DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-131 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
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 Chair docketed the 
applicant’s request for correction on June 29, 2005, upon receipt of his application and 
Coast Guard military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 26, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant, now serving as a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the Marine Corps Reserve, 
alleged  that  while  he  was  serving  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  a  drill  point  that  he 
earned during his anniversary year ending February 27, 1980, was erroneously recorded 
as having been earned during the prior anniversary year, which ended on February 27, 
1979.  Therefore, his retirement point total for his 1979 anniversary year is 113 though it 
should be 112, and his retirement point total for his 1980 anniversary year is 49 though 
it should be 50.1  The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he 
earned  112  points  during  his  1979  anniversary  year  and  50  points  during  his  1980 
anniversary year. 
 

                                                 
1  Active Reservists are required to earn at least 50 participation points in each “anniversary year” of their 
service for that year to count as a satisfactory year for Reserve retirement purposes. 10 U.S.C. § 12732. 

 The applicant stated that the error was made by the administrative office of his 
small  boat  station  in  xxxxxxxxxxx.    He  alleged  that  in  1982,  his  commanding  officer 
assured him that the error would be corrected before his discharge, as he was soon to 
receive his commission in the Marine Corps.  However, in July 2004, he discovered that 
the error had never been corrected. 

 
The applicant stated that as he has continued to serve and now has over twenty-
six years of active duty toward a regular retirement, the requested correction “will have 
no effect on the government’s obligation, if any, for pay purposes, retirement, or retire-
ment benefits.  I am not currently, nor have I ever served as a civil service, civilian gov-
ernment employee.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On February 28, 1977, while attending college, the applicant enlisted in the Coast 
Guard Reserve for six years.  The Statement of Understanding that he signed spells out 
the participation requirements per anniversary year, and defines “anniversary year” as 
“each period of one year from the date of enlistment.”   

 
The  applicant  attended  boot  camp  in  the  summer  of  1977  and  thereafter  was 
assigned to a small boat station in xxxxxxxxxxxx, where he began to drill regularly.  A 
Retirement  Point  Statement  in  his  record  shows  that  in  his  anniversary  year  ending 
February 27, 1978, he earned 22 drill points, 62 active duty for training (ADT) points, 
and 15 membership points for a total of 99 points. 

 
From  May  21  through  August  11,  1978,  the  applicant  performed  ADT  by 
attending  an  “A”  School  for  boatswain’s  mates  and  thereafter  was  advanced  to  BM3.  
The drill and ADT points shown on his Retirement Point Statements for the anniversary 
years ending on February 27, 1979 and 1980, appear in the chart below. 
 
 
ANNIVERSARY  
YEARS  

ADT & DRILL POINTS BY MONTH  

Ann. 
Total 

ADT 
Pts. 

Drill 
Pts. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mbr-
ship 
Pts. 

14 

15 

15 

84 

00 

113 

49 

 
2/28/78-2/27/79 
 
 
2/28/79-2/27/80 
 

Jan 

   
06 

 

Feb 
00 
02 

 

Mar 
00 

 

Apr 
02 

 

May 
11 

 

Jun 
30 

 

Jul 
31 

 

Aug 
12 

 

Sep 
00 

 

Oct 
00 

 

Nov 
00 

 

Dec 
04 

     
04     

00 
02 

00 

04 

00 

00 

04 

04 

04 

04 

04 

04 

34 

 
 
On April 7, 1980, the District Commander notified the applicant’s command that 
the applicant had not performed any ADT in the anniversary year ending February 27, 
1980.  The notification indicates that unless the applicant submitted a letter requesting 
ADT, he should be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve or discharged. 

 
On June 15, 1980, the applicant submitted a letter to his commanding officer in 
which he explained that he had been unable to fulfill his ADT obligation the previous 
year  because  he  was  a  senior  in  college  with  a  full-time  job.    He  also  stated  that  his 
“ignorance of the proper application process concerning deadlines, and that ADT must 
be  accomplished  within  the  anniversary  year,  not  the  calendar  year,  was  a  great 
impediment to my ADT 1979.”  He requested ADT beginning on August 25, 1980, and 
asked that it apply toward his anniversary year ending on February 27, 1980.  However, 
his commanding officer noted on the request form that the applicant performed no ADT 
in  the  summer  of  1979  and  that  the  requested  ADT  would  apply  to  the  current 
anniversary year ending on February 27, 1981. 

 
From August 25, 1980, through September 5, 1980, the applicant performed ADT 
at Station xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  On September 9, 1980, the commanding officer noted that 
the applicant had shown no motivation or interest and required constant supervision.  
As  the  applicant’s  attitude  was  one of “condescending resignation,” the commanding 
officer asked that the applicant not be assigned to duty at his unit in the future “unless a 
complete turnaround in his attitude is made.” 

 
Thereafter,  the  applicant  began  to  drill  and  perform  ADT  more  regularly  and 
earned satisfactory years of service toward a Reserve retirement and better performance 
evaluations.    He  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  upon  the 
expiration of his enlistment on February 27, 1983, and thereafter received his commis-
sion in the Marine Corps. 

