DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-048 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  

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  December  19,  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  August  16,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
 
 The  applicant  retired  from  active  service  effective  December  1,  2010.    He  asked  the 
Board to correct his record to show that he voluntarily retired on July 1, 2011 with 34 years of 
service and with back pay and allowances.    
 

ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant was serving under an enlistment contract that expired on July 1, 2011.  He 
 
alleged that the Coast Guard improperly and unfairly forced him to retire prior to the expiration 
of his enlistment by threatening to separate him without retirement, which it had no authority to 
do.   The applicant stated the following: 
 

After nearly 33 years of service, applicant was notified in late 2009 that he would 
not be permitted to compete for a follow on assignment as command master chief 
(CMC)  as  he  was  expected  to  retire  within  the  next  year.    Although  applicant 
submitted a request for voluntary retirement and selected a retirement date within 
his  current  enlistment,  applicant’s  chosen  retirement  date  of  1  July  2011  was 
denied.  Applicant was encouraged to select a retirement date that fell within the 
period of 1 Sept 2010 thru 1 Dec 2010.  It is clear that any date outside this period 
would  not  be  approved.    If  applicant’s  request  for  voluntary  retirement  was  not 
approved,  applicant  was  told  he  would  face  an  administrative  separation  for 

 

 

 

convenience of the government.  Applicant submitted a new Request for voluntary 
retirement  with  a  retirement  date  of  1  Dec  2010.    The  new  retirement  date  was 
approved.    Applicant  currently  receives  retired  pay  of  $5,336.00  per  month.  
Applicant would have received retired pay of $5,716.00 per month had his chosen 
retirement date been approved.  [References to tabs omitted.] 

APPLICANT’S CHRONOLOGY 

 

In late 2009, the applicant submitted a package requesting another CMC assignment.  On 
the  eve  of  the  interview  process,  he  was  notified  that  his  application  was  being  withdrawn 
because he was expected to retire within the next year.   
 

On February 24, 2010, the applicant sent an email to the Chief  of Enlisted Assignments 

expressing his intention to select August 1, 2011 as his retirement date.1   
                                                 
1 The applicant submitted an email string of  his conversation  with Coast Guard personnel about his situation.   On 
February  24,  2010,  the  applicant  asked  Coast  Guard  personnel  about  his  rotation  date.   On  February  24,  2010,  an 
YNC  E  told  the  applicant  that  his  rotation  date  was  July  15,  2010.    The  applicant  then  asked  YNC  about  the 
expiration  of  his  enlistment  extension  contract  and  if  it  contained  any  conditions.   YNC  E  responded  as  follows:  
“You last extended on October 7, 2007 to accept orders to the [Training Center].  The only provision I see is on the 
PCS orders.”  It states “please be advised that your rotation date is subject to change based on the selecting official’s 
desires and or Service/program needs.”   
 

After  the  emails  with YNC  E  the  applicant  sent  an  email  to  the  Chief  of  Enlisted Assignments,  CDR  G, 
stating that he would be submitting his retirement letter with an effective date of August 1, 2011, that coincided with 
his  end  of  enlistment.    The  applicant  argued  that  under  the  regulation  he  could  pick  a  retirement  date  within  his 
enlistment period.  CDR G responded to the applicant’s email with the following in pertinent part: 
 

I think we are interpreting this very differently and I would encourage you to rethink this before it 
goes any further . . .   
 
First  let  me  just  assure  you  that  I  can  understand  your  position  on  the  matter,  and  perhaps 
disappointment  at  the  recent  decision  concerning  your  continued  service.    I  think  that  the 
discussion between our senior leaders was extremely pointed, and once all sides were weighed out 
– a clear direction was afforded to us all.   I was not in the room, but I know an order when I get 
one – and this one was crystal clear and it came from the most senior level of our organization.   
 
While it is true that you signed a contract beyond 30 years of service, I believe the program also 
states  that  a  member,  “.  .  .  in  pay  grade  E-9  who  [is]  completing  or  [has]  been  ordered  to  a 
standard  tour  in  the  MCPO-CG  and  Commandant  –designated  “Gold  Badge”  CMC  and  RFMC 
billets  may reenlist or extend beyond 30 years’ active  military service for a period not to exceed 
completion of a standard tour as the CMC or RFMC.” 
 
The  key  operative  term  here  is  “not  to  exceed  completion  of  a  standard  tour  as  the  CMC  .  .  .” 
when the CMC’s principal retires or is transferred, that is the completion of the CMC tour.  Were it 
not the case, Flag [officers] and major command COs would not be able to select their Gold Badge 
CMCs and incumbents would always stay in position for a four-year tour.  This is the reason you 
sought  to recompete this  year as  well.  While this  may  not be the case in  future revisions of the 
program’s COMDTINST, the Senior Leaders who made this decision further defined their opinion 
of a “standard tour” as three years – which you will have completed this summer.   
 
You  have  been  notified  .  .  .  that  your  tour  of  duty  is  complete  this  summer  and  you  will  not  be 
afforded an additional HYT waiver to remain on active duty.   

 

 

 

On  February  25,  2010,  the  Chief  of  Enlisted Assignments  responded  to  the  applicant’s 
email  stating  that  a  direct  order  had  been  given  that  CMC  voluntary  retirements  should  occur 
between September 1, 2010 and December 1, 2010.   
 

On February 26, 2010, Chief of Enlisted Assignments sent an email to the applicant and 
the other CMCs similarly situated advising them to submit their voluntary requests for retirement 
with  effective  dates  between  September  1,  2010  and  December  1,  2010,  in  order  to  avoid  an 
administrative separation for the convenience of the government.  
 

On  March  8,  2010,  the  applicant  submitted  a  voluntary  retirement  request  with  an 

effective date of July 1, 2011. 
 

On March 23, 2010, the applicant was notified that his July 1, 2011 requested retirement 

date was disapproved.   
 

On  April  16,  2010,  the  applicant  submitted  his  retirement  request  with  a  revised 
December  1,  2010  retirement  date.    He  stated  in  that  request,  “In  accordance  with  the  direct 
orders issue to me . . . I acknowledge those orders and submit my retirement letter for the first 
day of December 2010.”  The new date was approved.   
 

APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS 

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  was  allowed  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  3  years  and  10 
months  on  April  2,  2007,  without  any  conditions.    The  effective  date  of  the  extension  was 
October  1,  2007.   The  extension  agreement  indicates  that  the  purpose  of  the  extension  was  for 
“obligated service for transfer.”  The applicant asserted that the length of his extension met the 
definition  for  a  standard  tour  under  Article  12.G.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.      The  applicant 
stated that Article 12.G.3 is relevant because it establishes the length of time an E-9 (master chief 
petty officer) may serve on in the Coast Guard.  It states the following: 
 

Thirty years’ active military service.  May reenlist or extend up to but not beyond 
30 years, one month’s active military service.  Members in pay grade E-9 who are 
completing  or  have  been  ordered  to  a  standard  tour  in  the  MCPO-CG  and 
Commandant-designate  “Gold  Badge”  CMC  and  RFMC  [Rating  Force  Master 
Chief] billets may reenlist or extend beyond 30 years’ active military service for a 
period not to exceed completion of a standard tour as the MCM or RFMC.    

  
 
The  applicant  stated  that  based  on Article  12.G.3.  his  tour  of  duty  was    3  years  and  10 
months, the period covered by his enlistment extension.  The applicant stated that years after his 
extension became effective the Coast Guard changed the definition of “Standard Tour Length” to 
some variable length of time determined by the transfer of the commander for whom the CMC 
worked,  or  in  the  alternative,  to  a  three  year  period.    The  applicant  stated  that  by  operation  of 
law, if the standard tour length was 3 years then he could only extend for 3 years.  He argued that 
since he was allowed to extend for longer than 3 years, his standard tour length was longer than 3 
years.   

 

 

 
 
The applicant argued that the Coast Guard’s statement that a standard tour of duty for an 
CMC  terminates  on  the  transfer  or  retirement  of  the  commander  for  whom  the  CMC  works  is 
arbitrary because the period  of duty can never be known in  advance.   The applicant  stated that 
keeping  a  CMC  in  the  Coast  Guard  whose  commander  has  moved  on  does  not  mean  that  the 
succeeding commander cannot select his or her own CMC.  In the applicant’s opinion, the Coast 
Guard can transfer the outgoing CMC to another job until his enlistment expires.  The applicant 
argued  that  once  the  Coast  Guard  extended  his  enlistment  to  July  1,  2011  that  became  the 
termination date for his standard tour of duty. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  ALCOAST  298/09  does  not  require  that  an  enlisted  member 
submit  his  retirement  request  for  a  particular  year,  because  not  doing  so  ensures  that 
replacements for retiring personnel are within the normal summer rotation period.   Paragraph 1. 
of ALCOAST 298/09 states, “Enlisted members requesting voluntary retirement should request a 
retirement date on the first day of any month between September and December.  If the requested 
retirement  date  is  for  any  month  between  January  and  August,  the  request  must  contain  a 
command  endorsement  acknowledging  and  accepting  the  temporary  position  vacancy  that  may 
result from retirement outside the normal transfer season.”   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  if  the  Coast  Guard  believed  that  he  was  unfit  to  serve  out  the 
remaining  portion  of  his  enlistment,  the  appropriate  mechanism  was  to  convene  a  board  under 
Article 12.C.10.c. of the Personnel Manual,2 which would have afforded significant due process 
to the applicant.  Instead of a retirement board, the Coast Guard told the applicant he would be 
separated, if he did not submit a request to retire by December 1, 2010.  The applicant stated that 
the Coast Guard forced him to  choose an earlier retirement date by threatening to separate him 
without retirement when they had no authority to do so.  The applicant concluded by stating that 
he served the Coast Guard faithfully for over 30 years and that the Coast Guard improperly and 
unfairly forced him to retire by threatening to separate him without retirement.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April  4,  2012,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  accordance  with  a  memorandum 
submitted by the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
PSC acknowledged that the applicant extended his enlistment for 3 years and 10 months 
to  accept  transfer  orders.    PSC  stated  that  while  the  applicant’s  travel  orders  indicated  that  the 
period  of  duty  was  from  July  16,  2007  until  July  15,  2011,  the  orders  also  stated  that  the 
assignment  required  a  minimum  of  two  years  obligated  service  and  that  his  “rotation  date  is 
subject to change base upon the selecting officials desires and/or other service/ program needs.”  

                                                 
2      Under  Article  12.C.10.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  Commandant  may,  at  his  discretion,  convene  a  Coast 
Guard  Enlisted  Personnel  Board  to  recommend  enlisted  members  with  20  or  more  years  of  active  service  for 
involuntary  retirement.    Commanding  officers  recommend  enlisted  member  for  consideration  by  an  Enlisted 
Personnel Board whose conduct is marginal; whose financial irresponsibility will discredit the Coast Guard through 
voluminous correspondence with creditors; and whose leadership, performance of duty . . . are below the standards 
expected for their rate.  Members considered by an Enlisted Personnel Board are afforded a hearing.   

 

 

The applicant’s travel orders also congratulated the applicant on his “Gold Badge Assignment.”  
PSC stated that because the Commanding Officer Cape May (where the applicant was assigned 
as  CMC)  received  transfer  orders  to  a  new  assignment  with  a  June  1,  2010  report  date,  the 
applicant was approved for retirement on December 1, 2010, although he had requested July 1, 
2011.  PSC stated that since a CMC’s tour of duty is dependent on the flag officer’s or training 
command CO’s tour of duty, it was appropriate for the Coast Guard to end the applicant’s tour of 
duty in the summer of 2010.     
 
PSC  argued  that  since  the  applicant  exceeded  his  high  year  tenure  (HYT)3  (30  years 
 
active service at  pay  grade E-9) on September 26, 2007, he could  not  have remained on active 
duty past 2010 because he no longer had the CMC billet.  He would have required a waiver to 
remain on active duty past 2010, which the Coast Guard was not likely to grant.   
 
 
PSC stated that the applicant’s request for a July 1, 2011 retirement with applicable pay 
and  allowances  amounts  to  a  request  for  constructive  active  duty  credit.    PSC  stated  that 
according to Anderson v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 452 (2004), constructive credit is a doctrine 
under which military personnel who have been illegally or improperly separated from service are 
deemed  to  have  continued  in  active  service  until  their  legal  separation.      With  regard  to 
constructive service credit, PSC stated the following: 
 

The  applicant  was  not  illegally  or  improperly  separated.   All  applicable  policies 
were followed with regard to his PCS orders, obligating service for transfer, and 
ultimately  leaving  the  CMC  position;  a  position  which  allowed  him  three  more 
years  of  active  duty  time  that  would  not  have  been  earned  due  to  his  HYT 
professional  growth  point  [PGP]  date.[4]   Additionally,  a  request  for  constructive 
service credit would have to  be in  conjunction  with voiding his  separation.  The 
applicant  has  not  requested  that  his  separation  be  voided  instead  he  demands 
credit  for  active  duty  time  not  served.    For  this  request  to  be  possible,  the 
applicant  would  have  to  return  to  active  duty  and  serve  the  additional  months, 
which he is not eligible to do because he has exceeded his HYT PGP. 

PSC asserted 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 

 
On May 1, 2012, the Board received the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion.  He 
 
disagreed that his application should be denied.  In this regard, the applicant disagreed with PSC 

                                                 
3 Article 12.G.1. of the Personnel Manual states that the high year tenure policy establishes limits on the amount  of 
time  an  active  duty  enlisted  member  can  remain  at  each  pay  grade.    The  policy  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.    
4  Article 12.G.3. states that the maximum time that an E-9 (master chief) can remain in the service is 30 years and 
one month.  However as exception is made for members in pay grade in E-9 who have been ordered to a standard 
tour  in  Commandant-designated  “Gold  Badge”  CMC  billets.    Such  E-9s  may  reenlist  or  extend  beyond  30  years’ 
active military service for a period not to exceed completion of a standard tour as the CMC.    

 

 

contention that his tour length depended upon the tour of his principal officer and ended upon the 
departure  of  RDML  T.    The  applicant  stated  that  RDML  T  was  not  the  applicant’s  first 
commanding officer at that command.  His first CO was RDML S who departed after one year.  
Subsequently, he worked for RDML T for two years.  The applicant stated that if his tour ended 
upon the transfer of his CO, then it would have ended upon the transfer of RDML S.  He stated 
that since he continued to serve for two years after RDML  S left, his tour did not end upon the 
departure of his principal officer.   
 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  under  COMDINST  1306.1C,  the  tour  length  of  a  command 
master chief is four  years.  According to the applicant, this definition comports with him being 
allowed  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  three  years  and  ten  months  beyond  his  normal  high  year 
tenure point.  He stated that if the standard tour length was three years as argued, he would not 
have been able to extend beyond three years.  He stated that his tour length was for four years. 
 
The applicant stated that the caveat in his travel orders that his rotation date was subject 
 
to change based on the selection official’s desires and/or service/program  needs is not stated in 
his enlistment contract and does not apply to it.   The applicant also stated the following: 
 

PSC clearly considers [the applicant’s] period of enlistment as synonymous with 
his tour length.  But they are not the same thing.  His tour length is the period of 
time he remains  in  one location or in  one position.  His enlistment  period is  the 
amount of time he has remaining on his enlistment contract.  Just because his tour 
as  the  command  master  chief  at  [Cape  May]  required  an  extension  of  his 
enlistment, does not mean they are not the same thing.  Many tours end before an 
enlistment contract ends.  In those cases, the Coast Guard moves the member to 
another  location  or  position  until  the  member’s  enlistment  is  over.    Forcing  [the 
applicant] to retire before his enlistment period was over was unjust.  He did not 
wish to retire until his enlistment contract was over and he should not have been 
required to do so.   

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.   The application was timely. 
 
 
2.    The  applicant,  who  voluntarily  retired  on  December  1,  2010,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  voluntarily  retired  on  July  1,  2011,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances.   
 
 
3.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  forced  him  into  submitting  a  voluntary 
retirement request prior to the expiration of his July 30, 2011 enlistment contract and prior to the 
end  of  his  CMC  tour  of  duty  by  threatening  to  administratively  separate  him  from  the  Coast 
Guard for convenience of the government, if he did not request retirement with an effective date 

 

 

no later than December 1, 2010.   The applicant argued that his CMC tour of duty was for 4 years 
as  evidenced  by  the  length  of  his  extension  agreement  (3  years  and  10  months),  which  he 
executed to accept orders to  the CMC assignment.   The applicant argued that  the Coast Guard 
committed an error and/or injustice by terminating his tour of duty in the summer of 2010, when 
the applicant’s CO transferred to a new assignment.   
 
4.   Article  4.A.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (2010)  discusses  tour  lengths  for  enlisted 
  
personnel.    The  provision  described  tour  lengths  for  various  assignments,  ranging  from  one  to 
four years, but makes it clear that the tour lengths are targets or goals and subject to change due 
to service needs.  The applicant’s transfer orders for his CMC assignment were for a period from 
July 16, 2007 to July 15, 2011.  With regard to CMC assignments specifically, Article 4.E.12.a. 
of the Personnel  Manual states that  “the [CMC’s] tour of duty depends on the flag officer’s or 
training  command  CO’s  tour  of  duty.”    The  applicant’s  standard  travel  orders  for  the  CMC 
assignment contained the very same limitation.  The orders stated, “Please be advised that your 
rotation  date  is  subject  to  change  based  upon  the  selection  official’s  desires  and  or 
service/program  needs.”   The CO  for  whom the  applicant  served  as CMC transferred to a new 
assignment  on  June  1,  2010.    With  the  prospective  transfer  of  the  applicant’s  CO  on  June  1, 
2010,  the  Coast  Guard  determined  that  the  applicant’s  CMC  tour  of  duty  would  also  end  that 
summer  and  requested  that  he  submit  a  voluntary  retirement  request.    The  Coast  Guard’s 
determination  that  the  applicant’s  CMC  tour  of  duty  ended  with  the  CO’s  transfer  to  a  new 
assignment  is  consistent with  the  Personnel  Manual  and  with  the  early  rotation  warning  on  his 
standard travel orders.   
 

5.  The applicant argued that it was an error and/or injustice for the Coast Guard to seek 
his  removal  from  active  duty  prior  to  the  expiration  of  his  enlistment  extension.    However, 
Article 12.B.12.a of the Personnel Manual states that Commander, PSC may authorize or direct 
enlisted  members  to  separate  for  the  convenience  of  the  government  for  any  of  18  reasons, 
including “When the Commandant so directs for good and sufficient reason.”   In Birt v. United 
States, 180 Ct. Cl. 910 (1967), the court stated that “a serviceman does not have a right per se to 
remain  in  service  until  the  expiration  of  his  enlistment”  and  that  a  service  member  may  be 
removed  administratively  prior  to  that  time.      The  Board  is  not  aware  of  any  regulation  that 
prohibits the Commandant from discharging a member, even one with 20 or more years of active 
service for the convenience of the government.    In addition, the applicant had reached his HYT 
(30 years of service) and could not be reassigned to another tour of duty without a waiver, which 
the  Coast  Guard  would  not  grant.    Accordingly,  his  options  were  voluntary  retirement  or 
discharge.   
 
 
6.  The applicant argued that the Coast Guard forced him to submit a voluntary retirement 
request by threatening to administratively discharge him for convenience  of the  government,  if 
he  did  not  submit  one  with  an  effective  date  no  later  than  December  1,  2010.    The  question  is 
whether or not the applicant’s retirement request was voluntary. If the applicant’s retirement was 
involuntary and improper, he could be entitled to some relief.   See Osborn v. United States, 47 
Fed.  Cl.  224,  229  (2000).    The  evidence  of  record  shows  that  the  Coast  Guard  wanted  and 
encouraged the applicant and several other CMCs to retire within the 2010 calendar  year.  The 
evidence indicates that the applicant initially objected to retiring prior to August 1, 2011, which 
was the date for the end of his enlistment.  The Coast Guard indicated to the applicant’s CO that 

 

 

request 

for 

retirement  was  extracted 

if  the  applicant  did  not  submit  a  voluntary  retirement  request,  he  would  be  administratively 
discharged  for  convenience  of  the  government,  which  was  communicated  to  the  applicant  and 
which  the  applicant  believed  would  cause  him  to  be  ineligible  for  retired  pay.  The  applicant 
subsequently submitted a retirement request with a December 1, 2010 effective date, which the 
Coast Guard approved.  The applicant’s retirement request is presumed to be voluntary as it was 
submitted  pursuant  to  14  U.S.C.  §  354  (Voluntary  Retirement  after  thirty  Years’  service)  and 
Article 12.C.11. (Procedures to retire enlisted members) of the Personnel Manual.   
 
7.  The applicant can rebut the presumption that his retirement was voluntary by showing 
 
that  his  voluntary 
through  duress,  coercion, 
misrepresentation, or mental incompetence.  Osborn at 230, citing Longhofer v. United States, 29 
Fed.  Cl.  595,  601  (1993).      The  applicant  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  threatened  him  with  an 
administrative  discharge  if  he  did  not  submit  his  voluntary  retirement  request.    However,  the 
Board  interprets  the  Coast  Guard’s  actions  as  providing  the  applicant  with  the  option  of 
voluntary retirement or administrative separation for convenience of the government.  He chose 
to voluntarily retire.  The applicant offered no evidence of duress, coercion, misrepresentation or 
mental incompetence in submitting his retirement request.  In Sammt v. United States, 780 F.2d. 
31  (Fed.  Cir.  1985),  Sammt  had  failed  twice  for  promotion  and  was  told  that  he  would  be 
involuntarily  retired  unless  he  requested  voluntary  retirement,  which  he  did.    The  Court  of 
Appeals  stated  that  that  the  exercise  of  an  option  to  retire  is  not  rendered  involuntary  by  the 
imminent imposition of a less desirable alternative. Id at 32; see also Cruz v. Dep’t of Navy, 934 
F.2d.  1240,  1245  (Fed  Cir.  1991).      In  this  case,  to  avoid  being  administratively  discharged, 
which  the  Coast  Guard  had  the  authority  to  do,  the  applicant  chose  to  voluntarily  retire  and 
receive retired pay.   The applicant’s voluntary retirement foreclosed any claim for constructive 
service credit and back pay and allowances.   See Smith v. Sec’y of Army, 384 F.3d 1288, 1295 
(Fed. Cir. 2004).   
 
 
8.    The  applicant’s  suggestion  that  he  should  have  had  an  Enlisted  Personnel  Board  is 
without merit.  Enlisted Personnel Boards are convened at the discretion of the Commandant and 
he  had  not  exercised  his  discretion  to  convene  one  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s  retirement.  
Moreover,  the  applicant  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  consideration  by  an  Enlisted  Personnel 
Board under Article 12.C.10.c. of the Personnel Manual, which includes marginal performance, 
financial problems, and poor performance of duty.  The applicant’s situation was that his CMC 
tour had ended and he had reached his HYT that the Coast Guard did not waive.  Therefore, his 
options were to voluntarily retire or to be discharged.  He chose retirement.   
 
 
in this case. 
 
 
 
 

9.  The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 

10.  Accordingly, his application should be denied.     

  
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  for  correction  of  her  military 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Marion T. Cordova 

 

 

 

 
 
 Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 
 Rebecca D. Orban 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.