[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;45424]it’s boot camp. Cold is the least of your worries. :)[/QUOTE]
Your right…Im worrying about when they gotta pull all my wisdom teeth out LOL…
[B] " they will only accept 60% of the sea time"[/B]
They will credit you with more than 60% with proper documentation. Your best bet is to include everything you can from your service record; school certificates, letters, qualifications, etc… but the most important thing aside from a “record of sea service” is a copy of every eval you received in chronological order with no gaps. They have been known to give additional sea service credit for certain schools and training without having been underway.
[QUOTE=Azimuth;45429][B] " they will only accept 60% of the sea time"[/B]
They will credit you with more than 60% with proper documentation. Your best bet is to include everything you can from your service record; school certificates, letters, qualifications, etc… but the most important thing aside from a “record of sea service” is a copy of every eval you received in chronological order with no gaps. They have been known to give additional sea service credit for certain schools and training without having been underway.[/QUOTE]
Note that in a recent appeal we found the 60% credit to be a misinterpretation of the regulation and that the total time on a military vessel should be credited at more than 60%. The regulation does not say that military time is credited at 60%, 46 CFR 11.213(a) states “[n]ormally, 60% of the total time onboard is considered equivalent underway service…” That means 40% of the time is considered not underway, but should be credited as time on vessels that are not underway for extended periods. Per NMC policy letter 9-01, (para. 3.e.) that time would be credited at one day for every three on board, up to a maximum of 180 days (credit). For example, if you have a total of 100 days on a military vessel, 60 are considered underway and get day for day credit, and the remaining 40 get 1 for 3 credit, for a total creditable service of 73 days.
The advice on documenting everything is good. In a recent appeal, an ex-Navy mariner was applying for an engineer license that required service as a QMED. He provided us with extensive documentation including his regular evaluation/fitness reports from which we could determine the exact date he completed his watchstanding PQS and from which his service became equivalent to a QMED. Without that documentation, we wouldn’t have been able to consider that portion of his time on that ship as equivalent to QMED.
I mentioned two appeals and the policy precedent in them., so you may be thinking “why can’t we see appeals?” We’re working on it. We hope to publish appeal decisions, redacted to withhold names and other identifying/personal information in the near future.