DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-119 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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  March  5,  2009,  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  November  5,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant,  who  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  as  a  master  chief  fire  control 
technician on March 13, 2007, asked the  Board to  correct  his  retirement  date to  April 1, 2007.  
He alleged that his request to be transferred from the Selected Reserve (SELRES) to the Individ-
ual Ready Reserve (IRR) was unjustly denied just 30 days before his 62nd birthday. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he completed his SELRES service on his 60th birthday, March 
13, 2007, and entered retired status RET-1 on that date with 40 years, 10 months, and 3 days of 
creditable service time and 4,491 retirement points.  His base pay at the time was based on “over 
26  years”  of  service.    However,  he  alleged,  under  the  National  Defense  Authorization  Act  for 
Fiscal  Year  2007,  as  of  January  1,  2007,  members  with  more  than  30  years  of  service  were 
allowed to continue to accumulate creditable service for the purpose of military retired pay, and 
as of April 1, 2007, the pay table was extended from a top category of “over 26” years of service 
to 40 years of service. 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  forced  out  of  the  Reserves  because  his  60th  birthday 
 
occurred on March 13, 2007, just 18 days before the new pay chart went into effect.  However, 
as  of  January  1,  2007,  when  all  service  up  to  40  years  became  creditable,  he  was  still  in  the 
SELRES.    He  had  no  knowledge  of  the  law,  and  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  issue  ALCOAST 
023/07 with information about the upcoming pay raises until January 12, 2007. 
 

 

 

The applicant alleged that due to discrepancies in his number of retirement points, he was 
 
not issued a retirement letter until April 16, 2007, and he never knew his retirement pay would 
be based on all 40 of his years of creditable service until he received that letter. 
 
 
On December 16, 2008, the applicant stated, he contacted the Personnel Service Center to 
determine whether his retirement date could be changed to April 1, 2007.  When he asked if he 
could forgo his retirement pay and return to the IRR for a month so that his retirement pay would 
be based on the new pay rates that went into effect on April 1, 2007, he was advised to contact 
the  Office  of  Reserve  Affairs.    He  noted  that  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  allows  members  “to 
defer retirement with permission until age 62” and that he could still meet the physical and dental 
requirements for active service.  However, his request was denied and he was advised to contact 
the BCMR. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the senior enlisted pay raises were delayed until April 1, 2007, 
which unjustly disadvantaged people who retired between January 1, 2007, when the law went 
into effect  and April 1, 2007, when the pay raises went  into effect.   He stated that he does not 
believe the law was intended to cause this injustice and that if he had known about the law, he 
would have requested an 18-day extension. 
 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a letter he received from 
the Personnel Service Center (PSC) dated April 16, 2007, which states the following in pertinent 
part: 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

E-9 
40-10-03 
4491 
$5512.80 
.3120 
$1719.00 

The  following  information  represents  the  action  that  has  been  taken  on  your  Reserve  retirement 
effective 3/13/07.  You will be retired as follows: 
 
Highest grade held (grade retired):   
 
Creditable service time: 
Total retirement points: 
 
Base pay for E-9 from 2007 ADPS:  
Total multiplier (4491/360 x 0.25 = %): 
Retired pay (base pay 5512.80 x .3120): 
 
The applicant also submitted a copy of the letter he sent to the PSC dated December 16, 
2008 (three months before his 62nd birthday), regarding these issues.  He offered to return to the 
IRR for a month so that he could qualify for retired pay based on the new higher pay rates.  He 
alleged  that  the  PSC  “should  have  contacted  the  members  of  the  USCGR  with  more  than  40 
years  of  service  so  that  they  could  have  made  a  decision  to  extend,  if  only  a  few  days  were 
needed, while still in either the selected reserves or IRR.”  In response, the PSC advised him that 
his retired pay scale was correct because of his 60th birthday falling on March 13, 2007, and that 
if he wanted to go into the IRR, he would need to contact the BCMR because the PSC could not 
change his retirement date. 

 
In addition, the applicant submitted a similar letter that he sent to the Office of Reserve 

Affairs on January 12, 2009.  In response, he was advised that the 

 
only course of action available to you would be a BCMR.  Upon initial review by this office, it is 
our opinion that you would NOT be eligible for increased compensation based on the language in 

 

 

 

the NDAA, specifically the effective date of this provision.  Once the eligibility period has been 
established, a member must be within the determined period of eligibility.  One day less and you 
are  ineligible.    Extensions  to  remain  in  the  active  status  until  age  62  are  rarely  granted.    There 
would  have  to  be  a  demonstrable  service  need  for  a  unique  skill  set  that  could  not  be  provided 
elsewhere.    Extensions  to  remain  in  an  active  status  are  never  granted  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
earning an entitlement. 

