DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-129 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
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.  The BCMR docketed the 
applicant’s request for correction on June 28, 2002. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  22,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  Reserve  record  to  show  that  he 
earned at least 50 points from September 2, 1979, to September 1, 1980, and another 50 
points from September 2, 1980, until his discharge on April 18, 1981, so that each period 
would  count  as  a  satisfactory  year  of  federal  service  for  retirement  purposes.    He 
alleged that he performed the drills but that they were not recorded because his “super-
visors did not supervise properly and we were in disharmony.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error on May 8, 2002, and argued 
that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year statute of 
limitations in his case because of his dedicated participation in the military since 1965. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On September 2, 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve.  On April 
 
8,  1974,  he  was  discharged,  and  on  April  9,  1974,  he  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard 

Reserve.    Because  he  had  no  break  in  his  service,  his  anniversary  year  for  retirement 
purposes ran from September 2 to September 1. 
 
On  September  20,  1975,  the  applicant  was  informed  that  because  he  had  been 
 
absent  from  Reserve  duty  twelve  times  during  the  past  anniversary  year  and  if  his 
“unsatisfactory  participation”  continued,  he  would  be  transferred  to  the  Individual 
Ready Reserve (IRR).  He was advised that he could make up for his absences to have a 
satisfactory year for retirement purposes if he performed seven drills within sixty days. 
 
 
On November 5, 1979, the applicant’s supervisor sent him a letter pointing out 
times when he had either refused to perform certain work or had failed to show up for 
drills.  In light of his “lack of participation” and “direct refusal to obey orders,” she rec-
ommended that he consider transferring to the IRR. 
 
 
On December 23, 1979, the applicant wrote a letter to a chief warrant officer at his 
command stating that the office lacked unity.  He stated that the problem was not that 
they disliked each other but that they did not trust each other to do their jobs and could 
not resolve their differences.  He stated that he had “had problems participating since 
last year.  Mostly because of work.  This was generally accepted but not communicated.  
Trouble  came  up  because  of  this.    And  it  was  a  problem  because  I  didn’t  call  every 
month as a normal or average work-a-day person would have.  There have been other 
times of bad communications when active duty arrived or a request to work at different 
times  than  normal.    Also,  our  requests  of  one  another  sometimes  failed  to  be  stated 
clearly.”  He went on to criticize the attitudes of some of his colleagues. 
 
 
On February 24, 1980, the applicant’s commanding officer (CO) recommended to 
the  Personnel  Command  that  he  be  transferred  from  the  Selected  Reserve  to  the  IRR 
because of ten unexcused absences.  The CO stated that his attendance had been “errat-
ic”  and  that  “[m]uch  command  and  staff  time  has  been  required  in  counseling  [the 
applicant], rearranging duties and schedules to meet his requirements and respond to 
his individual needs.  Attached correspondence from [the applicant] to various person-
nel of this command should provide insight into [his] personal problems.  At present, 
[his] overall participation creates more burdens than benefits to this unit.” 
 

On February 26, 1980, the applicant was informed that he would be transferred 
to the IRR as of March 1st.  On March 1, 1980, he was transferred to the IRR.  On July 21, 
1980, he sent his command a letter responding to his annual points statement (form CG-
4175) and his placement on the IRR.  He asked for opportunities to take correspondence 
courses  and  perform  active  duty.    He  asked  to  be  assigned  to  a  new  office  due  to 
distinct differences between himself and his previous supervisors.  
 

On April 18, 1981, upon the expiration of his enlistment, he was discharged from 
the  IRR.    The  applicant’s  participation  record  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  appears  as 
follows on the CG-4175s in his record: 

 

 
YEAR 

DRILL AND ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING POINTS BY MONTH  

(Anniversary years beginning on September 2) 

 

A 
2 
4/9/74-9/2/74 
4 
9/2/74-9/2/75 
4 
9/2/75-9/2/76 
4 
9/2/76-9/2/77 
 
9/2/77-9/2/78 
 
9/2/78-9/2/79 
 
9/2/79-9/2/80 
9/2/80-4/18/81 
 
* Total includes points for passing correspondence courses. 

O 
 
4 
4 
17 
4 
4 
4 
 

J 
 
4 
10 
4 
4 
2 
4 
 

F 
 
10 
4 
4 
4 
 
 
 

M 
 
4 
4 
4 
 
20 
 
 

N 
 
5 
8 
5 
4 
4 
4 
 

D 
 
2 
6 
4 
4 
4 
2 
 

S 
 
6 
 
8 
2 
 
 
 

M 
 
17 
4 
15 
8 
 
 
 

J 
 
 
4 
6 
 
 
 
 

J 
 
 
17 
4 
6 
4 
 
 

A 
 
 
 
 
2 
4 
 
 

 

TOTAL 
PARTIC. 

PTS. 

