DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2010-192 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 XXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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  application  upon 
receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  June  2,  2010,  and  subsequently  prepared  the 
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  10,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he had a combined 21 
years  of  active  duty  and  reserve  service  when  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on 
February  24,  1988.   Therefore,  he  was  entitled  to  reserve  retired  pay  (non-regular  retired  pay 
under 10 U.S.C. § 12731) at age 60, which he attained on March 5, 2007.      
  
 
 
Prior to enlisting in the Coast Guard on May 31, 1979, the applicant served 1 year, 11 
months,  and  1  day  in  the  active  duty  Navy  and  10  years,  8  months,  and  8  days  in  the  Navy 
Reserve.      He  had  a  total  of  12  years,  7  months,  and  9  days  of  total  federal  service  when  he 
enlisted in the Coast Guard.   
 
 
The applicant enlisted in the regular Coast Guard for 4 years on May 31, 1979 and was 
discharged from this period of active duty on July 25, 1983.   He reenlisted in the regular Coast 
Guard for 2 years on November 8, 1983 and extended this enlistment for 2 years on November 7, 
1985.  The applicant again extended his enlistment for 6 months on March 31, 1986.  His end of 
enlistment was April 7, 1988.  However, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Coast 
Guard for the convenience of the government due to weight control failure on February 24, 1988.  
He was given a JDM1 separation code and an RE-3F2 reenlistment code, both of which indicate 
                                                 
1  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the JDM separation code meant that a member was discharged 
because he or she exceeded the weight standards.   

weight control failure as the reason for his discharge.  The applicant alleged that his separation 
and  reenlistment  codes  were  assigned  in  error  due  to  bureaucratic  bungling  and  his  hasty 
discharge.   
 

According to the applicant’s DD 214 (documenting his discharge from the Coast Guard 
in 1988), he had a total of 10 years, 5 months, and 20 days of active duty service and 10 years, 7 
months, and 28 days of inactive duty service.   
 
 
The applicant stated that it is in the interest of justice to consider his application if it is 
not timely because he did not learn of the injustice until he did not receive retirement pay in 
2006, as he had been told.  He stated that he “was told that validation would occur automatically 
near 2006 when I turned 60-62—it didn’t.”  The applicant submitted documents showing that in 
the  latter  part  of  2009,  he  sought  assistance  from  a  counselor  at  the  Department  of  Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) in his effort to obtain retired pay.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 1, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  relief  in  accordance  with  the 
memorandum from Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC stated the following: 
 

The application is not timely and should be denied due to untimeliness.  The only 
mention the applicant makes regarding the untimeliness of the application is that, 
“I was told validation would occur automatically near 2006 when I turned 60-62 
[sic]—it didn’t.” 
 
According  to  [a  recent  statement  of  creditable  service],  the  applicant  rates  21 
years, 0 months, and 13 days of creditable service.  As 20 years of service is the 
minimum  threshold  needed  to  be  retirement  eligible,  the  applicant  should  have 
been  placed  in  a  RET-2  [Reserve  retired  without  pay]  status  upon  being 
discharged  from  active  duty,  in  accordance  with  [Article  8.C.2.  of  the  Reserve 
Policy Manual].  
 

  # 

# 

# 

 
According  to  [a  computation  of  retirement  point  credits],  the  applicant’s  total 
retirement points credited equals 4654.  This amount will be used to calculate the 
proper retirement pay the applicant is entitled to receive beginning at age 60.   
 
The applicant’s contention regarding the separation code of JDM and reentry code 
of  RE-3F  being  in  error  is  correct.    According  to  [the  Separation  Program 
Designator]  (SPD)  Handbook,  the  proper  notation  that  should  appear  on  the 
applicant DD-214 should be as follows: 

                                                                                                                                                             
2  The RE-3F reenlistment code means that a member is eligible for reenlistment except that he exceeds 
weight standards. 