 

It is within your right to pursue the BCMR; however you should note that in order for the BCMR 
to find in your favor, the onus will be on you to prove the Coast Guard violated its policy and pro-
cedures or treated you in an inequitable manner. … 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 7, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion and 
recommended that the Board deny relief.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis pro-
vided in a memorandum by the PSC, which noted the following: 
 

  The  applicant  was  born  on  March  13,  1947,  and  entered  military  service  on  May  10, 

1966. 

  On  September  15,  1987,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  because  he  had  completed  20 
years  of  satisfactory  service,  he  would  be  eligible  to  receive  retired  pay  upon  reaching 
age 60 on March 13, 2007, and that no retirement credits could be accrued after age 60 
unless he was recalled to active duty. 

  On  June  6,  2000,  the  applicant  elected  to  be  transferred  to  RET-2  status,  which  is  for 
members who are eligible to retire but are not yet eligible for retired pay because they are 
not yet 60 years old.  He had been advised that under a SELRES force strength policy, he 
had the option of transferring to RET-2 status, transferring to the IRR and drilling with-
out  pay,  transferring  to  the  non-drilling  active  status  pool,  or  being  discharged.    His 
request  was  approved  and  on  August  1,  2000,  he  was  transferred  to  RET-2  status.    On 
August 1, 2000, the pay tables extended to only 26 years of service.  The letter informing 
him of his transfer to the Retired Reserve states that upon “reaching age 60, you will have 
met  all  requirements  for  retirement  pay.    To  insure  you  begin  receiving  retirement  pay 
and benefits, write to HRSIC six months prior to your 60th birthday advising this office 
of  your  birth  date  and  current  mailing  address.    Please  enclose  a  copy  of  this  RET-2 
transfer  letter,  retirement  point  statement  HRSIC-4973A  (enclosure  3),  and  an  Reserve 
Component  Survivor  Benefit  Plan  (RCSBP)  Option  Election  Certificate,  NAVMC 
11221).” 

  On March 13, 2007, the applicant attained age 60, whereupon his status changed to RET-

1 and he became entitled to retired pay. 

  The extension of the pay table and new pay raises went into effect on April 1, 2007. 

  Article  8.C.12.c.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (RPM)  prohibits  the  retention  of  retire-
ment-eligible  reservists  past  age  60  absent  a  compelling  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  and 
approval of the reservist’s request by the Commandant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Article 8.B.3. of the RPM allows members to defer retirement to age 62, with permission 

from the Commandant, only if they are not qualified for retirement. 

Therefore, the PSC concluded that the applicant was not entitled to return to service after 
his 60th birthday because there was no compelling Service need for it.  The PSC recommended 
that the Board deny relief. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  11,  2010,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast  Guard.    He  stated  that  the  advisory  opinion  is  silent  about  the  fact  that  he  returned  to 
drilling  at  a  SELRES  unit  from  August  2004  until  his  60th  birthday  because  his  billet  at  ESU 
Alameda had remained unfilled between August 2000 and August 2004.  Therefore, he received 
permission  from  CG-131  to  return  to  his  SELRES  billet  until  2006,  when  he  requested  and 
received  an  extension  of  the  permission  to  drill  up  through  his  60th  birthday.    The  applicant 
stated  that  the  fact  that  he  was  authorized  to  return  to  drilling  after  he  entered  RET-2  status 
“shows that exemptions to the Reserve Policy Manual can [be] and are made on a case by case 
basis.”    Another  example  of  such  exemptions,  he  noted,  was  referenced  in  ALCOAST  170/99, 
issued on November 5, 1999, which states that “[o]ver the past few years, SELRES participation 
waivers have been granted to reservists to exceed the 60-year maximum age limit or the 30-year 
total qualifying service limits.  These waivers have permitted senior reservists to be overbilleted 
while the Coast Guard Reserve was below personnel strength…. C. As of 31 Jan 2000, over age 
60 waivers will no longer be approved. D. As of 31 Jan 2000, no further 30-year waiver requests 
will be accepted. E. Feb 2000, all personnel age 60 and over will be transferred from SELRES 
status or separated as appropriate.”  He stated that the Coast Guard should have made an exemp-
tion for him “like they have in the past for other members” so that he could qualify for retirement 
pay based on the new pay rates. 
 
The applicant stated that he believes he is the only Coast Guard reservist “who is quali-
 
fied for this pay reform with the credible service time over 40 years.”  He further stated that he 
thinks  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  mandatory  retirements  under  the  High  Year  Tenure  rules  “will 
make it impossible for any active duty Senior Enlisted or Reserve Senior Enlisted to participate 
in the pay reform under Public Law 109-364 Section 601(c).”  He noted that without the waiver 
of a prior rate adjustment scheduled for fiscal year 2007 in § 601(a) of the law, the new reform 
could not have gone into effect until 2008.   
 
 
With  regard  to  the  letter  about  his  retirement  dated  April  16,  2007,  the  applicant 
explained that on March 3, 2007, he had to request correction of a retirement point statement that 
had been issued on December 15, 2006, because it contained errors and did not reflect his most 
recent service.  He submitted a copy of this letter. 
 
 

 

 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Public  Law  109-364,  120  Stat.  2083,  was  enacted  on  October  17,  2006.    Section  601, 
entitled “Fiscal Year 2007 Increase in Military Basic Pay and Reform of Basic Pay Rates,” states 
the following: 

 
(a)  WAIVER  OF  SECTION  1009  ADJUSTMENT.--The  adjustment  to  become  effective  during 
fiscal year 2007 required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in the rates of monthly 
basic pay authorized members of the uniformed services shall not be made. 
 
(b) JANUARY 1, 2007, INCREASE IN BASIC PAY.--Effective on January 1, 2007, the rates of 
monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services are increased by 2.2 percent. 
 
(c)  REFORM  OF  BASIC  PAY  RATES.--Effective  on  April  1,  2007,  the  rates  of  monthly  basic 
pay for members of the uniformed services within each pay grade (and with years of service com-
puted under section 205 of title 37, United States Code) are as follows: 
 
[Tables omitted except for E-9 rate] 

 
ENLISTED MEMBERS [FN1]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Pay Grade    2 or less        Over 2        Over 3       Over 4       Over 6    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
E-9 [FN2]          $0.00           $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00 
           --------------------------------------------------------------------
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
              Over 8         Over 10        Over 12      Over 14      Over 16   
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
E-9 [FN2]          $0.00       $4,110.60    $4,203.90    $4,321.20    $4,459.50 
           --------------------------------------------------------------------
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
              Over 18        Over 20        Over 22      Over 24      Over 26   
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
E-9 [FN2]      $4,598.40       $4,821.60    $5,010.30    $5,209.20    $5,512.80 
           --------------------------------------------------------------------
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
              Over 28        Over 30        Over 32      Over 34      Over 36   
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
E-9 [FN2]      $5,512.80       $5,788.50    $5,788.50    $6,078.00    $6,078.00 
           --------------------------------------------------------------------
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
              Over 38        Over 40                                            
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
E-9 [FN2]      $6,381.90       $6,381.90                                        
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
[footnotes omitted] 
 
 
ALCOAST 023/07, issued on January 12, 2007, announced the new pay rates effective as 
of April 1, 2007, and stated that “[e]ffective 1 JAN 2007, the 75 percent maximum for computa-
tion  of  military  retired  pay  has  been  removed  for  members  who  retire  on  or  after  that  date.  
Members with service beyond 30 years may continue to accumulate multiplier credit for the pur-
poses of computing military retired pay at the rate of two and one-half percent per year.” 
 

 

 

Article 8.C.2.a. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM)  states that “[w]hen reservists com-
 
plete  at  least  20  years  of  satisfactory  federal  service  and  have  reached age  60,  they  are  eligible  for 
transfer to RET-1 status upon request. When transferred to retired with pay status, reservists receive a 
Retired Identification Card and are eligible for the same benefits available to active duty retirees.” 
 

Article 8.C.2.b.(1) of the RPM states that members who have satisfied all of the require-
ments for retirement but are not yet 60 years old may enter RET-2 status, which means that they 
are  “entitled  to  unlimited  commissary,  exchange,  and  morale,  welfare,  and  recreation  benefits. 
Unless recalled to active duty, RET-2 reservists are not entitled to earn pay and allowances or retire-
ment points, or receive military legal assistance or medical and dental care.” 
 