 
On August 28, 1996, a member of Congress forwarded to the National Personnel 
Records  Center  (NPRC)  a  request  from  the  applicant  for  copies  of  his  Coast  Guard 
discharge papers and Reserve Earning Statements.  On December 27, 1996, the NPRC 
responded by sending the congressman copies of the applicant’s discharge and Retire-
ment Point Statements. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  November  16,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the Coast  Guard 

 
 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The JAG argued that the application should be denied because it was untimely 
and the applicant did not explain or justify his delay in requesting the correction.  The 
JAG further argued that the applicant has not met his burden of proof because there is 
no evidence that the Coast Guard erred in computing the applicant’s points.  
 

In making this recommendation, the JAG relied on a memorandum on the case 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC noted that on June 

15, 1980, the applicant had asked that his ADT in August 1980 be applied to the prior 
year,  but  that  this  request  was  denied.    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  “provides  no 
justification  for  repositioning  one  point  from  Anniversary  Year  1979  to  Anniversary 
Year 1980 and his record does not reveal any administrative errors regarding recording 
of either 1979 or 1980 Anniversary Year points.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 17, 2005, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 

 
 
Coast Guard invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Chapter 3-B-1 of the Reserve Administration and Training Manual (RATMAN), 
 
COMDTINST M1001.26 in effect in 1980 provided that to remain in a drilling status a 
member  of  the  Selected  Reserve  was  expected  to  perform  at  least  90  percent  of  his 
scheduled  drills  and  12  days  of  ADT  per  anniversary  year.    Enclosure  (1-1)  to  the 
RATMAN defined an anniversary year as extending “from the date of entry or reentry 
to the day preceding the anniversary of entry or reentry.”  Chapter 3-B-2 provided that 
absence from a scheduled drill could only be “excused” and rescheduled due to illness, 
injury, severe inclement weather, unforeseen emergency, or death or illness of a family 
member. 
 

Chapter  3-C  of  the  RATMAN  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 member could be transferred to the 
IRR, discharged for unsuitability, or involuntarily recalled to active duty for two years.  
 
 
Chapter 9-D-2-b.(2) of the RATMAN provided that a “Reserve Earning Statement 
(CGHQ-4458A)  is  distributed  to  each  reservist  who  has  any  pay  or  points  activity 
during the month.  It reports drill activity … .”   
 

Chapter 9-D-4.a. of the RATMAN stated that a Annual or Terminal Statement of 
Retirement Points (CG-4175) would be prepared “approximately three months follow-
ing the end of the reservist’s anniversary year … to allow time for ADT orders and cor-
respondence  courses  to  be  entered  in  the  system.”    Chapter  9-D-4.b.  stated  that  a 
“reservist who finds discrepancies on CG-4175 should initiate a request, with verifying 
documents, to Commandant (G-RA-1) via the district commander (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. 

The applicant has alleged that a retirement point that is now attributed to 
his anniversary year ending on February 27, 1979, should instead  be attributed to his 
anniversary year ending on February 27, 1980, so that his total points for the latter year 
would be 50 instead of 49.  An application to the Board must be filed within three years 
of the day the applicant discovers the alleged error in his record that he wants correct-
ed.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(b).  Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged 
error in his record in July 2004, he knew or should have known about the alleged point 
discrepancy no later than when he received his annual Retirement Point Statement in 
1980.  Moreover, documents in his record indicate that he requested and received copies 
of his Retirement Point Statements from the NPRC in 1996.  Therefore, his application 
was untimely.   

 
3. 

 
5. 

4. 

 
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of 
an application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 
164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice sup-
ports a waiver of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons 
for  the  delay  and  the  potential  merits  of  the  claim  based  on  a  cursory  review.”    The 
court further instructed that “the longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons 
are  for  the  delay,  the  more  compelling  the  merits  would  need  to  be  to  justify  a  full 
review.”  Id. at 164, 165.   See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 
1995).  
 
 
 The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in July 2004 and 
provided no explanation for his delay other than that he had been told that the alleged 
error  would  be  fixed  prior  to  his  separation  from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve.    Under 
Chapter  9-D-4.b.  of  the  RATMAN,  the  applicant  could  and  should  have  requested 
correction of the alleged error from his chain of command in 1980.  Even assuming, as 
he alleged, that he was told prior to his separation that the alleged error in his Retire-
ment  Point  Statement  would  be  corrected,  he  has  not  explained  why  he  did  not  seek 
correction more timely or in 1996, when he apparently received copies of his Retirement 
Point Statements through his congressman.  The Board finds that the applicant has not 
submitted a satisfactory explanation or justification for his delay in seeking correction of 
the alleged error. 
 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24, the Board “begins its consideration of each case 
presuming administrative regularity on the part of Coast Guard and other Government 

officials.  The applicant has the burden of proving the existence of an error or injustice 
by the preponderance of the evidence.”  Although the applicant alleged that a drill or 
ADT point for which he received credit on his annual Retirement Point Statement for 
the anniversary year ending on February 27, 1979, should be attributed to the following 
anniversary year, he submitted no documentary evidence to support his allegation, and 
no evidence of any such error appears in his military record.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that the applicant is very unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim because there is 
nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of regularity. 
 
 
Accordingly,  due  to  the  lack  of  a  compelling  reason  for  the  applicant’s 
delay in submitting his application and due to the lack of any evidence supporting his 
allegation, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the untime-
liness  of  the  application.    The  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  because  it  is 
untimely. 
 
 
 
 

6. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USMCR, for correction of his Coast 

ORDER 

 

Guard Reserve military record is denied. 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

_______________________________ 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

_______________________________ 
 J. Carter Robertson 

_______________________________ 
 George A. Weller