2 
69 
65 
75 
38 
42 
14 
 

 

TOTAL 
MBRSHP. 

PTS. 

6 
15 
15 
15 
15 
15 
15 
9 

 
TOTAL 

8 
84 
80 
90 
 67* 
 69* 
29 
9 

 
On September 18, 1985, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve, where 
he continues to serve.  A Points Brief of his entire career shows that between September 
1969 and September 2001, he performed 26 satisfactory years of federal service for pur-
poses of retirement (21 in the Air Force Reserve and 5 in the Coast Guard Reserve) and 
about 1.6 unsatisfactory years in the Coast Guard Reserve, and that he spent about 4.4 
years as a civilian. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 26, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board deny the applicant’s request for untimeliness or, in the alternative, for failure 
of proof. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant’s  argument  as  to  why  the  Board 
 
should  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  is  insufficient  to  overcome  the  important  pur-
poses underlying such statutes, including efficient use of government resources and the 
deterioration of evidence over time. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that “Reservists are provided retirement points state-
ments  to  verify  annually.    This  statement  includes  procedures  for  correcting  annual 
point totals.”  He pointed out that the Reserve Administration and Training Manual in 
effect in 1980 and 1981, provided that Reservists who found discrepancies on their CG-
4175s  could  send  request  a  correction  via  the  chain  of  command.    The  Chief  Counsel 
stated  that  as  a  six-year  veteran  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  the  applicant  “knew  or 
should have known of these procedures, and the importance of documenting retirement 
points.  Applicant’s failure to challenge the record at the time the alleged error occurred 
suggests  that  he  believed  it  to  be  correct.”   He  stated  that the  applicant  had  failed  to 
produce  “a  single  piece  of  corroborating  evidence”  that  he  had  performed  drills  that 
were not recorded.  In addition, the Chief Counsel pointed out that, since the applicant 

has  already  performed  more  than  20  satisfactory  years  toward  retirement,  he  would 
gain no additional retirement benefits if the Board granted the requested relief. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  December  2,  2002,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 

 
 
Coast Guard invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Chapter  3-C-1  of  the  Reserve  Administration  and  Training  Manual  (COMDT-
INST M1001.26) provided that a member of the Selected Reserve who, in the opinion of 
his commanding officer, failed to participate satisfactorily should be counseled.  If no 
improvement was observed, the Reservist could be transferred to the IRR. 
 
 
Chapter 9-D-4.a. of the manual provided that a “reservist who finds discrepan-
cies on CG-4175 [an annual or terminal Statement of Retirement Points] should initiate a 
request,  with  verifying  documents,  to  Commandant  (G-RA-1)  via  the  district  com-
mander (r).” 
 

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: 
 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.   
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of 

1. 

2. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years of the day the 
applicant discovers the alleged error in his record.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  Although the 
applicant alleged that he discovered the error on May 8, 2002, the Board finds that he 
knew or should have known that he had not earned satisfactory points toward retire-
ment  from  September  2,  1979,  to  September  1,  1980,  and  from  September  2,  1980,  to 
April  18,  1981,  no  later  than  the  day  of  his  discharge,  April  18,  1981.    Therefore,  his 
application was untimely. 

 
3. 

 
The  Board  may  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  if  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to do so.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  To determine whether it is in the interest 
of justice to waive the statute of limitations, the Board should consider the reasons for 
the delay and conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case.  Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 
1992).  The applicant stated that the Board should consider his case because of his long-

4. 

term participation in the military.  Given that the vast majority of the applicants to this 
Board have served in the military for extended periods, the Board finds the length of the 
applicant’s  participation  is  not  a  sufficient  basis  in  and  of  itself  to  justify  waiving  the 
statute of limitations.  Moreover, the applicant provided no explanation for his delay, 
even though it is clear from his record that he was well aware that his participation was 
considered unsatisfactory in 1980.   
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  no  evidence  whatsoever  to  support  his  allega-
tions that he performed drills that went unrecorded by his supervisors and on his CG-
4175s.  The record indicates that he knew and admitted that he was missing drills and 
attributed his lack of attendance to the demands of his civilian work.  While his record 
contains correspondence from him regarding conflicts between him and his supervisors 
and  colleagues,  it  is  void  of  any  documentation  that  he  ever  advised  anyone  that  he 
believed his CG-4175s to be incorrect at the time they were issued.  Under Chapter 9-D-
4.a.  of  the  Reserve  Administration  and  Training  Manual,  he  had  a  responsibility  to 
report  any  discrepancies  on  his  CG-4175s  at  the  time  they  were  issued.    The  Board 
agrees with the Chief Counsel that his failure to report any discrepancies is strong evi-
dence that he believed his CG-4175s to be correct when he received them. 
 
 
applicant’s request should be denied. 
 
 

Accordingly, the Board will not waive the statute of limitations, and the 

5. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR, 

 
 

 
 

 
 

for correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito