DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-079 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
PS1 (former) 

 

 

 
 

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 on January 20, 2011, 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 September 29, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST, ALLEGATION, AND EVIDENCE 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  retired  from  the 
Coast  Guard  Reserve  under  the  Reserve  Transition  Benefits  (RTB)1  program  with  15  years,  8 
months, and 8 days of creditable service instead of being discharged in 1992.   
 

The applicant was a member of the Selected Reserve (SELRES),2 but he was transferred 
from  that  assignment  to  the  Individual  Ready  Reserve  (IRR)3  on  October  28,  1991.    He  was 

                                                 
1  According to COMDTINST 1001.37 (Procedures for Submitting and Processing Requests for Reserve Transition 
Benefits (RTB) issued on December 21, 1993, RTB was a part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 1993 that applied to DOD Reservists.  The FY 94 DOD Authorization Act extended RTB to members and 
former  members  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  who  were  involuntarily  transferred,  separated,  discharged,  or  retired 
from the SELRES [Selected Reserve] due to downsizing.  The eligibility period for RTB was from 1 October 1991 
to 30 September 1999.  COMDTINST 1001.37 stated that Coast Guard Regulations implementing the RTB program 
were issued in ALDIST 345/93 on December 20, 1993.    
2  Enclosure  (1-1)  to  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (1991)  defines  the  SELRES  as  that  portion  of  the  Ready  Reserve 
consisting of units and, as designated by the Secretary concerned, of individual reservists with the highest priority 
for mobilization who participate in inactive duty training periods and annual training in a pay status.  It also defines 
the  Ready  Reserve  as  consisting  of  the  Selected  Reserve  and  Individual  Ready  Reserve  who  are  liable  for  active 
duty as outlined in 10 U.S.C. §§ 672 and 673(a).    
3  Enclosure  (1-1)  to  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (1991)  defines  the  IRR  as  members  of  the  Ready  Reserve  not 
assigned to the Selected Reserve and not on active duty.  It consists of members assigned to the active status pool 
and those assigned to various other units in non-pay drilling statuses.   

 

 

discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  by  reason  of  expiration  of  enlistment  on  September 
21, 1992.  He alleged that he was eligible for the RTB program, but somehow he “fell through 
the cracks.” 

 
  According  to  an  October  8,  1991  Computation  of  Retirement  Points  Credit  statement, 
the applicant had 15 years, 8 months, and 8 days of creditable service, at the time of his transfer 
to the IRR,  although he had served in various branches of the Reserve for more than 20 years.   
 
 
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error or injustice on January 2, 1992.  
He stated that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his application if it has 
been more than 3 years since he discovered the error, because he was told several times that he 
was not eligible for the RTB program because he did not have 20 years of creditable service.   
 

The applicant submitted the following documents in support of his application: 

1.  Documents showing that he served in the Pennsylvania National Guard from March 26, 

1955 to January 3, 1956 and that he earned 123 points for this period of service. 

2.  DD  214  showing  that  he  served  on  active  duty  in  the  Navy  from  January  4,  1956,  to 
December 3, 1959, for a total of 3 years and 11 months on active duty.  After completion 
of required active duty, he was released from active duty into the Naval Reserve.   

3.  Record of Naval Service showing that as a member of the Naval Reserve from December 
4, 1959, until March 25, 1963, he earned only the 15 gratuitous points that are awarded 
each year.  [A minimum of 50 points per year is required for a satisfactory year of service 
that counts toward retirement.] 

4.  Army enlistment contract showing that he enlisted in the Army Reserve for 1 year on July 
2, 1974, which was extended for two  years on June 30, 1975.  He was discharged from 
the Army Reserve in July 1976.  [From July 7, 1976, to July 6, 1979, the applicant served 
in the Coast Guard Reserve.]  