 

Block 25 Article  12.C.10  [of  the  Personnel  Manual  as  the  separation 
authority] 
Block 25 LBD  [as  the  separation  code,  which  means  sufficient  time  for 
retirement] 
Block 27 RE-2 [as the reenlistment code, which means retirement] 
Block 28 sufficient  service  for  retirement  [as  the  narrative  reason  for 
separation]  

 

PSC concluded by stating that the applicant should be entitled to retired pay in accordance 
with  the  computations  found  in  [the  statement  of  creditable  service  and  the  statement 
computation  of  retirement  points  credit]  now  that  he  has  reached  age  60  and  is  in  an  RET-1 
(Reserve retired with pay) status.  PSC stated that in addition, the applicant should be issued a 
DD-215 correcting blocks 25-28 of his DD 214 as discussed above.   
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 1, 2010, the Board received a reply from the applicant to the views of the 

 
 
Coast Guard.  He agreed with them.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATION 

 

 

 

Article  8.C.1.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  states  that  under  10  U.S.C.  §  12731,  a 

 
reservist is entitled upon application, to non regular retired pay if the reservist 

a.  is at least 60 years of age; 
b.  is not entitled to receive military retired pay under any other provision of law;  
c.  has  performed  at  least  20  years  of  satisfactory  qualifying  federal  service  as  computed 

under section 10 U.S.C. 12732; and 

d.  in the case of a member who accumulated 20 years of qualifying service before May 1, 
2005, has performed the last six years of qualifying service as a member of a Reserve 
component.   

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.   
 
 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military record must be submitted within three years after the alleged error or injustice was or 
should have been discovered.  See 33 CFR 52.22.  The applicant stated that he discovered the 
alleged error when he did not receive retired pay between the ages of 60 and 62, as he had been 
told  in  2006.    However,  the  Board  finds  that  the  alleged  error  was  or  should  have  been 

discovered on March 5, 2007 when the applicant reached his 60th birthday and did not receive 
retired pay.  Therefore, his application should have been filed with the Board within 3 years of 
his 60th birthday on March 5, 2007.  The Board did not receive the applicant’s application until 
May 3, 2010.     
 

3.    The  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  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  in  assessing  whether  the  interest  of  justice  supports  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 Board is persuaded to excuse the untimeliness because the delay is 
less than 2 months in duration and the applicant acted reasonably in seeking assistance from a 
DVA counselor in solving the problem when he did not receive retired pay between the ages of 
60 and 62. Additionally, reserve retired pay does not begin until age 60 and the applicant having 
been  discharged  at  age  41  would  have  had  no  reason  to  doubt  his  eligibility  for  retired  pay, 
particularly since his record did not contain any notification to him that he would not be eligible 
for  reserve  retired  pay  at  age  60.    Furthermore,  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  indicates  the 
application is likely to prevail.  Therefore, due to the short delay in filing his application, the lack 
of notification of a potential problem with receiving reserve retired pay, and the likelihood of 
success on the merits of his claim, the Board will excuse the untimeliness and perform a full 
review of the merits.      

 
4.  The JAG recommended relief based upon a recently prepared Coast Guard statement 
of creditable service and a statement of retirement points credit that document the applicant’s 20 
years of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60.  The Board, relying on the Coast Guard’s 
computation and its advisory opinion, agrees with the JAG that the applicant has at least 21 years 
of satisfactory federal service.    

 
5.  However, reaching age 60 and having 20 years of satisfactory service are not the only 
requirements for entitlement to reserve retired pay.  According to Article 8.C.1. of the Reserve 
Policy Manual, the applicant must also have spent the last six years of his service as a member of 
the  Reserve  component  to  be  entitled  to  retired  pay.    According  to  the  applicant’s  military 
record, his 4-year enlistment contract dated May 31, 1979, and his 2-year reenlistment contract 
dated November 8, 1983, (that was extended for two years) show that he enlisted in the regular 
component  of  the  Coast  Guard.    Therefore,  his  last  6  years  of  service  were  not  in  a  Reserve 
component.    

 
6.   The Board finds that it would be an injustice, however, for the applicant to be denied 
reserve retired pay after serving for over 20 years in the armed forces because he enlisted in the 
regular Coast Guard instead of the Coast Guard Reserve.  Additionally, there is nothing in his 
Coast Guard military record that indicates that the rules about qualifying for reserve retired pay 
were  explained  to  him  at  the  time  he  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard,  even  though  there  were 
documents in his record showing that he had significant time in the Naval Reserve. Nor is there 
any evidence in his military record that he ever received a retirement points statement before his 

last discharge from the Coast Guard in 1988. Therefore, he had no notice of any problem that 
might  have  existed  with  his  eligibility  for  retired  pay  at  age  60.3    As  the  Coast  Guard  has 
recommended  relief,  and  the  applicant  has  agreed  with  that  recommendation,  it  would  be  a 
further  injustice  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  deny  relief  to  the  applicant.  
Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to  show  that  his 
1979  and  1983  Coast  Guard  enlistments  were  in  the  Reserve  component  of  the  Coast  Guard.  
This  correction  does  not  affect  the  fact  that  the  applicant  served  on  active  duty  for  the  entire 
period of the two enlistments.    

 
7.  The  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant’s  DD  214  should  be  corrected  in  the 
manner recommended by the Coast Guard.  The applicant’s discharge, as noted on his DD 214, 
completely  severed  him  from  any  military  status.    See  Article  12.B.1.f.  2.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.  Therefore,  with  the  discharge  in  place,  the  applicant’s  record  cannot  be  corrected  to 
show that he is currently in a RET-1 (Reserve retired with pay) status because doing so would 
indicate  that  he  still  has  a  military  status,  when  in  fact  he  is  a  discharged  member.  However 
being a former member of the Coast Guard does not defeat the applicant’s right to retirement 
pay.  According to Article 8.C.16 of the Reserve Policy Manual, the fact that a Reserve member 
is discharged as opposed to being retired, is not prejudicial to the member regarding retirement 
pay because the right to receive such pay and personal medical benefits are not dependent upon 
membership in a Reserve component at the time of qualification.    

 
8.    Furthermore,  the  applicant’s  DD  214  should  not  be  corrected  because  he  was 
discharged due to weight control failure and not because he was entitled to immediate retirement 
as the DD 214 would suggest if the Board followed the Coast Guard’s recommendation in this 
regard.    The  applicant  was  nowhere  near  the  age  necessary  for  retirement  pay  when  he  was 
discharged from the regular Coast Guard in 1988 at age 41.  Additionally, as discussed above, as 
a discharged member, it would be inconsistent with regulation to show on the applicant’s DD 
214 that he is both a former member and a currently retired member.  
 

9.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted the partial relief discussed above.   
 
 

 
 

                                                 
3    In BCMR No. 193-92, the Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Transportation granted relief to an 
applicant who claimed that the Coast Guard committed an error by discharging him because he could not complete 
20 years of satisfactory service before reaching age 62.   The Deputy General Counsel also found that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  injustice  when  it  failed  to  inform  the  applicant  that  his  unsatisfactory  year  for  retirement 
purposes in 1979 would cause him to be unable to complete 20 years of satisfactory service for retirement prior to 
his  62nd  birthday.    The  Deputy  General  Counsel  also  found  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  injustice  by  not 
informing the applicant at the time of his 1988 4-year reenlistment that he could not qualify for retirement with pay 
before reaching age 62 and that it committed an error by allowing him to reenlist when he  would exceed age 62 
before he earn 20 years of satisfactory service.  To rectify the errors and injustices, the Deputy General Counsel 
ordered the applicant’s record corrected to show that he performed 20 years of satisfactory service prior to his latest 
discharge in order to receive retirement with pay.  The Deputy General Counsel stated that she did not order the 
applicant reinstated into the Reserve so that he could earn the one additional year for 20 years of satisfactory service 
because of the Coast Guard’s requirement that members cannot serve beyond 62 years of age.    

The  application  of  former  XXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is granted, as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that his May 31, 1979 enlistment and his November 
8, 1983 reenlistment were in the Reserve component of the Coast Guard.  His record shall also 
be  corrected  to  show  that  upon  his  discharge  on  February  24,  1988,  he  had  21  years  of 
satisfactory service and became entitled to non-regular retired pay upon reaching age 60.   

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount he is due as a result of the correction to his 

record, including any back pay and allowances.   

 
No other relief is granted.      
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 Megan Gemunder 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis