted on active duty in the regular Coast
Guard before leaving Baton Rouge. However, he was not enlisted before he left xxxxxxxx on
August 20, 2011, and was not enlisted until after he reported for duty on September 1, 2011.
Because of this administrative error, he has not received the full pay and benefits for the period
August 20 through August 31, 2011, that he would have if the command at xxxxxxxxxx had
timely enlisted him in accordance with the orders.
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his transfer orders,
issued on July 28, 2011, which show that he was to transfer from xxxxxxx and report to
xxxxxxxxx on September 1, 2011, for a four-year tour of active duty. The orders directed him to
leave xxxxxxxxxx on August 20, 2011, and authorized and required his enlistment on active duty
for a minimum of four years before making the transfer. The applicant also submitted a copy of
his enlistment contract, which shows that the command in xxxxxxxxxx enlisted him on
September 1, 2011.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On September 28, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory
opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this case by correcting the
applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on active duty on August 20 instead of September 1,
2011, and to award him back pay and allowances.
In making this recommendation, the JAG adopted the findings and analysis in a
memorandum provided by the Personnel Service Center (PSC). PSC stated that the applicant
had requested to return to active duty on September 1, 2011, and that request was approved.
Therefore, technically, his PCS orders should have authorized his travel to begin on September
1, 2011, and show a report date later in September, in which case his reenlistment contract would
properly have reflected a September 1, 2011, reenlistment date. However, the unit yeoman erred
by issuing PCS orders that directed the applicant to depart xxxxxxxxx and begin his move on
August 20, 2011. Moreover, because the PCS orders required the applicant to already have four
years of obligated service upon reporting to his new unit, the yeoman should have required him
to reenlist on August 20, 2011. Therefore, PSC recommended that the Board grant relief so that
the applicant will receive the correct pay and benefits for the period August 20 to 31, 2011.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
indicated that he agreed with them.
On November 5, 2012, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard and
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 within three years of the alleged error. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).
2.
3.
The applicant alleged that he has wrongly been denied the active duty pay and
benefits that he would have received if a unit yeoman in xxxxxxxxxx had properly reenlisted him
before he executed his transfer to xxxxxxxxxxx. His military records and the Coast Guard’s
advisory opinion strongly support his claim that he executed orders that instructed him to
complete his household move from xxxxxxxxx from August 20 to September 1, 2011, and
required that he already have obligated four years of active duty before departing xxxxxxxxx, but
that he was not actually reenlisted on active duty until he completed his move and reported for
duty in xxxxxxxxxxx on September 1, 2011.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his
military record is granted. The Coast Guard shall correct his records to show that he reenlisted
for four years on August 20, 2011, instead of September 1, 2011, and shall pay him any amount
due as a result of this correction.
Philip B. Busch
Ashley A. Darbo
Dorothy J. Ulmer
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-242
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. 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...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2009-089
Full Spouse and child SBP coverage was automatically elected for the applicant when the pertinent Coast Guard office did not receive an SBP election certificate from the applicant prior to her retirement on September 1, 2007. PSC recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected to show that prior to her retirement, on August 28, 2007, she completed PSC 4700 and elected, with the concurrence of her spouse, not to participate in SBP coverage. The applicant states that she declined...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-235
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The veteran’s military records show that he was female when he served in the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s request for correction of his military record should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-132
PSC recommended the following alternative relief: The applicant’s home address should have been entered into “Direct Access” to show [his Florida address] on February 1, 2009 to coincide with applicant’s move [to Florida]. PSC stated that on March 6, 2012, the applicant’s home address was corrected to the Florida address in “Direct Access.” PSC stated that although the applicant lived in Florida, he received BAH at the Michigan rate until March 6, 2012. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2012-039
The applicant stated that since that transfer, he has taken leave at every 1 Whenever a member reenlists, his record automatically shows that he was discharged from his prior enlistment the day before the date of reenlistment. of the Personnel Manual, which authorizes upon discharge a lump sum payment of unused leave “to a maximum career total of 60 days.” opportunity, “but the high operational tempo of the unit will not permit me to take the 65 days of leave needed to get below the 75 days...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-130
§ 357(j) states “When the Secretary orders a reduction in force, enlisted personnel may be involuntarily separated from the service without the [enlisted personnel board’s] action.” The applicant stated that the Secretary approved a Coast Guard memorandum that authorized involuntary retirements without board action, but she did not order a reduction in force. According to the applicant, the memorandum approved by the Secretary on behalf of the Coast Guard states that “the [CRSP] is required...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2011-021
After the applicant completed Alcohol Impact training, the command entered a third Page 7 in his record to acknowledge that he had successfully completed the training and his aftercare program and to remind him that “[f]uture alcohol misuse or incidents may lead to separation.”2 On February 19, 2010, the applicant was disenrolled from the xxxxxxxxx program for “fault” because of his conviction for public intoxication.3 Because of his disenrollment for fault, the applicant could not apply for...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2012-048
Although applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement and selected a retirement date within his current enlistment, applicant’s chosen retirement date of 1 July 2011 was denied. of the Personnel Manual, the Commandant may, at his discretion, convene a Coast Guard Enlisted Personnel Board to recommend enlisted members with 20 or more years of active service for involuntary retirement. However, Article 12.B.12.a of the Personnel Manual states that Commander, PSC may authorize or...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-118
The applicant alleged that when his record was reviewed by the retention board on July 7, 2010, a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) he had been awarded by the Navy on June 22, 2010, was not in his record. The applicant argued that his evidence also proves that although the Coast Guard received the MSM from the Navy on or about June 22, 2010, the Coast Guard failed to forward a copy of it to him, as it should have, and therefore deprived him of the opportunity to contact RPM to ensure that the...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-258
The applicant alleged that the marks of N were erroneous and unjust because “the number factors in all the enlisted employee reviews all exceed the minimum average mark of ‘4’.” He noted that under Article 10.B.6.a.6. of the Personnel Manual states that the rating chain should not recommend a member for advancement if the member “is not capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade.” Moreover, Article 10.B.7.1. states that a member should...