Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-043
Original file (2011-043.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 

 
 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-043 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case  after receiving  the  applicant’s 
completed application on December 8, 2010, 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  July  14,  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 retired from the Coast 
Guard Reserve  as an E-8  on March 31, 1996.  He  alleged that  although he served in  the Coast 
Guard  Reserve  as  an  E-5,  he  attained  the  rank  of  E-8  while  serving  in  the  U.S.  Marine  Corps 
Reserve from 1969 to 1983.  Therefore, he argued, he should be retired at that pay grade.  The 
applicant  stated  that  he  learned  of  this  error  on  or  about  July  17,  2010,  which  was  his  60th 
birthday and the day he became eligible for Reserve retirement pay. 
 
 
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted (a) a “Reserve Retirement Master 
Control Card (1820),” prepared by the Separation and Retirement Branch of the Navy Bureau of 
Personnel  on  May  3,  2010,  which  shows  that  he  served  in  the  USMC  Reserve  from  March  4, 
1969, to August 7, 1983, when he was honorably discharged in pay grade E-8, and (b) a State-
ment of Creditable Service from the Coast Guard, which shows that he was in pay grade E-5. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  March  30,  2011,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board grant relief.   In making this recom-
mendation,  he  adopted  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a  memorandum  on  the  case  pre-
pared  by  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC),  which  stated  that  the  Board  should  grant  relief 
because the applicant was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve as an E-8, and 
retired  members  who  began  military  service  before  September  8,  1980,  should  receive  retired 

 

 

pay  “based  on  the  highest  grade  satisfactorily  held  at  any  time  in  the  Armed  Forces  and  the 
Commandant’s determination that the member’s performance in that grade was satisfactory.”   
 

The  PSC  noted  that  granting  relief  in  this  case  would  be  consistent  with  the  Board’s 
decision in BCMR Docket No. 2007-175, in which the Board ordered the Coast Guard to correct 
the applicant’s record “to show that he is entitled to retired pay computed based upon pay grade 
E-5, the highest  grade he held satisfactorily in the National Guard.  The applicant shall receive 
back  pay  and  allowances  retroactive  to  the  date  on  which  his  retired  pay  began.”    The  Board 
found in that case that although the applicant was properly retired from the Coast Guard as an E-
4,  and  so  his  identification  card  and  other  documents  should  show  his  rate  as  E-4,  under  10 
U.S.C. § 1406(b)(2)1 and Article 8.C.8. of the Reserve Policy Manual,2 his retired pay had to be 
based upon his highest grade satisfactorily held in the Armed Forces at any time, which was E-5. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 6, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

 
invited him to submit a response within thirty days.  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 applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to  10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application is timely. 
 

2. 

Because  the  applicant  entered  military  service  before  September  8,  1980,  he  is 
entitled to receive Reserve retired pay based on the highest pay grade he satisfactorily held at any 
time in his military career.3  He alleged that the highest pay grade he satisfactorily held was E-8, 
even  though  he  was  an  E-5  when  he  retired  from  the  Coast  Guard,  and  he  submitted  evidence 
showing that he was an E-8 when he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve 
in  1983.    The  Coast  Guard  has  conceded  that  the  highest  grade  he  satisfactorily  held  in  the 
military was E-8.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of 
the evidence that the highest grade he satisfactorily held in the military was E-8, and his retired 
pay should be based on the monthly basic pay of an E-8 even though he retired as an E-5. 

 
3. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s record to show 
that the highest grade he satisfactorily held, for the purpose of calculating his retired pay, is E-8.   

 
 

                                                 
1  10  U.S.C.  §  1406(b)(2)  (“Retired  pay  base  for  members  who  first  became  members  before  September  8,  1980: 
final basic pay, …Non-regular service retirement.  In the case of a person who is entitled to retired pay under section 
12731 of this title, the retired pay base is the monthly basic pay, determined at the rates applicable on the date when 
retired pay is granted (or, …), of the highest grade held satisfactorily by the person at any time in the armed forces.” 
2 Article 8.C.8. of the Reserve Policy Manual states that, for members with dates of initial entry into military service 
prior to 8 September 1980, retired pay is computed based on the highest grade satisfactorily held at any time in the 
Armed Forces and the Commandant’s determination that the member’s performance in that grade was satisfactory. 
3 See footnote 1, above. 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR  (Retired),  for 

correction of his military record is granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he is entitled to retired pay based 
upon pay grade E-8, the highest  grade he held satisfactorily in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.  
He shall receive back pay and allowances retroactive to the date on which his retired pay began.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 
 
  

 

 
 Dana Ledger  

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-129

    Original file (2008-129.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On May 1, 2002, the applicant was transferred to the Coast Guard Reserve Retired list without pay (RET-2). Coast Guard Reserve Policy Manual Article 8.C.8.b of the Reserve Policy Manual states that retired pay for members with dates of initial entry into military service (DIEMS) prior to 8 September 1980 is computed based on the highest grade satisfactorily held at any time in the Armed Forces and the Commandant’s determination that the member’s performance in that grade was satisfactory. ...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2007-175

    Original file (2007-175.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated April 30, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he retired in pay grade E-5, which is the highest grade that he held in the Louisiana Army National Guard, rather than PS3 (pay grade E-4), which is the highest grade he held within the Coast Guard. The Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Human Resources Service & Information Center (HRSIC) informed the applicant that...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-119

    Original file (2010-119.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-238

    Original file (2010-238.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PSC stated that the application is untimely and should be denied on that basis Regarding the merits of the application, the PSC stated that under Article 5.C.33.b. of the Personnel Manual, after a member’s rate has been reduced at mast, the member is “subject to the normal advancement system, unless they are considered by their commanding officers to be deserving of special advancement.” The PSC stated that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant successfully competed for...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2011-068

    Original file (2011-068.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 29, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, former lieutenant (LT) who was honorably discharged from the Reserve on June 30, 1994, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he has service- connected amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and is entitled to processing under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and to disability retired...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2012-115

    Original file (2012-115.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant stated that he was eligible for advancement under Article 1.C.12.f. On February 21, 1995, the Military Personnel Command issued the applicant physical disability retirement orders, which state that the applicant would be retired with a 100% disability rating as of March 21, 1995. Moreover, the JAG argued, even if the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case, the Board should deny relief because the applicant has failed...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-115

    Original file (2012-115.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant stated that he was eligible for advancement under Article 1.C.12.f. On February 21, 1995, the Military Personnel Command issued the applicant physical disability retirement orders, which state that the applicant would be retired with a 100% disability rating as of March 21, 1995. Moreover, the JAG argued, even if the Board finds that it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case, the Board should deny relief because the applicant has failed...

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-012

    Original file (2011-012.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In this regard, the PSC noted that the criteria for a Sea Service ribbon include 12 months of sea duty, which the applicant did not have, and that the list of units authorized to wear the Arctic Service medal does not include any unit to which the applicant was assigned for the period the medal was authorized. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that the Sea Service Ribbon was authorized on March 3, 1984, and is “[a]warded to active and inactive duty members of the Coast Guard and Coast...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-181

    Original file (2011-181.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated February 23, 2012, 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 enlisted as a third class petty officer (pay grade E-4), rather than a seaman (pay grade E-3). The revision of the policy for the RQ program announced in the memorandum dated February 3, 2010, expanded the program “to allow for DoD personnel with greater than 8 years of honorable service to enter the...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-094

    Original file (2012-094.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated December 7, 2012, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a Reserve lieutenant commander (LCDR) serving on active duty, asked the Board to correct her record to show that her LT date of rank is July 3, 2005, instead of July 30, 2005, and to show that she was promoted to LCDR on March 1, 2012, instead of May 1, 2012. (4)(a) of COMDTINST M1000.3, all officers must serve a minimum of 30 months in the grade of...