DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2012-091 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

FINAL DECISION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

This is a further consideration of BCMR no. 2011-152 conducted 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  for  further  consideration  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  submission  of 
additional  evidence  outlined  in  the  earlier  BCMR  decision.    The  application  on  further 
consideration was assigned a new docket no. BCMR No. 2012-091.   
 
This  final  decision  on  further  consideration  dated  December  7,  2012,  is  approved  and 
 
signed by the three duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this 
case. 

 

PRIOR CASE SUMMARY (DOCKET NO. 2011-152) 

The  applicant,  a  chief  marine  science  technician  (MSTC),  in  the  Coast  Guard  Selected 
Reserve  (SELRES)  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  so  that  the  “[b]ad  year  [2007]  for 
retirement be removed.”   A reservist is required to earn 50 points per anniversary  year for that 
year to count toward the 20 years of satisfactory service necessary for retired pay at age 60.  The 
applicant earned only 49 points for his anniversary year ending in April 13, 2007.  The applicant 
stated at that time that he had 19 years of satisfactory service.  He stated that he did not discover 
the alleged error until September 2010 when he received a statement of creditable service.1   
 

The  applicant  was  injured  in  an  automobile  accident  on  December  26,  2006,  and  was 
unable to resume performing his reserve drills until March 12, 2007.  He argued that he tried to 
complete a good year after his doctor cleared him to return to work by drilling on March 17, 18, 
25, and again on April 7 and 14, and by performing annual duty for training (ADT) from April 
16, 2007, to April 27, 2007.  He fell short by one drill point.   
 

As  stated  above,  the  applicant  was  injured  in  an  automobile  accident  on  December  26, 
2006.  Although the police report stated that no injuries were reported at that time, on January 3, 
2007, an internist gave the applicant a disability certificate stating that he was under the doctor’s 

                                                 
1    What  the  applicant  received  was  probably  a  Retirement  Points  Statement  because  a  Statement  of  Creditable 
Service does not normally record drill points.   

 

 

care and that he was totally incapacitated beginning on December 26, 2006.  On January 8, 2007, 
an  orthopedist  diagnosed  the  applicant  with  cervical  and  lumbar  strains  and  spasms  and 
prescribed treatment with therapy.  The orthopedist stated that the applicant could return to work 
in a full capacity on March 12, 2007.  
 

 

On August 19, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in the previous application in which he recommended that the Board deny the 
applicant’s  request  based  on  the  analysis  of  the  case  provided  in  a  memorandum  from  the 
Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    PSC  argued  that  the  application 
should  be  denied  because  the  applicant’s  Coast  Guard  record  is  presumptively  correct  and  he 
failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  with  regards  to  his  record.    PSC  stated  that  the 
applicant earned only 49 points for his anniversary year from April 14, 2006 to April 13, 2007.   
 

The  applicant  responded  on  August  31,  2011,  and  disagreed  with  the  Coast  Guard’s 

advisory opinion that his application should be denied.   
 

The Board made the following findings and conclusions in BCMR No. 2011-152 on the 
basis  of  the  applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission  and 
applicable law: 
 

 
4.  The Coast Guard correctly noted that the regulation requires that a reservist 
earn 50 points per anniversary year for that year to be creditable toward a 20-
year retirement.  The applicant does not allege that the Coast Guard committed 
an error.  Therefore, the basis for his request is injustice because he was unable 
to participate in drills from December 26, 2006 through March 12, 2007 due to 
injuries sustained in an automobile accident.  The applicant stated that after his 
medical  release  to  return  to  work,  he  completed  drills  on    March  17,  18,  and 
25, and on April 7 and 14, but he presented no corroborating evidence that he 
actually drilled on these  specific dates nor does the military record before the 
Board contain such corroboration.  The applicant also stated that he performed 
annual active duty for training (ADT) from April 16, 2007, to April 27, 2007.   
There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  corroborating  these  specific  dates.  
However,  even  if  there  was  corroboration  for  the  ADT,  it  would  not  count 
toward  the  anniversary  year  ending  April  13,  2007  because  it  was  not 
completed  by  April  13,  2007.    As  stated  above,  as  of  April  13,  2007,  the 
applicant had accumulated only 49 points.   
 
 5.    Despite  the  unfortunate  circumstances  mentioned  above,  the  Board  is  not 
persuaded by the current evidence of record that the applicant has suffered an 
injustice. 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).  
Absences  from  scheduled  drills  are  either  excused  or  unexcused.  If  absences 
are excused they are rescheduled.   In this regard, the applicant has offered no 
evidence  that  he  informed  his  command  about  his  motor  vehicle  accident  or 
that  he  provided  his  unit  with  his  doctor’s  statements  that  he  was  not  able  to 
work  during  a  specific  period.    Nor  does  he  state  whether  the  command 

 

 

  

excused his absences from scheduled drills in January and February 2007.  The 
Board  has  no  evidence  that  the  command  agreed  that  the  applicant  could  not 
drill, even in a limited duty status.  In this regard, Article 5.B.5. of the Reserve 
Policy Manual states that if a disability is expected to last less than 4 months, 
the  reservist  shall  be  retained  in  the  SELRES  and  the  command  shall  either 
schedule  the  reservist  for  IDT  training  in  a  limited  duty  status  or  shall 
reschedule drills for when the member is fit for full duty.   

 

6. It  would  be  inappropriate  for  the  Board  to  correct  the  applicant’s  record 
based upon injustice without knowing whether he fulfilled his responsibilities 
to his command.  There is no evidence before the Board whether the command 
was aware of his temporary injury and inability to drill, whether the command 
excused his January and February absences,  or whether the command offered 
any other options for earning points during his temporary injury.  The military 
record  provided  to  the  Board  from  Coast  Guard  Headquarters  is  incomplete 
and therefore not of any assistance to the Board in determining the applicant’s 
or  command’s  actions  with  regard  to  processing  the  applicant’s  temporary 
injury.    The  Board  presumes  that  the  information  relating  to  the  applicant’s 
interaction with his unit about his injury is in his local unit record.  Therefore, 
the  Board  will  grant  further  consideration  on  this  application  if  the  applicant 
submits a true copy of his unit PDR to the Board (including any administrative 
remarks  page  (page  7)  entries  about  the  injury,  what,  if  any,  options  were 
offered  to  the  applicant  to  earn  points,  and  what  drills  were  excused  and 
rescheduled) within 180 days from the date of the final decision in this case.   

 

 

  # 

#     # 

8.    Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied,  with  further 
consideration granted in accordance with Finding 6.   

CURRENT APPLICATION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION (BCMR NO. 2012-091) 

 

 
After  receiving  the  final  decision  in  Docket  No.  2011-162,  the  applicant  submitted  a 
statement from  Lieutenant V, who was the Assistant Chief, Sector Boston Prevention Reserves 
and the applicant’s supervisor at the time under review.  The applicant also submitted a copy of 
his drill performance history that shows the drills he performed after his doctor released him for 
return to reserve and civilian duty.  Of particular note is the statement from his then-supervisor 
who stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

From  January  2006  to  June  2010,  I  served  as  the  assistant  Chief,  Sector  Boston 
Prevention Reserves, and was supervisor to [the applicant].  I was the lead reserve 
officer reporting directly to  the Chief, Prevention Reserves, and  was responsible 
for  scheduling,  coordinating  and  supervising  all  periods  of  duty  as  well  as 
monitoring and enforcing participation standards for the reservists assigned to the 
Prevention department.  
 

 

 

During  the  period  of  December  2006  to  March  2007,  [the  applicant]  was  not  fit 
for  duty  due  to  injuries  sustained  in  an  off—duty  motor  vehicle  accident.    [The 
applicant]    was  excused  by  me  and  with  my  supervisor’s  approval,  from  all 
military service, to include inactive duty training (IDT) and active duty training-
annual training (ADT-AT) because of this injury.  He was not allowed to perform 
any work for the US Coast Guard Reserve during this time, and was excused by 
me from mobilization requirements and regular participation standards.  I was in 
regular  contact  with  [the  applicant]  via  telephone,  monitoring  his  status  and 
fitness  for  duty,  and  I  approved  all  his  absences.    Upon  being  authorized  fit  for 
full  duty,  I  approved  all  of  [the  applicant’s]  completed  IDT  periods  and  his 
request  for  ADT-AT.    During  his  absence  and  upon  his  return  to  duty,  [the 
applicant] and I together developed a plan to make-up his missed IDT and ADT-
AT.    Together  we  worked  diligently  to  develop  a  schedule  that  considered  his 
Coast  Guard  requirements,  while  taking  his  civilian  occupation  and  personal 
needs  into  account.    [The  applicant]  made  a  concerted  effort  to  return  to  “good 
standing” and should not be penalized due to an unfortunate and untimely injury.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

 

 
On  July  27,  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 
from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

PSC stated that the drill history from Direct Access substantiates that the member earned 
49 points during his anniversary year April 14, 2006 to April 13, 2007.  With regard to the letter 
from  the  applicant’s  then-supervisor,  PSC  stated  that  his  letter  does  not  dispute,  nor  provides 
evidence  to  show,  that  the  applicant  earned  greater  than  49  points  for  the  anniversary  years  in 
question.  PSC stated that the  only way to  remove a bad  year from  the applicant’s record is  to 
add one retirement point.  The applicant has not claimed that he had earned any additional points 
for  his  anniversary  year.    PSC  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  presumptively  correct,  and  the 
applicant has failed to substantiate any error or injustice with regard to his record.   
 

APPLICANT REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD ON FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION 

 

On August 1, 2012, a copy of the views of the Coast Guard was sent to the applicant for a 

 
response.  The BCMR did not receive a response from the applicant. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  BCMR  No. 
2011-152,  the  applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission  and 
applicable law: 

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

of the United States Code.  The application was timely.    

 

 

 

2.    A  reservist  must  earn  50  points  during  an  anniversary  year  for  that  year  to  count 
toward the 20 years necessary to earn reserve retired pay at age 60.  The applicant’s anniversary 
year was from April 14 of the current year to April 13 of the next year.  When a member earns 
less  than  50  points  during  an  anniversary  year,  that  year  is  usually  referred  to  a  “bad  year” 
although the points earned are credited to the member and included in the retired pay calculation 
should the member earn the 20 qualifying years to be entitled to retired pay at age 60.   

 
The applicant earned only 49 points during his anniversary  year from April 14, 2006 to 
April 13, 2007.  He could not  perform  drills or  work  his civilian job from  December 26, 2006 
until March 12, 2007 because of a temporary medical disability due to a motor vehicle accident.    
According  to  the  applicant’s  then–supervisor,  the  applicant’s  missed  drills  for  this  period  were 
excused  and  a  schedule  was  developed  for  him  to  make-up  the  missed  drills.    The  applicant 
stated that in an effort to make-up the missed drills after his medical release, he drilled on March 
17, 2007, March, 18, 2007, March 25, 2007, April 7, 2007 and April 14, 2007 and he performed 
active duty training from April 16, 2007 to April 27, 2007.   In September 2010, he learned that 
he had only 49 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007.   

 
3.    In  the  applicant’s  previous  case  BCMR  No.  2011-152,  the  Board  was  concerned 
whether the applicant had informed his command of his situation, whether the command excused 
him  from  performing  drills,  and  what  advice  the  command  provided  to  the  applicant  about  his 
situation. Finding 6 of the previous final decision states the following: 

 

 

It would be inappropriate for the Board to correct the applicant’s record based 
upon injustice without knowing whether he fulfilled his responsibilities to his 
command.  There is no evidence before the Board whether the command was 
aware  of  his  temporary  injury  and  inability  to  drill,  whether  the  command 
excused his January and February absences, or whether the command offered 
any other options for earning points during his temporary injury.  The military 
record  provided  to  the  Board  from  Coast  Guard  Headquarters  is  incomplete 
and therefore not of any assistance to the Board in determining the applicant’s 
or  command’s  actions  with  regard  to  processing  the  applicant’s  temporary 
injury.    The  Board  presumes  that  the  information  relating  to  the  applicant’s 
interaction with his unit about his injury is in his local unit record.  Therefore, 
the  Board  will  grant  further  consideration  on  this  application  if  the  applicant 
submits a true copy of his unit PDR to the Board (including any administrative 
remarks  page  (page  7)  entries  about  the  injury,  what,  if  any,  options  were 
offered  to  the  applicant  to  earn  points,  and  what  drills  were  excused  and 
rescheduled) within 180 days from the date of the final decision in this case.   

 
4.      In  response  to  the  Board’s  concerns  and  to  obtain  further  consideration,  the 
applicant  submitted  a  letter  from  his  then-supervisor  and  a  copy  of  his  drill  record.    The 
supervisor  stated  that  the  applicant’s  command  was  aware  of  his  temporary  disability,  excused 
his absences from drills, and worked with the applicant to reschedule his missed drills, although 
the supervisor did not provide the specific dates on which the applicant was scheduled to make-
up  the  drills.    A  review  of  the  record  shows  that  because  of  the  temporary  disability,  the 
applicant missed two months of drills for a total  of 8 missed drills.  Normally, drills occur one 
full  weekend  per  month  (although  flexible  drilling  exists),  with  two  drills  performed  each 
weekend  day.  One  point  is  earned  for  each  drill  performed.    Based  upon  the  letter  from  the 

 

 

applicant’s then-supervisor, the unit worked with the applicant to develop a plan to make-up the 
missed drills.  Apparently, this plan fell short of the drills necessary to compensate for the missed 
drills plus the regularly scheduled drills for March and April.  According to the applicant’s drill 
history, the only extra drills (make-up drills) during this period was the March 25, 2007 and the 
April  7,  2007  drills  that  amounted  to  4  drill  points.      The  April  14,  2007  drill  and  active  duty 
training  the  applicant  performed  from  April  16,  2007  to  April  27,  2007  occurred  during  the 
subsequent anniversary year that began on April 14, 2007 and could not be included in the point 
total  for  the  anniversary  year  ending  April  13,  2007.    Therefore,  the  unit  failed  to  schedule  a 
sufficient number of make-up drills to cover the applicant’s missed January and February drills, 
causing  the  applicant  to  be  one  point  shy  of  the  50  points  required  for  the  anniversary  year 
ending April 13, 2007.  
 

5.  Article 5.B.5. of the Reserve Policy Manual states that if a disability is expected to last 
less than 4 months, the reservist shall be retained in the SELRES and the command shall either 
schedule the reservist for IDT training in a limited duty status or shall reschedule drills for when 
the  member  is  fit  for  full  duty.    It  appears  that  although  the  supervisor  stated  that  a  plan  was 
developed for the applicant to make up the missed drills, only two extra weekend drill days were 
scheduled when the applicant actually needed to  have 4  extra weekend drill days scheduled for 
make-up by the end of his anniversary year on April 13, 2007 to make up for the missed drills in 
January  and  February.    Therefore,  it  appears  that  the  applicant’s  unit  failed  in  its  obligation  to 
properly  reschedule  the  correct  number  of  make-up  drills  by  the  end  of  his  anniversary  year 
ending April 13, 2007.   Accordingly, the Board finds that this error led to the applicant  having 
only 49 instead of 50 or more points at the end of his anniversary year ending April 13, 2007. 

 
6.  The Board finds that in light of this error, the applicant’s retirement points statement 
should be corrected to  show that he earned 50 points for the anniversary  year ending April 13, 
2007.    Over the past 12 years, the applicant has earned satisfactory years (50 or more points) for 
each  year  except  for  the  one  under  review.    For  anniversary  year  ending  April  13,  2008,  the 
applicant earned 96 points, when only 50 points are needed for a “good year.” 
 

7.  The BCMR has corrected military records to grant additional points for retirement and 
to servicewide examination scores for enlisted advancement depending on the circumstances.  In 
BCMR No. 193-92, the Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Transportation approved 
the Board’s decision correcting the applicant’s record to show that he “received sufficient points 
to  make  his  1979  [anniversary  year]  satisfactory  and  that  he  performed  20  years  of  creditable 
military  service  in  order  to  receive  retirement  with  pay.”   The  applicant  in  BCMR  No.  193-92 
was a reservist and a New York police officer.  He was injured in the line of duty and could not 
drill  or  perform  active  duty  training.    In  granting  relief,  the  Board  found  that  that  applicant’s 
inability  to  acquire  50  points  was  through  no  fault  of  his  own  and  that  the  Coast  Guard 
committed  an  injustice  when  it  failed  in  1979  or  at  any  time  thereafter  to  inform  him  that  his 
unsatisfactory  year  in  his  1979  anniversary  year  would  cause  him  to  be  unable  to  complete  20 
years of satisfactory service for retirement purposes prior to his 62nd birthday. The Coast Guard 
admitted  that  it  committed  an  error  when  it  allowed  the  applicant  to  reenlist  for  four  years  in 
1988  when  the  applicant  would  exceed  the  maximum  62  years  of  age  before  his  expiration  of 
enlistment and therefore be ineligible for retirement with pay.  That Board found in BCMR No. 
193-92 that the Coast Guard committed an injustice when it failed to inform the applicant at the 
time of his 1988 reenlistment that he could not qualify for retirement with pay because he would 
reach age 62 before earning 20 years of satisfactory service for retired pay.   

 

 

 
8.  In BCMR No 224-85, the Board granted the applicant additional time in service which 
added points to his servicewide examination score for advancement.  The Board found that the 
applicant reasonably relied on the assurances of his yeoman that the incorrect amount of service 
time listed on his servicewide examination documents would not affect his final standing on the 
advancement list, which turned out not to be the case.   

 
9.    In  BCMR  No.  281-85,  the  Board  corrected  an  applicant’s  record  to  grant  him  one 
point on his servicewide examination score because the Coast Guard failed to process an award 
in  a  timely  manner  that  would  have  added  sufficient  points  to  his  score  to  allow  for  his 
advancement.  He was ordered advanced to the next higher grade.  

 
10.    In  BCMR  2002-040,  the  Deputy  General  Counsel  for  the  Department  of 
Transportation approved the correction of a newly commissioned officer’s record to show that he 
was  an  officer  with  enlisted  service  because  he  had  relied  to  his  detriment  on  counseling  by  a 
Coast  Guard  yeoman  that  he  was  eligible  for  the  classification  if  he  attended  a  specific  officer 
candidate training school.  The Deputy stated that “it is possible for the Coast Guard to commit 
an error or an injustice when a member has relied on misinformation by a Coast Guard employee 
to his or her detriment.”    

 
11.  The applicant was temporarily disabled from December 26, 2006 to March 12, 2007.  
His missed drills for this period were excused and a schedule was developed by his unit for him 
to make-up the missed drills.   The make-up missed drill schedule that he presented to the Board 
on his DD 149, and that was not disavowed by his then-supervisor, was not sufficient in number 
to  account  for  all  the  missed  drills  by  the  end  of  his  April  13,  2007  anniversary  year.    This 
miscalculation resulted in the applicant being one point shy of 50 points for a “good year.”  The 
applicant failed to earn 50 points because he relied to his detriment on a schedule created by his 
unit  that  failed  to  calculate  and  to  reschedule  the  number  of  make-up  drills  required  to  cover 
those excused for January and February 2007. The unit’s miscalculation resulted in the applicant 
not earning several points and being one point shy of 50 points, which constituted an error and 
caused an injustice to the applicant.   
 
 
12. Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  earned  50 
points instead of 49 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007.  The one point should 
be deducted from the 96 points the applicant earned for anniversary year ending April 13, 2008 
and added to his point total for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007.  In addition, since the 
applicant  will  have  20  years  of  satisfactory  service  with  the  anniversary  year  ending April  13, 
2012,  not  including  the    anniversary  year  ending  April  13,  2007,  the  Coast  Guard  is  not 
prejudiced by correcting this applicant’s record to show that he has earned 50 points instead of 
49 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 
The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his  military 
record is  granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he earned 50 points instead of 49 
points  for  his  anniversary  year  ending  April  13,  2007.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  make  this 
correction by moving one point from his total of 96 points for the anniversary year ending April 
13, 2008, and adding that to the 49 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007, for a 
total of 50 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2007.  The correction will leave him 
with 95 points for the anniversary year ending April 13, 2008.  
 

No other relief is granted.  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

        

 
 Donna M. Bivona  

 

 

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito