CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 1998-116
This final decision, dated June 10, 1999, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his military record by promoting him to xxxxxxx because the Coast Guard refused to promote him in accordance with the terms of the Board’s order in the applicant’s previous case, BCMR Docket No. Therefore, the applicant alleged, because neither the investigation nor the Special Board of Officers was “pending” on July 1, 199x, he should have been...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2000-036
The applicant also alleged that his marking official, LCDR x., who served as the xx Officer, was biased against him. However, if a member who has not received a regular evaluation within 92 days is transferred from a unit due to a perma- nent change of station, the member must receive a “special” transfer evaluation, which must be prepared and signed by the member “NO LATER THAN 15 days before departing the unit to allow adequate time for counseling, appeal, and administration.” Under...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2000-048
This final decision, dated September 21, 2000, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his record by changing an extension of enlistment contract he signed on August 24, 1999, to a reenlistment contract. The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board void the applicant’s extension contract and “allow Applicant to enter into a reenlistment contract effective August 24, 1999.” This correction, he alleged, would effectively recredit the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2000-157
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. This final decision, dated May 3, 2001, is signed by the three duly appoint- APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a seaman (SN; pay grade E-3) serving on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was advanced from seaman apprentice to seaman on the day his command recommended...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-006
On March 6, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that alternative relief be granted to the applicant “as a matter of equity.” According to the Chief Counsel, the applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed error in appointing him an ensign rather than a lieutenant junior grade upon graduation from PA school. The Chief Counsel said that the Board should grant alternative relief “as a matter of equity.” The applicant asserted in his application “that had he...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-073
[The applicant’s] orders to [his new unit] also stated that he was advanced to ET3 on 3 August 2000. On September 14, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief counsel The Chief Counsel stated that Article 5.C.28.c of the Personnel Manual states that “[c]ommanding officers shall not advance a member retroactively, advancements are considered retroactive after 30 days have elapsed since the requested date of advancement.” Even if the Board were to find error or injustice,...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-077
The applicant alleged that when he enlisted in the Reserve on November 2, 2000, he asked his recruiter if he could enlist as an E-5. The EM Force Manager, ISC , CGPC, and the Chief Counsel have each determined that, at the time of his enlistment, the applicant was qualified to be enlisted as an EM2/E-5. He has proved that if his recruiter had submitted an E-5 rate determination package for him based on his skills and qualifications, the ISC review panel, CGPC, and the EM Force Manager...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-084
The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case under section 1552 of title 10, United States The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: Code. The applicant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his final multiple for the 1995 SWE for advancement to AM1 was in error, because it did not include the one point the applicant was entitled to receive as a result of having been...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-119
The applicant alleged that no action was taken against him regarding the alleged misuse of the calling card during his period of probation, which ended on November 5, xxxx. On May 5, xxxx, the applicant went to mast on the Article 107 charge. The Chief Counsel alleged that after the applicant was again charged with UCMJ violations—for misusing his calling card and the office XXXX account—the CO proper- ly asked the Personnel Command to remove the applicant’s name from the advance- ment...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-004
The applicant alleged that when the CWO finally responded, he again stated that he should not have a problem paying the rent, so the applicant sent him an email reiter- ating his unusual financial predicament. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On March 19, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request. In it, CGPC laid out the facts of the case and stated that “[a]fter a thorough review of applicant’s record and...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-012
The applicant alleged that when he was selected for an appointment as a lieutenant, through the Coast Guard’s law specialist program, the Coast Guard failed to provide him with three years’ constructive credit. He contended, rather, that the applicant was recruited “through a lateral entry program (DCL), to transfer from his reserve status as a lieutenant who performed general duties to an active duty status as a lieutenant who was designated a law specialist.” The Chief Counsel further...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-123
He alleged that had his active duty base date been correct at the time of the May 19xx SWE, he would have been advanced from the promotion list in 19xx. Consequently, he argued, there is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard had any prior knowledge of the applicant’s active duty service in the Air Force Reserve until the applicant’s letter to HRSIC in July 20xx. The record shows that the Air Force Reserve, in responding to the Coast Guard’s Request for Statement of Service, failed...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-135
This final decision, dated May 22, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his pay grade from the date of his enlistment, May 19, 1997, to November 18, 1997, was E-3 instead of E-2, and that his pay grade from March 12, 1998, to May 18, 1998, was E-4 instead of E- 3. of the current Recruiting Manual, which states that “Applicants who are Eagle Scouts may be enlisted in pay grade...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2002-145
The message also advised those like the applicant who were above the cutoff on the CWO appointment list to advise Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) of their decision to either accept advancement or appointment to CWO prior to September 1. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual clearly state that a member who is on the enlistment advancement eligibility list and the warrant officer appointment will only be permitted advancement from one or the other, not both. The Coast Guard...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-012
In September 20xx, the applicant received his personal data extract (PDE), which indicated that he was ineligible to take the October 20xx RSWE because he had not completed the CPO Academy. The Chief Counsel stated that had the ISC timely entered the applicant’s proof of graduation from the CPO Academy, he would have placed number xx on the Reserve Advancement List and been advanced on April 1, 20xx. The Chief Counsel has determined that had the applicant’s proof of graduation been timely...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-035
On July 21, 1995, the Board issued a final decision in that case granting the applicant the following relief: The [applicant's] military record shall be corrected by (1) removing his officer evaluation report (OER) for the period from August 4, 1990 to June 26, 1991, and replacing it with a report for continuity purposes only; (2) removing his failures of selection for promotion to commander (CDR) by the promotion year (PY) 1993, 1994, and 1995 CDR selection boards; (3) allowing him to go...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-046
He stated that he returned to the clinic about 15 minutes later, in more pain and complaining that “something was wrong.” At that time, he stated, he informed the nurse that he had a family history of heart disease. The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant submitted an untimely application and has provided the Board with no reason why it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay. However, the Board finds that the applicant was not a member “who would have been promoted” because...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-049
of the Personnel Manual] in no way prohibits the proper crediting of [the applicant’s] award and the subsequent revision of the advancement eligibility list contained in [the Commander of the Coast Guard Personnel Command’s letter of July 14, 19xx]. In July 19xx, the applicant’s requested that his PDE be corrected to include his Coast Guard Achievement Award. He asserted that the Coast Guard has “consistently applied a rational policy of setting a cut-off date after which it will not make...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-058
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s claim is moot because no harm was caused by the alleged error in his date of rank on the March 31, 1977, discharge form since his date of rank was reestablished as April 20, 1983, when he enlisted in the Reserve. The Chief Counsel concluded, therefore, that even if the Board waives the statute of limitations for this case, it should find that the doctrine of laches bars the claim because many of the documents that would have clarified the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-081
He alleged that Coast Guard regulations provide that when members are simultaneously selected for CWO and a temporary LT commission, they are first appointed to CWO2 (chief warrant officer, pay grade CWO2), followed by their appointment to temporary LT commission. § 214, entitled “Appointment of temporary officers,” provides that “[t]he President may appoint temporary commissioned officers in the Regular Coast Guard in a grade, not above lieutenant … from among the commissioned...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-127
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual states that “[a]pplicants who have satisfactorily completed 30 semester hours or 45 quarter hours of post- secondary (college) education may be enlisted in pay grade E-2.” VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On December 11, 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recom- mended that the Board grant the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-023
The applicant alleged that a Coast Guard legal office has since advised him that “personnel being advanced under similar circumstances are advanced to CWO first.” The applicant alleged that if he had properly been appointed to CWO prior to accepting the appointment to temporary LT, he would have been selected for promotion to CWO3 on June 1, 2003. Therefore, CGPC recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he was appointed to CWO on June 1, 1999. CGPC stated,...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-040
The applicant alleged that his name was unfairly removed from the YNC advancement list after he received a mediocre Enlisted Performance Evaluation Form (EPEF) for the evaluation period from June 1 to November 30, 2002, and was not rec- ommended for advancement on the EPEF by his rating chain.1 The applicant stated that upon completing the Service-Wide Examination (SWE) for YNC in May 2002, he 1 Enlisted members are evaluated by a rating chain, which consists of a supervisor, who...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-058
CGPC noted that the applicant might be referring to the Commandant’s decision not to grade the SWE that his CO allowed him to take in March 1970 or to his own decision to retire, because “[l]ong- standing Coast Guard policy states that members with approved retirement requests shall no longer be eligible for advancement and shall have their names removed from any advancement list.” CGPC stated that it does not know when this latter policy was enacted and that it could be the policy change of...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-069
However, the reverse does not hold true: an attorney’s service in a legal program billet does not by itself constitute the basis for designation.” CGPC further stated that, even if the Board decides to correct the applicant’s record to show that she was commissioned as a lieutenant, she should not be awarded backpay because she “has not overcome the presumption of regularity with respect to the SRDC selection process that commissioned her an O-1E.” Moreover, “[d]esignation as a law...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-076