5.  Documents  showing  that  he  served  in  the Air  Force  Reserve  from  September  25,  1979 
until  October  8,  1981.    [According  to  the  Coast  Guard,  this  period  of  service  is  not 
reflected on the applicant’s Computation of Retirement Point Credits statement.]  

6.  A  Coast  Guard  manually-prepared  Computation  of  Retirement  Point  Credits  statement 
showing that over his military career, the applicant had 15 years, 8 months, and 8 days of 
creditable service toward retirement.  It also showed that he had 9 years in which he did 
not earn the required 50 points per year to have a satisfactory year of service.  [Years in 
which a member fails to earn 50 points are not satisfactory years for retirement purposes.]    

7.  A  January  2,  1992  letter  from  the  Commander,  Second  Coast  Guard  District  to  the 
Commandant  requesting  a  correction  to  the  applicant’s  Retirement  Points  Credit 
statement.   The  letter  indicates  that  the  Commander  believed  that  the  applicant  had  not 
been credited with his Army National Guard and Navy service.  The letter asked that the 
applicant be given a “20 year letter” if he had that amount of service.   

8.  Although  not  submitted  by  the  applicant,  his  military  record  contains  a  March  2,  1992, 
response from the Commandant to the Commander’s letter.   The Commandant stated that 
the  applicant’s  time  in  the Army  National  Guard  and  the  Navy  was  already  included  in 
the  computation  and  that  his  total  qualifying  service  was  as  indicated  on  his  last  point 
statement.   

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS FROM APPLICANT’S MILITARY RECORD 

 
 
The applicant’s military record contains an August 24, 1991 administrative remarks page 
(page 7) counseling the applicant about his lack of attendance at the unit.  The applicant was in a 
SELRES assignment.  The counseling entry states the following: 
 

Counseled telephonically concerning members lack of attendance at this unit. 
 
[The applicant] states that he was  promoted in  the Pittsburgh Police Department 
which has been more demanding on his time and interferes with his [Coast Guard] 
attendance.   
 
[The applicant] states that he is now settled into his new job and will attend two 
weeks ADT at MSO Pittsburgh in Sept 1991.  In addition, he will start attending 
IADT drills on a regular basis. 
 
He is aware that further failure to attend drills will result in his being placed in the 
IRR. 

 

Member not  scheduled this weekend and thus  unavailable to  sign the page 7.  A 
copy is being mailed to his home address.   

 
The  military  record  shows  that  the  applicant  was  receiving  yearly  retirement  point 
 
statements.    The  one  for  the  year  from  October  9,  1990  to  October  8,  1991,  shows  that  he 
completed 4 of 4 drills per month for January and August, 2 of 4 drills per month for April, May, 
and December, 1 of 4 drills for September, and 0 of 4 drills for per month for February, March, 
June, and July.  The year was considered an unsatisfactory one.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion in 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum from the 
Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC noted the applicant had prior service in the 
National Guard, Navy, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, but also noted that the applicant’s 
service  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  was  not  included  on  his  October  8,  1991,  Computation  of 
Retirement Points statement.    
 

PSC offered the following chronology of the applicant’s Coast Guard Reserve Service.   

  The  applicant  enlisted  initially  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  on  July  7,  1976  and  was 

discharged on July 6, 1979. 

  After  serving  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  the  applicant  reenlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve  for  3  years  on  October  9,  1981,  and  subsequently  reenlisted  for  8  years  on 
September 22, 1984. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  The  applicant  was  assigned  to  Coast  Guard  Reserve  Unit  Pittsburgh  [in  the  SELRES] 

from September 1984 to October 1991. 

  The applicant was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve on October 28, 1991.  On 

November 24, 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the IRR transfer orders.   

  On January 2, 1992, the Commander, Second Coast Guard District requested a corrected 
retirement points statement for the applicant citing missing service credit for the time the 
applicant served in the Army National Guard and the Navy. 

  On  February  4,  1992,  Commander,  Second  Coast  Guard  District  mailed  a  letter  to  the 
applicant notifying him of his upcoming expiration of enlistment on September 21, 1992.  
The Commander asked the applicant to select whether he wanted to reenlist or extend his 
enlistment or whether he did not desire to reenlist.  Paragraph 4. of that letter advised the 
applicant  that  he  would  be  discharged  if  a  reply  was  not  received  by  the  date  of  his 
expiration of enlistment or obligation.   The last sentence of this paragraph reads “I urge 
you  to  protect  the  retirement  that  you  have  already  earned  by  staying  with  the  Reserve 
program.”   
 

  On  March  2,  1992,  the  Commandant  (C-RSM-3)  found  that  the  applicant  had  already 
been  credited  with  service  in  the  Army  National  Guard  and  the  Navy.    Therefore  no 
correction was made to his retirement points statement.   
  

Under the heading “Discussion and Conclusions of the PSC memorandum,” PSC stated that 
the application was not timely as the applicant listed the date of discovery of the alleged error as 
January 2, 1992. 

 
In addition, PSC stated that the applicant was not eligible for separation pay under the RTB 
program  because  he  had  15  years  or  more  of  service  when  he  was  transferred  to  the  IRR  in 
October 1991.  PSC noted the following with respect to the RTB program:  

The  [RTB]  program  provided  benefits  to  members  and  former  members  of  the 
Coast Guard Reserve who were involuntarily transferred, separated, discharged or 
retired from the Selected Reserve (SELRES) due to downsizing during the period 
from  [October  1,  1991  to  September  30,  1999].    The  RTB  program  provided 
temporary  authority  to  place  SELRES  members  whose  pay  billets  had  been 
disestablished  into  RET-2  status  (awaiting  retired  pay  at  age  60)  if  they  had  at 
least 15 but less than 20 years of service.  In addition, the RTB program provided 
separation pay for SELRES members having at least six but less than 15 years of 
service who were involuntarily removed from a pay status due to billet reductions.  
The eligibility for the RTB program covered from [October 1, 1991 to September 
30, 1999] and the details were outlined in COMDTINST 1001.37, procedures for 
submitting and processing request for reserve transition dated December 21, 1993. 

 

 

 

 

PSC also stated that the applicant would have been eligible for early qualification for retired 
pay  at  age  60  (RET-2  status)  if  his  transfer  to  the  IRR  was  involuntary  and  a  result  of  Coast 
Guard downsizing of the Coast Guard Reserve Workforce.  In this regard, PSC stated that there 
is no evidence to support whether the applicant’s transfer to the IRR was related to downsizing, 
but the orders transferring the applicant to the IRR imply they were involuntary.   PSC stated the 
following: 

 

As  outlined  in  Reserve  Transition  Benefits  (RTB)  policy,  eligible  members  who 
received a notification letter had one year from the date of the notification letter to 
indicate  their  intentions  to  elect  RTB.    Former  members  were  required  to  apply 
directly to Commandant  (G-RSM) but no time frame for application is specified 
in RTB policy. 

 

Applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard Reserve in September 1992 prior 
to  promulgation  of  the  Reserve  Benefits  Transition  Benefits  policy  in  1993.  
There  is  no  evidence  to  support  that  applicant  either  received  a  notification  of 
potential eligibility for RTB letter from the Coast Guard or that applicant applied 
directly to Commandant (G-RSM) for RTB as a former member.   

 

PSC stated that the applicant indicates he “was told several times” that he was not eligible for 
the RTB program but provides no documentation to support previous applications for RTB.  PSC 
also  stated  that  authority  for  the  RTB  program  ended  in  1999.    Members  who  did  not  make 
claims  when  the  authority  was  still  in  effect  are  now  limited  by  the  Barring Act  (31  U.S.C.  § 
3702), which limits claims against the government to six years. 

