DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-021 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on December 9, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  19,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his retirement date from September 1 to 
December  1,  2002,  “so  that  [he]  can  find  a  job  and  take  the  leave  and  out  processing 
days due [him] which total 44 as of this write-up.”  He alleged that after he was injured 
on July 13, 2002, about six weeks before his scheduled retirement on September 1, 2002, 
he was told by Commander R, his primary care physician, that he would be retained in 
the service for six more months because he would need physical therapy.  He gave his 
physician’s  written  report  to  his  Personnel  Reporting  Unit  (PERSRU),  who  in  turn 
informed the Human Resources Service and Information Center (HRSIC).  Although he 
was in a cast for eight weeks, he continued to work, expecting to receive his active duty 
pay.  However, when he received his pay statement at the end of October, it showed 
that he had been retired on September 1st and was receiving retirement pay in addition 
to active duty pay.  At that point, he was told not to come to work anymore. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that as a result of the error, he was unable to take advan-
tage of Article 12.C.1.f. of the Personnel Manual,1 under which retiring members may 
                                                 
1 Article 12.C.1.f. of the Personnel Manual states that “retiring members are eligible for an administrative 
absence not to exceed 20 days … to facilitate relocation.  This administrative absence in conjunction with 
retirement is not an entitlement; however, it may be granted at the discretion of the member’s command 

take a paid administrative absence to look for a new job and relocate, if necessary. In 
support of his allegations, he submitted a copy of his medical record showing that on 
July 24, 2002, his doctor, Commander R, noted that his pending retirement should be 
delayed for at least six months to allow him to complete his treatment.  Another record 
shows that he was assigned to limited duty (desk work) while he was in a cast.  In addi-
tion, the applicant submitted a series of email messages showing that in early Novem-
ber 2002, his PERSRU and HRSIC personnel were communicating about the confusion 
about his status and the fact that he was receiving both retired and active duty pay.  The 
emails  indicate  that  the  Personnel  Command  had  never  authorized  his  retention  on 
active duty and that his retirement date could not be retroactively changed. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On March 21, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board  grant relief in this case.  The Chief Counsel based his recommendation upon a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  received  retirement  orders  on  March  25,  2002, 
 
that were to take effect on September 2, 2002.  However, on July 24, 2002, his doctors 
recommended  that  he  receive  a  six-month  extension  to  undergo  orthopedic  therapy.  
On July 31, 2002, the PERSRU advised HRSIC, and HRSIC took action to ensure that the 
applicant’s active duty pay would continue beyond his scheduled retirement date.  At 
some  point,  the  applicant’s  command  advised  both  HRSIC  and  the  applicant  that  he 
would retire on December 1, 2002.  Therefore, the applicant continued to work. 
 
 
CGPC stated that under Article 12.C.11.c. of the Personnel Manual, only CGPC 
may delay or cancel an approved retirement date, and that authority has not been dele-
gated.    CGPC  stated that neither the applicant’s command nor HRSIC communicated 
with  CGPC  on  this  matter  until  after  the  applicant  had  been  retired.    Therefore,  in 
September 2002, the applicant began receiving both retirement pay and active duty pay. 
CGPC  stated  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  noticed  the  problem  before  the  end  of 
October, at which point he stopped working. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the problem was not resolved until mid November, and so the 
applicant received both retirement and active duty pay for October as well as Septem-
ber.  At that time, CGPC told HRSIC that the retirement date would remain September 
2, 2002.  CGPC alleged that, even if it had been timely advised of the applicant’s medical 
problem, the request for a delay of his retirement would have been disapproved.  
 
 
CGPC  noted  that,  under  Article  12.C.1.f.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  “retiring 
members are eligible for an administrative absence (absence not charged against leave) 
                                                                                                                                                             
provided it does not adversely affect mission performance.  This duty is intended for activities related to 
transition  or  relocation,  e.g.,  job  interviews,  not  to  extend  leave  periods.  …  It  may  be  authorized  for 
consecutive days, including weekends and holidays.” 

not  to  exceed  20  days  to  facilitate  relocation.”    CGPC  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard 
“committed several administrative errors in this matter that resulted in an injustice to 
the  Applicant”  by  causing  him  to  work  after  he  was  retired,  putting  him  in  an 
“overpaid” status so that his active duty pay was recouped, and depriving him of the 
opportunity to take an administrative absence.  CGPC stated that there “is no evidence 
to indicate that the Applicant was at fault or contributed to the delay in resolving this 
matter.    It  is  an  injustice  to  deprive  the  Applicant  his  active  duty  pay  for  work 
performed.” 
 
 
CGPC  recommended  that  relief  be  granted  by  correcting  the  applicant’s  retire-
ment date to December 1, 2002; by awarding him all appropriate back pay and allow-
ances and recouping the retirement pay he received; by correcting his record to show 
that he was in an administrative absence status from October 31 through November 19, 
2002, and in a terminal leave status from November 20 through November 30, 2002; and 
by awarding him payment for any leave balance remaining upon his retirement. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On March 31, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 

 
 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
 

 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: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

 The Board agrees with the Chief Counsel and CGPC that the preponder-
ance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  indicates  that  administrative  errors  by  the  Coast 
Guard caused the applicant to continue serving on active duty for two months after his 
scheduled retirement date.  His failure to receive active duty pay for work performed 
constitutes an injustice that should be corrected by the Board. 

 
3. 

The applicant alleged and CGPC agreed that the Coast Guard’s adminis-
trative errors unfairly prevented him from taking an administrative absence for 20 days 
prior  to  his  retirement  date  in  accordance  Article  12.C.1.f.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
Although  retiring  members  are  not  absolutely  entitled  to  an  administrative  absence 
under Article 12.C.1.f., commands often grant them.  Moreover, the Board notes that the 
applicant was still undergoing physical therapy at the time of his retirement and it is 
unlikely that his command would have prevented him from taking 20 days of adminis-
trative absence under these circumstances.  

 
4. 

Therefore, the Board finds that if the applicant’s retirement date had actu-
ally been December 1, 2002—as his command erroneously led him to believe—he would 
likely have been allowed to take 20 days of administrative absence.  Since the applicant 
actually  stopped  working  on  October  30,  those  20  days  would  cover  the  period  from 
October 31 through November 19, 2002.  For the remainder of the month prior to his 
retirement,  from  November  20  through  November 30, 2002, he would have been in a 
terminal  leave  status.    Upon  his  retirement,  he  could  have  sold  any  days  of  unused 
annual leave, as permitted under 37 U.S.C. § 501. 
 
 
 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

  
5. 

 
 

 

ORDER 

The application of retired xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of 

his military record is granted as follows: 

 
His retirement date shall be corrected to December 1, 2002.  His record shall be 
corrected to show that he performed active duty through October 30, 2002; that he was 
in an administrative absence status as allowed under Article 12.C.1.f. of the Personnel 
Manual for 20 consecutive days from October 31 through November 19, 2002; and that 
he was in a terminal leave status from November 20 through November 30, 2002.   

 
His  record  shall  show  that  he  sold  back  to  the  Coast  Guard  any  leave  balance 

remaining upon his retirement. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum he may be due, including back 

 
 

 
 

 
 

pay and allowances, as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 

 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer