DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-175 
 
 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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.  It was docketed on August 
16, 2000. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  14,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant, a retired senior chief XXXXXXXX, asked the Board to correct his 
 
date of retirement from December 1, 1997, to December 1, 1999, to reflect 30 years of 
active  duty  service.    He  also  asked  to  be  awarded  any  back  pay  and  allowances  he 
would have received had he completed 30 years of service. 
 
 
In a previous application to the Board, BCMR Docket No. 139-97, the applicant 
alleged that he had been erroneously retired on May 1, 1997, rather than December 1, 
1997.    He  alleged  that  the  error  was  due  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  miscalculation  of  his 
active  duty  base  date  (ADBD),  which  forced  him  to  retire  seven  months  earlier  than 
necessary under the high year tenure system (HYT).  Under HYT, he alleged, he had to 
retire only upon completing 28 years of active duty.  The Coast Guard had told him he 
would complete the 28 years on April 11, 1997, but in fact his 28th anniversary fell on 
November 11, 1997.  As a result of the Coast Guard’s error, the applicant had lost seven 
months of pay and allowances, and his retirement was two percent less than it would 
have been if he had been retired on December 1, 1997.  Upon receiving a copy of the 
application, the Coast Guard determined that relief was due and corrected his record 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

administratively before the BCMR had issued a decision.  Therefore, BCMR Docket No. 
139-97 was administratively closed. 
 
In  this  new  application,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  had  recently  discovered 
 
that  the  Coast  Guard  suspended  HYT  in  the  summer  of  1997  due  to  personnel 
shortages.  Therefore, he alleged, if the Coast Guard had not miscalculated his ADBD in 
the first place, he would have been able to continue serving until he had completed 30 
years of active duty.  
 
 
In support of his allegation, the applicant submitted a copy of ALDIST 191/97, 
which  was  issued  by  the  Commandant  on  August  14,  1997.    The  ALDIST  states  that 
because of personnel shortages, the HYT system was temporarily suspended for certain 
rates, including avionics technicians.  Eligible members who, under HYT, would have 
been required to retire between October 1 and December 31, 1997, could apply for two-
year waivers.  The ALDIST also states that each unit’s commanding officer was required 
to counsel eligible members of the opportunity to remain on active duty. 
  

 
On January 10, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request by changing 
his retirement date to December 1, 1999. 
  
The Chief Counsel argued that “[a]s a matter of law, the Board should deny relief 
 
in this case” because the HYT Waiver policy was actually first announced on March 13, 
1997,  in  ALDIST  054/97.    Therefore,  he  argued,  under  the  presumption  of  regularity 
afforded Coast Guard officers, the applicant had constructive notice of the new policy 
and could have applied for a waiver prior to his retirement on May 1, 1997.   
 

The Chief Counsel further argued, however, that it is clear from the record that 
the applicant “never had actual notice of the HYT Waiver policy implemented in March 
1997.  The record reveals that he would have most assuredly applied for such a waiver 
if he had been informed of the HYT policy as evidenced by his prompt action to correct 
his retirement date by filing his original BCMR application less than a month after his 
retirement in May 1997.  Moreover, … CGPC would most probably have approved such 
a waiver request.” 
 
 
The Chief Counsel adopted by reference a memorandum prepared by the Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) concerning the applicant’s case.  CGPC stated that 
under Article 12.G.3. of the Personnel Manual, which concerns HYT, members in pay 
grade E-8 “may not stay beyond 28 years of active service.”  However, under the waiver 
policy  announced  in  ALDIST  191/97,  the  applicant  was  eligible  and  encouraged  to 
apply for a two-year waiver.  CGPC stated that of the 45 members in the applicant’s 

rating who applied for waivers, 43 were granted them.  Therefore, it is highly likely that 
if the applicant had sought a waiver, he would have received one. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 12, 2001, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  January  23,  2001,  the 
applicant  responded,  stating  that  he  had  no  objection  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  recom-
mendation. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 The Board is persuaded that the applicant was never informed about the 
opportunity  to  apply  for  a  waiver  to  extend  his  active  service  for  an  additional  two 
years.  Had the Coast Guard not erred regarding his original retirement date, he would 
have  remained  on  active  duty  through  November  1997  and  probably  would  have 
learned about the opportunity.  His command failed to inform him of the policy, which 
first went into effect about 47 days before he was erroneously retired on May 1, 1997.   

The record indicates that if the applicant had learned of the opportunity to 
apply for a waiver of HYT and earn a full 30-year retirement, he would have done so.  
Moreover, CGPC has stated that if he had applied for a waiver, he probably would have 
received one. 

As a result of his command’s failure to inform the applicant of the new 
HYT Waiver policy in 1997, the applicant lost two years of pay and allowances (though 
he did receive retirement pay), and his retirement pay is less than it would have been 
had he completed 30 years of service. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4.  

 
5. 
 
 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The separation date shown on his DD 214 shall be November 30, 1999, instead of 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sums, such as back pay, allowances, 

The application of XXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Angel Collaku 

granted. 
 
 
November 30, 1997, so that he shall be deemed retired as of December 1, 1999. 
 
 
and retirement pay, he may be owed as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Donna L. O'Berry 

 
L. L. Sutter