 
PSC  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  presumptively  correct,  and  the  applicant  has  failed  to 

substantiate any error or injustice with regard to his record.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

The  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  did  not  agree  with  the 

 
 
recommendation.  He provided the following with respect to the untimeliness of his application: 
 

 

 

In 1992 and 1997 when he turned 60 years old, he applied for a retirement letter because 
he had 23 years of service.   He was told that he did not qualify for retirement because he 
did not have 20 years of creditable service.  He was not told about the RTB program at 
that time.  He stated that he dropped the matter because he had no proof of his retirement 
points and that the majority of his mail was placed in the trash by an ex-wife.   

In 2007, he attended a free legal clinic for veterans and spoke with an attorney who told 
him to get his record from the archives.  He received a copy of his record and reapplied 
for retirement in February 2009.   

  When he did not hear anything about his retirement request by August 2010, he went to 
the local Coast Guard base and no one there was aware of his situation.  He was referred 
to  the Pay  and Finance  Center in Topeka, Kansas.  The RTB  program  was explained to 

 

 

 

 

 

him and he was referred to the BCMR.    This was the first time that he had heard of the 
RTB program. He would have taken it if he had known about it because that was money 
in his pocket. 

With  respect  to  the  voluntariness  of  his  transfer  into  the  IRR  the  applicant  stated  the 

following:  

 

  He  did  not  volunteer  to  go  into  the  IRR.    His  commanding  officer  (CO)  had  just  taken 
over  the  unit  and  wanted  perfect  attendance  on  weekends.   As  a  police  officer  with  the 
Pittsburgh Police Department it was hard to  get  weekends off.   In a discussion with  his 
CO,  he  explained  to  the  CO  that  he  could  not  drill  on  weekends  or  during  the  week 
because  he  had  just  been  promoted  to  detective  and  his  days  off  were  Tuesdays  and 
Wednesdays, his hours were from noon to 8 p.m., and that he had court 5 days per week.  
 

  He told the CO that he was entitled to 2 weeks of military leave from his job and that he 
was entitled to 5 weeks of vacation time.  He asked the CO if he would help him use his 5 
weeks of vacation to make up his drills.   
 

  He  received  a  letter  transferring  him  to  the  IRR  shortly  his  conversation  with  the  CO 

about his attendance. 
 

  He  explained  that  his  work  schedule  had  not  changed  and  that  it  would  do  no  good  to 
reenlist, when the IRR wanted him to do so.  He stated that as far as he was concerned he 
had  23  years  of  service  and  should  have  been  retired.    He  stated  that  he did  not  realize 
that each time he switched services he lost a year of creditable service for retirement.  He 
contends  that  he  has  2  years  of Air  Force  service  that  has  not  been  credited  to  him,  as 
well as 2 years with the Army Reserve, although he is not sure that the 2 years of Army 
Reserve service were good years.    

 

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 is  timely.  The  Board is  persuaded that the  applicant discovered the 
existence  of  RTB  in  2007.      He  complied  with  the  Board’s  statute  of  limitations  by  filing  an 
application with the Board in 2010.   
 
 
3.      COMDTINST  1001.37  (Procedures  for  Submitting  and  Processing  Requests  for 
Reserve  Transition  Benefits)  issued  on  December  21,  1992  stated  that  the  RTB  program  was 
designed  to  ensure  that  SELRES  members  who  were  involuntarily  separated,  discharged, 
transferred, or retired during the period of force drawdown were treated fairly and equitably by 
providing certain benefits and compensation.   As noted in Article 6 of COMDTINST 1001.37,  

 

 

ALDIST  345/93  implemented  regulations  for  the  RTB  program.    According  to  Article  1  of 
ALDIST  345/93,  RTB  benefits  applied  to  members  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  who  were 
involuntarily  transferred  from  the  Selected  Reserve.    Article  2  of  the  regulation  defined 
involuntary separation as the discharge of a member from the Coast Guard Reserve or transfer of 
such  member  from  the  SELRES  during  the  period  beginning  October  1,  1991,  and  ending  
September 30, 1999, unless one or more of the following conditions applies:  “A. The member 
was  discharged  or  transferred  from  the  [SELRES]  .  .  .  (2)  “[a]s  the  result  of  the  member’s 
unsatisfactory participation or unsatisfactory performance in the SELRES . . .”   
 
 
4.    There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  the  applicant’s  transfer  to  the  IRR  resulted 
from downsizing.  However, there is evidence in the record that the applicant was transferred to 
the IRR because of unsatisfactory drill participation.  At the time of the applicant’s transfer from 
the SELRES to the IRR in October 1991, his immediate past year of participation in the SELRES 
was  unsatisfactory.    For  a  satisfactory  year  of  participation  in  the  SELRES,  the  applicant  was 
required  to  complete  a  minimum  of  75%  of  48  scheduled  drills.  See  Article  4-A-1.  of  the 
Reserve  Policy  Manual  (1991).    This  provision  stated  that  the  CO  will  schedule  4  drills  each 
month  and  that  members  like  the  applicant  who  had  completed  their  initial  military  obligation 
were required to satisfactorily participate in 75% of such scheduled drills each anniversary year.   
According  to  the  applicant’s  Retirement  Points  Statement  for  the  year  October  9,  1990  to 
October  8,  1991,  the  applicant  completed  only  16  of  48  scheduled  drills.    Earlier,  in  August 
1991,  a  page  7  counseling  entry  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  record  noting  that  he  was 
counseled about his lack of drill participation and informing him that any further failure to attend 
drills  would  result  in  his  transfer  to  the  IRR.    After  being  counseled,  the  applicant  completed 
only  1  of  the  4  drills  for  September  1991.    Therefore,  on  October  31,  1991,  the  Commander, 
Second  Coast  Guard  District  informed  the  applicant  by  letter  that  he  had  been  assigned  to  the 
IRR.  
 
  
5.  Although the letter to the applicant informing him of his assignment to the IRR did not 
state  the  specific  reason  for  the  transfer,  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  establishes  that  it 
occurred  because  of  the  applicant’s  unsatisfactory  drill  attendance.    In  this  regard,  the  Board 
notes  the  applicant’s  unsatisfactory  drill  participation  for  the  year  immediately  preceding  his 
transfer  to  the  IRR,  the  page  7  advising  him  that  he  would  be  transferred  to  the  IRR  if  he 
continued to miss drills, the fact that he completed only 1 of 4 drills in September 1991, and the 
fact that he was transferred to the IRR the following month.  Since the applicant was transferred 
from  his  SELRES  assignment  because  of  unsatisfactory  participation,  his  transfer  is  not 
considered  involuntary  under  Article  2  of  ALDIST  345/93.      As  stated  above,  Article  2  of 
ALDIST 345/93 stated that a transfer from the SELRES to the IRR was not involuntary if it was 
due  to  a  member’s  unsatisfactory  participation  or  unsatisfactory  performance.      Therefore,  the 
applicant was not eligible for early qualification for retirement under the RTB regulation.    
 
 
6.  Nor was the applicant eligible for separation pay under Article 7 of ALDIST 345/93 
because  his  transfer  from  the  SELRES  was  not  involuntary.    Under  the  regulation,  a  member 
who was involuntarily transferred from the SELRES and who had completed at least 6 years but 
less than 15  years of service under 10 USC § 12732 on the date of the member’s involuntarily 
separation shall be eligible for separation pay.   As stated earlier, the applicant  was not  eligible 
for  separation  pay  under  the  RTB  program  because  his  transfer  from  the  SELRES  was  due  to 

 

 

unsatisfactory  participation  and  therefore  was  not  considered  involuntary.    In  addition,  he  had 
more than 15 years of satisfactory service at the time of his transfer to the IRR.   
 
