DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
30ARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
17 January 2003
6491-W
This is in refe
naval record pu
States Code sectio
to your application for correction of your
to the provisions of Title 10 of the United
he Board for Correction of Naval
Your allegations of error and
executive session, considered your
anuary 2003.
ewed in accordance with administrative
cedures applicable to the proceedings of this
material considered by the Board consisted of
ogether with all material submitted in support
record and applicable statutes, regulations
onscientious consideration of the entire
at the evidence submitted was
the existence of probable material
you served in the Coast Guard, Coast Guard
serve and Naval Reserve.
The length of your
However, in order to be entitled
Fifty
you must have 20 qualifying years.
for a qualifying year.
re'required
efully reviewed and it appears that you only
nths and 28 days of qualifying service.
r years in which some documentation exists
re attached to a reserve unit and had at least
there is insufficient documentation
ts in those years.
Your
the Navy Reserve Personnel Center sent you a
that you completed over 22 years of military
d you information so you could determine how
were qualifying for retirement.
ction at that time.
that you can get a prescription drug
You now state that you
You
injustice were r
regulations and
your application
thereof, your na
and policies.
After careful and
error or
injustic
The record shows
Reserve, Air For
service totaled
to reserve retir
retirement points
record has been c
have 11 years, 11
There are three o
showing that you
some participation
On 28 November 197
letter informing
service, and pro
many of those year
apparently took no
desire retirement
benefit.
The Record clearly shows only about 12 years of qualifying
and even if you could establish that the three years
service,
with some particip tion are qualifying, you would only have
Since you are not even close to qualifying for
qualifying years.
reserve retirement, the Board concluded that a correction to your
/
anted.
record was not war
plication has been denied.
Accordingly, your
votes of the membe
s of the panel will be furnished
The names and
upon request.
15
i
It is regretted th t the circumstances of your case
favorable action c nnot be taken.
You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider i s decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other
tter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of re
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
i
record, the burden is
existence of probable
on the applicant to demonstrate the
material error or injustice.
larity attaches to all official records.
are such that
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-041
If Option A is elected at time of 20 year satisfactory service letter, and spouse concurs, member will have an opportunity to elect into the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) at age 60. (B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--A person who (i) is eligible to participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is married or has a dependent child when he is notified under section 12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years of 2 Pub. § 1448(a)(5), entitled “Participation by...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-136
before the Coast Guard, and I have one now with the Michigan Army National Guard even after the Coast Guard. Although the applicant requested that his record be corrected to show he was discharged by reason of hardship, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that no evidence exists in the record that the applicant ever requested a discharge by reason of hardship prior to his discharge from the Coast Guard. of the Personnel Manual and the JFX separation code support personality disorder...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-208
of the Personnel Manual, which states that when enlisted members are advanced as a result of an administrative error, they “shall be reduced to the correct rate as of the date the erroneous advancement is noted.” The applicant stated that the Coast Guard has never provided a responsive answer to her inquiries about why she was not advanced when YNCM 5 passed her 30th anniversary on November 19, 2002. The applicant also stated that she has never received a satisfactory response to...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2005-166
Regarding the applicant’s removal as TCIC and transfer from Operations to the Investigations Division, the DOT IG stated that it occurred “after a confrontation between him and [CWO X] over the number of days [the applicant] had worked with- out a day off” and that there may have been “significant miscommunication surround- ing the issue.” CWO X stated that the incident was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” and “stressed that [he] had verbally counseled [the applicant] on numerous...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2003-036
This final decision, dated October 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, now serving as a lieutenant in the Reserve, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he earned at least 50 points in his anniversary years ending in 1997 and 1998, so that each anniversary year would count as a satisfactory year of federal service for retirement purposes.1 He alleged that because the Coast Guard erroneously recorded his participation as...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-195
The applicant alleged that he “got dropped through the cracks” twice with respect to his advancement to MKC: once when he was not allowed to participate as a Reserve in the October 2002 SWE even though he would have been eligible if he had remained on active duty, and again when he was removed from the Reserve list because he integrated into the regular Coast Guard after being told twice by the MK force manager that it was unlikely he would be advanced from the list even if he stayed in...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2005-101
The applicant explained the basis of his request for his integration in the regular Coast Guard as follows: At the time of the first promotion board, Applicant was a reserve officer serving on an extended active duty contract. It is most likely that applicant's record before the PY04 Active Duty CDR Selection Board was burdened by Applicant's voluntary decision to leave active duty and his time not observed while in the IRR. In this regard, we note that the applicant's record showed...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-048
On June 16, 2009, she was told that she could transfer from the ISL to the IRR to drill for points without pay. states that all Reserve officers except those on the ISL and retired officers are considered to be in an “active status.” Chapter 7.A.3.a. Whether serving on active duty or in the Reserve, officers who fail twice of selection are eligible for separation or retention, and under Chapter 7.A.8.d.
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-054
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On September 8, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for eight years. The applicant stated that she was transferred to the IRR because of downsizing and unit disbandment and that the letter she received dated November 21, 1995, “said it all and it should be considered.” The letter told her that she would receive more information soon, but she did not. The letter dated November 21, 1995, however, supports the applicant’s contention that she was...
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-119
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...