CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-116
of the Personnel Manual (Tab H), it is a member’s responsibility to ensure his own eligibility to take the servicewide examination for advancement and that, under Article 5.C.4.g., only PSC has the authority to waive eligibility and deadlines for advancement and that “failure by member, supervisor, or supporting command to fulfill their responsibilities is not justification for a waiver and may result in a member not quali- fying … .” CGPC stated that these regulations apply to supplemental...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-147
This final decision, dated March 30, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed members APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was a commander in the Coast Guard Reserve when he submitted his application, asked the Board to remove from his record his failure of selection for promotion to captain by the Reserve captain selection board that met in the summer of 2005. The Coast Guard has stated that July 1, 2006, is the date the applicant would have been promoted had he been...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-156
He further stated that on May 25, 2004 he reapplied for a lateral change to the IV rating and that in September 2004, he received orders assigning him to CGIS, almost two years after he had been removed from the BMC advancement list. There is no record of either the servicing ISC or CGPC-rpm approving the Applicant’s lateral request. Although the applicant requested to have his name reinstated on the advancement list, the Coast Guard denied it stating that his request to lateral to the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-186
The applicant alleged that his CO vacated the suspension of the reduction in rate as a result of the report of a Class D mishap investigation into the accidental discharge of the M240B. The JAG recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected to show that the suspended portion of his October 22, 2004, NJP was not vacated. Since at mast on January 24, 2005, the CO expressly stated that there was insufficient evidence to find that the applicant had violated the UCMJ at the time of...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-033
This final decision, dated August 16, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant was honorably discharged on December 22, 1982, as an E-2 (seaman apprentice) during a reduction in force (RIF or general demobilization). He argued that the application should be denied because of its untimeliness and adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). CGPC stated that there is...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-045
This final decision, dated August 16, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was released from active duty into the Reserve on December 26, 1972, asked the Board to correct his DD 214 to show that he was an SK1/E-6, rather than an SK2/E-5. • On December 1, 1971, the applicant advanced to SK2/E-5. of COMDTINST M1900.4, a DD 214 is supposed to show the member’s pay grade at the time of separation and that the applicant’s military...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-062
There was no urgent Service need for direct accession AMT’s at the time of the applicant’s enlistment in the Coast Guard.” CGPC stated that since the applicant’s specialty was not on the ORL, he was offered enlistment as an E-3 because “other than the direct petty officer program under the open rate list, there is no provision for enlistment at a higher pay grade.” APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On May 23, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-072
He stated that his health and weight loss records clearly prove that if his condition had been timely diagnosed and treated, he would have been in compliance with the Coast Guard’s fitness standards in time to be advanced on September 1, 2006. He alleged that it should be removed because (a) Dr. R told him that, because of his PTSD and medications, a weight-loss program “would be detrimental to my recovery”; (b) two of his PTSD medications, Effexor and Nortrip- tyline, caused his weight...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-114
The date of appointment is that date the The JAG stated, however, that although the Coast Guard may not backdate the applicant’s date of rank or award him back pay and allowances because of the administrative error, the Board may do so pursuant to its authority under 10 U.S.C. However, the Secretary may adjust the date of appointment … for any other reason that equity requires.” Therefore, the JAG stated that, if the applicant is selected for promotion by the PY 2008 selection board,1 the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-141
CGPC recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record “to reflect as though he was selected by the PY07 LCDR Selection board with a back date of rank and pay/allowances commensurate with such change.” CGPC stated that it “is plausible that these ultimately expunged inaccuracies in the disputed OER in part resulted in the applicant’s non-selection by the PY07 Lieutenant Commander Selection Board.” CGPC stated that this alle- gation is supported by the fact that the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-143
YNCM stated that the Coast Guard has no record that the applicant completed the October 2000 RSWE or 2001 RSWE. She also denied that she discussed the issue of the applicant not having sufficient time to complete the exam with MKCS B. LTJG D also stated the following: [The applicant] states “LTJG [D] informed me that she had sent the wrong SSN and that a test wasn’t received.” ESO’s do not ORDER RSWE. The applicant alleged that an exam had been sent for him and that it was received by the ESO.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-147
At the time of his removal from the Reserve advancement eligibility list, the applicant was serving on active duty pursuant to orders issued under Title 10 of the United States Code. To summarize, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard that the removal of the applicant from the enlisted Reserve advancement eligibility list was a violation of Article of Article 5.C.25 and Article 10.B.6.a. The applicant’s record shall be further corrected by removing the mark “not recommended for...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-195
However, Sector Xxxxxxx’s published rating chain, which was issued on February 8, 2006, shows that the designated rating chain of the CO of the XXXX was the Chief of the Response Department as Supervisor; the Sector Commander (rather than the Deputy Sector Commander) as Reporting Officer; and the xxxxxx District Chief of Response (rather than the Sector Com- mander) as Reviewer. shall be sent to Commander (CGPC-opm). In addition, the delay of promotion notification dated May 2, 2007, cited...
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 | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-224
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. He also asked the Board to award him the Silver Star or the Silver Lifesaving Medal rather than the Coast Guard Commendation Medal that was awarded to him in 2004 for his heroic service in rescuing Army personnel on March 6, 1945. Otherwise a military award should be considered.” Since the applicant was on active duty and performing military...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-003
entry in the Personnel Data Record stating that the individual is a candidate for reduction in rate by reason of incompetence and the following three month period will constitute a formal evaluation of his or her competency.” In response to the applicant’s argument that she was never given a 2 in any factor on her enlisted employee reviews as a YN1 prior to being placed on probation, the JAG pointed to the provision of the Personnel Manual which gives the commanding officer the authority to...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-024
The applicant stated that when the LTJG selection board convened on June 4, 2007, he did not have a complete and accurate record because a concurrent officer evaluation report (concurrent OER) for the period January 4, 2007, to May 1, 2007, was not in his record when it was considered by the calendar year 2007 LTJG selection board. 1982)1 and having found that the applicant suffered such prejudice by having an incomplete record before the 2007 LTJG selection, the Board finds, and the Coast...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-099
CGPC stated that the applicant placed #9 on the BMCM advancement list following the May 2001 SWE. CGPC stated that when members at the top of an advancement list are advanced or removed from the list, the members below do not “move up” the list. For example, on December 20, 2002, when CGPC issued ALCGENL 087/02 to announce the “carryover” of members above the cutoffs from the May 2001 advancement lists to the top of the May 2002 advancement lists, CGPC listed for carryover to the 2002 BMCM...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-129
On May 1, 2002, the applicant was transferred to the Coast Guard Reserve Retired list without pay (RET-2). Coast Guard Reserve Policy Manual Article 8.C.8.b of the Reserve Policy Manual states that retired pay for members with dates of initial entry into military service (DIEMS) prior to 8 September 1980 is computed based on the highest grade satisfactorily held at any time in the Armed Forces and the Commandant’s determination that the member’s performance in that grade was satisfactory. ...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-139
13 (the applicant had been No. 3, but the applicant was placed at No. Paragraph 2.B.1 of ALCOAST 341/07 states in pertinent part: “On January 1, 2008, IS members on [the] May 2007 SWE eligibility lists for advancement in their legacy ratings will be removed from their legacy advancement lists and merged into new IS advancement lists,” which was effective from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-153
CGPC stated that the applicant was unable to receive a commission on May 23, 2007, because he had not completed all of the required physical evaluations to substantiate his fitness for commissioning, as required by 14 U.S.C. CGPC stated that the applicant did not demonstrate full physical qualification for commissioning until August 6, 2007, and then his request for a waiver for his PRK surgery had to be processed and approved, which occurred on September 7, 2007. Therefore, a waiver...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2008-158
You are advised of your right to appeal to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, via official channels, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 135 MCM, as amended, and Section 0101f, CG Supp. More- over, the applicant argued that it was the duty of the Coast Guard to retain the report of the BOI, and the Coast Guard’s “inability to preserve records as required by law and regulation cannot be used as a basis for denying applicant’s requested relief.” With regard to his failures of...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-007
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an intelligence specialist, third class (IS3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he signed a four-year reenlistment contract on July 16, 2008, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 He alleged that when he received his transfer orders to Portsmouth, VA, he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility and...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-082
The disputed Page 7, which is signed by the applicant and by two lieu- tenants—LT O and LT R—from his Coast Guard and Navy chains of command, respectively, states the following: 01 OCT 07 You are being counseled concerning your responsibility to keep both chains of com- mand informed of your foreign travel and cautioned against attempting to undermine the authority of the two commands of which you are a part. He alleged that “this requirement was not looked upon seriously as I was of the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-090
This final decision, dated November 10, 2009, is approved and signed by the majority of APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who advanced to chief machinery technician (MKC/E-7) on October 1, 2007, off the advancement eligibility list (hereinafter “2006 list”) resulting from the May 2006 service-wide examination (SWE), asked the Board in his application (Tab C) to correct his record by backdating his date of advancement to December 1, 2006, which is the date, he alleged, that...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-131
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case This final decision, dated December 17, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was enlisted in pay grade E-3 instead of E-1. His Reservation Request for recruit training also shows that he had been approved for a six-year enlistment in pay grade E-3, as does an “Applicant Information Page – Enlisted.” VIEWS...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-135
This final decision, dated January 28, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a chief yeoman (YNC; pay grade E-7) in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to expunge an annual Enlisted Employee Review (EER) he received for the period October 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005, when he was assigned as the Chief of Administration and the Ser- vicing Personnel Office (SPO) of Sector Xxxxxx, and asked that “any possible advancements possibly...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-155
According to the applicant, during this meeting the CO informed the applicant that she was considering withdrawing the applicant’s recommendation for advancement based on concerns about the applicant’s performance and leadership. for example: In addition [the Article 138 reviewing authority (RA)] letter stated confusion on the applicant’s part as to her roles and responsibilities as ISC’s command senior chief and Servicing Personnel Office supervisor. The RA, in considering the Article 138...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-178
states that the Board’s report shall include the list of those selected and, “[i]f the Board does not recommend a candidate for appointment, the reasons therefore shall be indicated in the Board Report.” from the April 2009 board will be in effect from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011. The 2009 CWO appointment board’s report shows that at least two-thirds of the board members interpreted the disputed Page 7 and no-contact order to mean that the applicant had had an inappropriate...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-179
CDR [D] was a member of the CWO Selection Board for promotion to [CWO3]. The supervisor stated, “I know of nothing personal or professional that would have precluded [the applicant] from being selected for promotion to CWO3 and find it incomprehensible that he was not found to be among the best qualified for promotion to CWO3.” Applicant’s CWO2 OERS The applicant had four OERs that were reviewed by the CWO3 selection board. The applicant failed to provide any evidence which would...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-034
This final decision, dated July 29, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing his promotion year [PY] 2010 failure of selection for promotion to lieutenant (LT) and by directing that the next selection board to consider his record be considered his first opportunity for promotion to the grade of LT. APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS The applicant alleged that his consideration for promotion to LT before...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-036
The Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by allowing the applicant to reenlist for 6 years on November 13, 2009, to receive an SRB calculated with only 32 months of newly obligated service. If he had correctly signed a 21-month extension contract on April 25, 2008, obligating service through December 20, 2011, he would have been required to sign a 14-month extension contract on January 20, 2009, instead of just a 2-month contract, obligating...
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 | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-081
It states that the BO “has the respon- sibility of coordinating the boarding” and “will also notify the Sector OPCEN and the Response Dept Head when the boarding team departs for the boarding.” The applicant concluded by repeating his claims that because he could not appeal the Page 7 given the departure of his rating chain, that CDR X should have counseled him on an OER instead, and that the principle that requires masking of ensign OERs should also apply to Page 7s, but that since the Page...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-213
She alleged in that application that her then-commanding officer (CO) committed an error and/or injustice against her by withdrawing her recommendation for the applicant’s advancement and by removing her name from the 2007 advancement list five days before the applicant was due to be advanced. Therefore, because the erroneous EERs did not recommend the applicant for advancement she could not be advanced from the 2008 list. As already stated, not retroactively advancing the applicant to E-9...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-218
PSC stated that according to Article 1.D.11 of the Personnel Manual, if an appointee is not physically qualified on the date of appointment, PSC will remove the candidate’s name from the final eligibility list, and if the candidate becomes fit for full duty and the current list has expired, the member must re-compete for a future CWO appointment. The applicant also argued that since there was no adverse information in his record, his name should not have been removed from the eligibility...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-242
This final decision, dated June 3, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by removing the below average marks of 3 from his enlisted employee review (EER) for the period ending May 31, 2009. The JAG stated that the applicant was provided with his EER along with a counseling receipt on August 5, 2009, and that he did not submit any evidence that he attempted to appeal the marks. The applicant...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-252
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE OER MARK The written criteria for the numerical marks for “Responsibility” on an OER form appear below with the mark assigned by the applicant’s reporting officer, a 4, filled in and the mark the applicant wants, a 6, highlighted in yellow: STANDARDS FOR NUMERICAL MARKS IN “RESPONSIBILITY” ON AN OER FORM Responsibility Ability to act ethically, courageously, and dependably and inspire the same in others; accountability for own...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-263
The applicant’s record contains an enlistment contract showing that he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-1. in accordance with that the Board grant relief PSC stated that the applicant accepted and executed a six-year enlistment contract in pay grade E-3. His record shall be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-3.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-264
PSC stated there is nothing in the record to indicate that the applicant was not entitled to pay grade E-3 upon his enlistment. The Board is persuaded in this finding by the enlistment contract which is evidence that the Coast Guard intended to enlist the applicant in pay grade E-3; the statement of understanding promising enlistment in the advanced pay grade signed by the recruiter and the applicant; and the recruiter’s statement to PSC that the applicant was not enlisted in pay grade E-3...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-265
2 Each Coast Guard officer is evaluated by a rating chain of three superior officers: a supervisor, who is normally the person to whom the officer reports on a daily basis; a reporting officer, who is normally the supervisor’s supervisor; and a reviewer, who reviews the OER to ensure consistency and compliance with regulations and who may add a page of comments to the OER. The applicant also alleged that when any officer reviews the summary of his numerical marks in the Coast Guard’s Direct...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-057
Before her discharge, she requested an officer’s commission in the Reserve, but the Regular to Reserve Officer Commission Panel (RROCP) that convened in June 2008 did not select her. However, the RROCP that convened in September 2008 selected her to receive a commission as a LT. She was offered the LT commission with a date of rank of May 12, 2004, in a letter dated November 5, 2008. The Coast Guard has stated that her May 12, 2004, date of rank accords with the requirement of Article 1.H.2.d.3.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-072
This final decision, dated September 29, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a marine science technician, third class (MST3/pay grade E-4) in the Reserve, asked the Board to correct her record to show that she advanced from pay grade E-2 to E-3 on February 7, 2010, and advanced from E-3 to E-4 on August 7, 2010. In addition, the PSC noted the Page 7 stating that the applicant was eligible for a bonus, concluded that she “has...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-083
Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected by removing the disputed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was selected for promotion to LCDR by the promotion year (PY) 2011 Reserve LCDR selection board, which convened on August 16, 2010, now asks the Board to backdate his date of rank to lieutenant commander (LCDR) by one promotion year (PY 2010) because his record was prejudiced by the erroneous OER when it was reviewed by the PY 2010 selection board. 2009-071,...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-084
2006-085 and 2008-106, the Board ordered the Coast Guard to remove from the applicant’s record two erroneous officer evaluation reports (OERs) that he received in 2003 and 2004 and to remove three non-selections for promotion to CAPT in 2006, 2007, and 2008 (by the promotion year (PY) 2007, 2008, and 2009 selection boards, respectively) from his record so that he would have two more chances for selection without the erroneous OERs in his record. 89-00431 is not in the record before the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-231
The JAG stated that the application was untimely and argued that “due to the length of the delay, the lack of compelling reasons for not filing his application sooner, and the probable lack of success on the merits of his claim, the Board should find that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations.” The PSC Memorandum PSC also noted that the application was untimely and should be denied for that reason. To be timely, an application for correction of a military...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-241
The Coast Guard recommended, and the Board agrees, that as a result of this error, the applicant’s PY 2011 failure of selection for promotion to LT should be removed from his record and that the applicant should have one additional opportunity to compete for promotion before the PY 2013 LT selection board. The Board further finds that even if evidence of the applicant’s non-selection by the PY 2011 selection board had been in his record, it is unlikely in any event that the applicant would...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-258
The applicant alleged that the marks of N were erroneous and unjust because “the number factors in all the enlisted employee reviews all exceed the minimum average mark of ‘4’.” He noted that under Article 10.B.6.a.6. of the Personnel Manual states that the rating chain should not recommend a member for advancement if the member “is not capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade.” Moreover, Article 10.B.7.1. states that a member should...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-007
The applicant alleged that his record before the PY 2012 Capt selection board improperly contained a 1993 Arrest Report that should have been removed in accordance with a January 30, 1995 final decision from the Personnel Records Review Board (PRRB) in Case No. The Coast Guard also admitted in the advisory opinion that the Arrest Report was improperly included in the applicant’s military record when his record was reviewed by the PY 2012 Capt selection board. The advisory opinion stated,...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-029
In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted the October 31, 20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Manpower Report - Positions,” showing a total of four authorized XXCM billets in the SELRES; and the October 31, 20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Man- power Report – Strength by Paygrade,” showing that only two of the four authorized XXCM billets were filled.2 The applicant noted that at the time, there were actually seven reservists who were XXCMs, but five of them did not count against the Reserve...