His request was approved, and he resumed EAD after both the IDPL and ADPL CDR selec- tion boards adjourned.1 In July 2002, three months after the applicant signed his EAD contract, CGPC “started to incorporate new verbiage in all EAD orders indicating that an officer may submit a written request to be released from EAD during the timeframe that both the ADPL and IDPL boards meet for the purpose of competing on the IDPL.”2 CGPC stated that over the last few years, “several requests to...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-078
This final decision, dated January 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR; pay grade O-4) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant (LT; O- 3) from September 30, 1998, to March 27, 1997, which, he alleged, was the date he received his commission as a law specialist with the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) (LTJG; O-2). In 1999, he was selected for promotion, and on...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-086
Administrative Investigation On April 2, 2003, the CO of the Xxxxx ordered a lieutenant to conduct an informal investigation of “all the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged sexual harassment by [the applicant] while discharging his duties as the Xxxxx Xxxx Manager.” The CO noted that no hearing was required but that a report with findings should be prepared. The report indicates that Ms. D had been upset by the work schedule made by the applicant for the months of March...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-101
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant stated that in March 2001, because he was not “above the cut” on the CWO final eligibility list, he was not certain whether he would be appointed. The applicant alleged that if he had known that he would not be able to re-compete for CWO for five years, he would not have had his name removed from the list. If the Coast Guard applied a five-year penalty for removing one’s name from the CWO final eligibility list without warning its members, the Board...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-115
2003).” STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Statement by the Engineering Officer, LT D LT D, who served as the applicant’s supervisor for the marking periods of all three disputed OERs, stated that the applicant was a “very capable officer with great potential.” LT D stated that soon after arriving on board, the CO told him that the applicant was “a problem that needed to be fixed.” He stated that it was clear that the CO did not like the applicant “on a personal level” and “was incapable...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-123
He stated that the Coast Guard was not accepting LOMM accessions at the time the applicant applied to join the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has stated that based on service need, the LOMM program is closed and was closed at the time the applicant submitted his application for an appointment under the program. The age waiver board stated that the applicant was more a LOMM than a MARGRAD and it also stated that he qualified for consideration for a commission in two other programs.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-135
On his application to the Board, he merely noted that the Board should consider his application “in the interest of justice.” SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE The applicant enlisted into the Coast Guard Reserve on December 3, 1942, and began serving on active duty on March 17, 1943. He served on the ship until December 22, 1945, and was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard on January 8, 1946. As the JAG and CGPC stated, the applicant has provided no explanation for his failure to request the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-194
This final decision, dated June 9, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by adjusting his promotions to reflect his prior military active duty service. The applicant complained that he was not credited with his prior active duty when the Coast Guard determined his advancements and promotions and pay. Nothing in the applicant's military record or his submissions establishes that he has any...
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 | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-043
The applicant alleged that the CDR selection board did not select him in August 2003 only because he had requested retirement, and in accordance with policy, the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) revealed his approved retirement request to the selection board. The applicant argued that “[i]f the boards are to provide every officer with an equal oppor- tunity for advancement, then the practice of including the approved request is an error.” He alleged that he was told that CGPC adopted...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-046
However, the Coast Guard unjustly and secretly allowed a few Reserve officers to break their EAD contracts just for the duration of the selection boards so that they could be considered for promotion by the IDPL selection board instead of the ADPL promotion board. 2004-076, the applicant has proved that his record was prejudiced in that it was placed before the ADPL CDR selection board, in competition with regular active duty officers, rather than before the IDPL CDR selection board, where...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-070
This final decision, dated January 5, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to remove or mask all of his officer performance reports (OPRs) and officer evaluation reports (OERs) from a prior period of Coast Guard service.1 He also asked the Board to remove his failures of selection for promotion to commander (CDR) from his record, to back date his date of rank if he is selected for promotion by the first CDR selection board to consider...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-074
The applicant alleged that when he received the EPEF on July 17, 2003, he signed it and sent it to the administrative offices of the Coast Guard Recruiting Command (CGRC) for placement in his record. It is the member’s responsibility to ensure that incorrect or missing data is [sic] updated in Direct Access prior to the PDE verification dead- line date for each SWE. CGPC stated that although the applicant noted the missing EPEF on his PDE, he “failed to ensure that the requested...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-077