Article 8.B.3. of the RPM states that at age 60, “[a] member not qualified for retirement 
 
…  shall  be  discharged  without  board  proceedings,  unless  Commandant  (CG-131)  approves  the 
member’s request to defer retirement until age 62.” 

 
Article 8.C.12.c. of the RPM states that “[e]nlisted members who are eligible to receive 
retired pay will only be retained in the Ready Reserve beyond age 60 to fulfill compelling needs 
of the Coast Guard and upon approval of a member’s written request to COMDT (CG-131), via 
the chain of command.” 
 
 
Article 8.C.4. states that in calculating Reserve retired pay, a reservist’s retired base pay 
is “as computed under 10 U.S.C. 1406 or 1407.”  Section 1407 concerns members who entered 
the Service after September 7, 1980, but § 1406(b)(2) states that, for those who entered the Ser-
vice before that date, a reservist’s “retired pay base is the monthly basic pay, determined at the 
rates applicable on the date when retired pay is granted … of the highest grade held satisfactorily 
by the person at any time in the armed forces.” 
 
 
Under  Article  8.C.12.a.  of  the  RPM,  reservists  in  receipt  of  the  “20-year  letter,”  which 
the applicant received in 1987, may request transfer to RET-2 status at any time.  Under Article 
8.C.12.c.,  “[r]eservists  who  remain  in  an  active  status  in  the  Ready  Reserve  after  becoming 
retirement  eligible  may  request  to  transfer  to  RET-1  status  upon  reaching  age  60.  …  Enlisted 
members  who  are  eligible  to  receive  retired  pay  will  only  be  retained  in  the  Ready  Reserve 
beyond age 60 to fulfill compelling needs of the Coast Guard and upon approval of a member’s 
written request to Commandant (CG-131), via the chain of command.” 
  
 
(HYT) program as follows: 
 

Article 12.G.1. of the Personnel Manual describes the Coast Guard’s “High Year Tenure” 

The  High  Year  Tenure  policy  establishes  limits  on  the  amount  of  time  an  active  duty  enlisted 
member can remain at each pay grade. It is designed to increase personnel flow, compel members 
to advance in their rating, and allow  more consistent training and advancement opportunities for 
the enlisted workforce.  With more balanced, consistent opportunities, the Coast Guard can retain 
the  most  highly  motivated  members  who  in  turn  gain  in  experience  and  ensure  the  Coast  Guard 
retains its leadership and professional continuity. 

 
Article  12.G.3.  states  that  members  in  pay  grade  E-9  attain  their  “professional  growth 
 
point”  upon  “[t]hirty  years’  active  military  service  [and  may]  reenlist  or  extend  up  to  but  not 
beyond 30  years, one month’s active military service….”  Article 12.G.5.1. states that “[m]em-

 

 

bers  can  re-enlist  or  extend  only  for  periods  that  will  expire  before  one  month  after  their  PGP 
date.  Unless  Commander,  (CGPC-epm-1)  grants  a  HYT  waiver,  the  HYT  policy  supersedes 
other reenlistment policies or extension opportunities.”  Article 12.G.7.1. states that “Command-
er,  (CGPC-epm-1)  will  discharge  a  member  who  fails  to  advance  before  his  or  her  PGP  date. 
However, a retirement-eligible member may request retirement.” 
 

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 applicant was timely filed. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that his retirement  date of March 13, 2007, his 60th birth-
day, is unjust because it precludes him from having his retirement pay based upon the increased 
pay  rates  that  went  into  effect  on  April  1,  2007.    He  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  could  have 
authorized him to retire on April 1, 2007, instead of March 13, 2007, or could have allowed him 
to return to the IRR for a month before his 62nd birthday so that he would qualify for the higher 
pay rate. The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information 
in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the 
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous 
or unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, 
approved by the Deputy General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” 
evidence standard recommended by the Coast Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evi-
dence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R. 
§ 52.24(b)). Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and 
other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good 
faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992);  Sanders  v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 

3. 

In  Public  Law  109-364,  Congress  authorized  new  pay  rates  to  go  into  effect  on 
April 1, 2007, and extended them from the previously highest category, “over 26,” to a new high 
for “over 40.”  Although the applicant considers his situation to be one of a kind because he has 
more than 40 years of service, there were presumably hundreds of retired military members with 
more than 26 years of service who became eligible for retirement pay in the months between the 
enactment of the law and April 1, 2007, and who would have benefited greatly if Congress had 
made  the  new  pay  rates  effective  earlier  or  if  the  Coast  Guard  and  other  military  services  had 
granted  all  of  their  retiring  members  extensions  to  April  1,  2007.    Anytime  the  law  changes 
entitlements  as  of  a  specific  date,  there  are  people  who  are  advantaged  and  disadvantaged  by 
being subject to the law in effect on one side or the other of that date.  In this case, Congress did 
not make the new law retroactive, and the Board is not aware that the Coast Guard (or any of the 
other military services) has granted extensions to retiring reservists or recalled them for active or 
inactive duty just so they could take advantage of the higher pay rates under the new law.  There-
fore,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  he  has  been  treated  unjustly  in  comparison  to  the  other 
retirement-eligible reservists who turned age 60 before April 1, 2007, but who would have bene-

 

 

fited greatly had they entered RET-1 status  after April 1, 2007, because of the extension of the 
pay scale under Public Law 109-364. 

 
4. 

Under Article 8.C.12.c. of the RPM, Reserve “[e]nlisted members who are eligi-
ble  to  receive  retired  pay  will  only  be  retained  in  the  Ready  Reserve  beyond  age  60  to  fulfill 
compelling needs of the Coast Guard and upon approval of a member’s written request to Com-
mandant (CG-131), via the chain of command.”  The applicant noted that the Coast Guard some-
times waives the rules.  He pointed out that the Coast Guard waived the age limit and its HYT 
policy for many reservists in the late 1990s and, when he retired to RET-2 status prior to age 60 
and his billet remained unfilled, he was allowed to return to the SELRES to continue drilling in 
that billet until  age 60.  Thus, he  received  a waiver of the  rule under  Article 8.C.2.b.(1) of the 
RPM that a member in RET-2 status may not earn retirement points unless they are recalled to 
active duty.  As ALCOAST 170/99 shows, however, the Coast Guard waived the HYT rules and 
age  limit  in  the  late  1990s  because  of  compelling  Service  needs.    In  allowing  the  applicant  to 
return to drilling in 2004 after he had elected to enter RET-2 status, the Coast Guard apparently 
recognized  a  need,  but  it  did  not  authorize  him  to  drill  indefinitely  and,  when  he  requested  an 
extension in 2006, authorized him to drill only up to his 60th birthday in March 2007.  Therefore, 
the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  shows  that  when  the  applicant  requested  the  extension  in 
2006,  the  Coast  Guard  found  no  compelling  Service  need  that  would  warrant  his  retention 
beyond age 60. 
 

5. 

The  applicant  noted  that  his  creditable  service  for  retirement  purposes  was  not 
properly tallied in 2006 and that he received a letter regarding his points, creditable service, and 
retirement  pay  on April  16,  2007.   The  Board  notes  that  this  letter  is  dated  approximately  one 
month after the applicant was last authorized to drill for retirement points.  The date of the letter 
does not persuade the Board that the Coast Guard erred or acted unjustly in refusing to extend his 
retirement date to April 1, 2007, or to allow him to transfer to the IRR for a month prior to his 
62nd birthday. 

 
6. 

The  applicant  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  HYT  program  is  unfair  because  it 
could preclude anyone from ever attaining the “over 40” pay rate.  The Board finds that the fact 
that the HYT program, when enforced, makes it unlikely if not impossible for a member to serve 
long  enough  to  attain  the  “over  40”  rate  does  not  prove  that  the  HYT  program  is  erroneous  or 
unjust given its purposes as described in Article 12.G.1. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
7. 

The applicant turned 60 on March 13, 2007, and is therefore entitled to retirement 
pay  under  the  law  in  effect  on  that  date.    The  Board  finds  that  he  has  not  proved  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice1 by refusing 
either to extend his retirement date to April 1, 2007, or to allow him to return to active or inactive 
duty for a month prior to his 62nd birthday to qualify for the pay raises that went into effect on 
April 1, 2007, under Public Law 109-364.  Therefore, his request should be denied. 

ORDER 

 

                                                 
1 For the purposes of the BCMRs,  “‘[i]njustice’, when not also ‘error’, is treatment by the military authorities, that 
shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976). 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  Retired,  for  correction 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Donna M. Bivona 

 

 

 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of his military record is denied.