 
7.  The applicant was discharged (completely severed) from the Coast Guard Reserve in 
1992.    The  discharge  occurred  while  he  was  a  member  of  the  IRR  and  not  the  SELRES.  
Therefore, his discharge from the Coast Guard is not covered under the RTB regulation.  Even if 
his discharge from the IRR were covered under RTB regulation, the applicant would still not be 
eligible  for  benefits  because  he  was  notified  of  his  impending  expiration  of  enlistment  and 
provided with an opportunity to reenlist or extend his enlistment.  As he stated in his response to 
the advisory opinion, he opted not to reenlist because of his civilian job requirements at the time. 
Article  2.F.  of  ALDIST  345/93  states  that  a  discharge  is  not  involuntary  if  “the  member  was 
discharged  on  expiration  of  the  member’s  term  of  enlistment,  unless  the  member  was  fully 
qualified  for  reenlistment,  requested  reenlistment,  but  was  not  authorized  to  reenlist.”    The 
applicant’s reenlistment was authorized but he chose not to reenlist.   (However, if the applicant 
had  reenlisted  or  extended  and  remained  in  the  IRR,  he  could  have  earned  retirement  points 
through correspondence courses, etc.  By earning points other than for pay, the applicant  could 
have obtained 20 years of satisfactory service for retirement if he had remained in the IRR.) 
 
8.  Although the applicant states that he has over 23 years of total service and should have 
 
received a 20-year retirement, the regulation requires that a member have 20 years of satisfactory 
service to qualify for retired pay at age 60.  Enclosure (1-1) to the Reserve Policy Manual (1991) 
defines  a  year  of  satisfactory  federal  service  as  any  anniversary  year  during  which  a  reservist 
earned  a  minimum  of  50  retirement  points;  the  accumulation  of  20  such  years  is  required  for 
retirement with pay, except under the RTB program.   The applicant’s military record does  not 
support  a  finding  that  he  had  20  years  of  satisfactory  federal  service,  and  he  has  not  presented 
other evidence establishing that he earned 50 points during 20 of the 23 years in which he served 
in  the  Reserve.    Even  if  the  two  years  that  he  served  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve  are  credited  as 
satisfactory (and the applicant presented no evidence that they were), that would bring his total 
years  of  satisfactory  service  to  approximately  17,  years,  8  months  and  8  days  of  creditable 
service, which is still not enough for a 20-year retirement.  
 
 
9.  Article 4 of ALDIST 345/93 required that “[a]ll members of the Coast Guard Selected 
Reserve  involuntarily  separated  after  October  1,  1991  are  to  be  informed  of  the  rights  and 
benefits [of the RTB program].”  However, because the applicant’s transfer from the SELRES to 
the  IRR  and  his  discharge  from  the  Coast  Guard  were  not  involuntary  under  Article  2  of  the 
regulation, there was no requirement for the Coast Guard to inform him of the RTB program.     
 
 
10.    Since  PSC  noted  that  the  applicant’s  Computation  of  Retirement  Points  Credit 
Statement does not include his Air Force Reserve Service, the Board will direct the Coast Guard 
to  prepare  a  new  Computation  of  Retirement  Points  Credit  Statement  for  the  applicant  that 
includes all of his active and reserve service.  
 
 
11.  Therefore, the application should be denied because the applicant has failed to prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not 
retiring  him  or  authorizing  separation  pay  for  him  under  the  RTB  regulation.    Nor  did  the 

 

 

applicant  prove that he  had 20  years of satisfactory service to  be eligible for retired pay  at  age 
60.   

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

  

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

The application of former PS1 XXXXXXX, xxx xx xxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 
military record is  denied.   However, the Coast  Guard shall issue  to  him  a new Computation of 
Retirement Points Credit statement that includes all of his active and reserve service, including 
his service in the Air Force Reserve.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Julia Doig Wilcox 

 
 Vicki J. Ray