CGPC stated that under Article 7.C.1.f. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) reservists above the cutoff for advancement who are not advanced prior to beginning EAD may only be advanced if authorized by CGPC but, if not advanced while on EAD, should ask to be advanced upon their release from active duty. Under policy then in effect, however, Reserve members on EAD could not advance off a Reserve advancement list and were required to compete as members on active duty.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-086
The JAG stated that CGPC reviewed applicant's record in accordance with Article 12.C.15.g.1 of the Personnel Manual and found that YN3/E-4 was the highest rank satisfactorily held by the applicant and ordered the applicant to be honorably retired as an E-4. The JAG admitted, however, that the Coast Guard did not refer the matter to a special board of officers to review the applicant's record and make a recommendation to the Commandant on whether the applicant should be retired in a higher...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-118
This final decision, dated April 5, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that on October 19, 2004, she enlisted in the Coast Guard in pay grade E-3 (seaman; SN), instead of pay grade E-2 (seaman apprentice; SA). SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On October 12, 2004, one week before she enlisted, the applicant and her recruiter signed a form CG-3301G, which states that under the Recruiting...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-126
In recommending that the applicant's name be removed from the promotion list the board stated the following: [The applicant] . The Coast Guard's action was well within its authority. The special OER, the negative page 7, the investigation, the applicant's performance record, and his statement were available to the special board when it recommended the applicant's removal from the RPA captain promotion list.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-147
Provided complete, well- documented evaluation; excellent input to CWO4 and GS-7s perform- ance.” The reporting officer’s comments indicated that the applicant was unexpectedly transferred to the U.S. Joint Forces Command and that he was “sorry to lose [the appli- cant’s] expertise.” The reviewer of the OER added an optional comment page stating the following: “I am disappointed by the amount of time that elapsed between [the applicant’s] departure from this command and his submission of...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-001
The JAG stated the following: Applicant's record should have been considered by the [2005] IDPL LCDR Promotion Board. The applicant's request for a special selection board cannot be granted since the Coast Guard does not have the statutory authority to convene such boards.2 However, the applicant is entitled to the relief normally granted in these situations, which is the removal of the 2005 failure of selection for promotion, if any, from her record, and if selected for promotion by the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-009
On March 15, 2005, the Coast Guard’s Personnel Service Center denied the applicant’s request for a waiver, citing Article 5.C.15.c., because he did not have 12 months of sea service in a pay grade higher than E-3. Prior to February 14, 2003, however, the sea duty requirement for advancement to BMC was the same no matter when one entered the rating: “12 months above pay grade E-3 in designated rating.” Waiver Regulations Article 5.C.15.a.1. Under ALCOAST 082/03, the sea duty requirement for...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-023
The JAG stated that the applicant only requested to have his date of rank corrected, but the Reserve Policy Manual provides for other relief when an officer is not considered by a selection board due to administrative error. The Coast Guard admitted, and the Board finds, that it committed an error by assigning the applicant a November 22, 2002, LT date of rank in the Coast Guard Reserve. The Coast Guard stated that it could not award back pay and allowances because under Article 7.A.7.b.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-031
This final decision, dated February 15, 2007, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record to show that when she was retired from the Coast Guard by reason of physical disability on April 16, 1980, her pay grade was E-4, rather than E-3. He further pointed out that the rules state that an untimely application “shall be denied unless the Board finds that sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a finding...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-070
The applicant asked the Board to remove his 2005 failure of selection for promotion to LTJG because when that selection board reviewed his record, it contained the erroneous OER ordered removed by the BCMR. Therefore, the Board finds that although the applicant performed some of his assigned duties satisfactorily, his documented poor judgment and behavior that brought discredit upon the Coast Guard, his loss of his security clearance and access to weapons, his lack of a recommendation for...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-086
following text in the applicant’s record with her signature in acknowledgement: On April 7, 2005, the command at the training center prepared a page 7 with the On 11 February 2005 you received an alcohol incident after being taken to the local hospi- tal and were unresponsive to medical personnel. The JAG stated that the Coast Guard’s records show that the performance evaluation that resulted from the applicant’s alcohol incident was prepared on April 5, 2005, while she was still assigned...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-097
This final decision, dated January 11, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who on September 22, 2005, enlisted in the Coast Guard as a sea- man (SN; pay grade E-3) with prior active service in the U.S. Army, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is a gunner’s mate first class (GM1; pay grade E-6). CGRC stated that during the applicant’s enlistment processing, he “expressed a strong desire to enlist on active duty...