CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1998-052
On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and that she had been charged with filing false claims. On June 22, 1999, Coast Guard Investigations forwarded a copy of the report of the investigation of the filing of false claims by recruiters in the xxxx office to the BCMR. On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1999-118
He also asked the Board to remove from Coast Guard records his command’s negative endorsement of his request for assignment to recruiting duty (Assignment Data Card; form CG-3698A), as well as any other negative correspondence concerning his request for recruiting duty. CGPC stated that, aside from the two negative page 7s dated June 15, 199x, in the applicant’s per- sonal data record, the Coast Guard has a negative endorsement dated October 4 The Chief Counsel stated that there are only...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1999-124
The two disputed page 7s were in his record before this appointment board. The xxx stated that xxx was a member of the section at that time. The applicant appeared xxx on the 199x Final Eligibility List for appointment to CWO and would have been appointed to CWO on June 1, 199x, except for the incompleteness of his record.
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2000-137
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant’s record includes the following marks, which she received as a xxx: MARKS OF 6 MARKS OF 3 4 9 MARKS OF 4 15 15 15 22 13 DATE 3/31/98 9/30/98 3/31/99 9/30/99 3/31/00 MARKS OF 5 5 6 2 CONDUCT S S S S S RECOMMENDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT Progressing Recommended Not Recommended Recommended Not recommended 2 1 1 Final Decision in BCMR Docket...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2001-080
The applicant alleged that the work described in the first, third, and fifth bullets on the page 7 was assigned to his supervisor by the marking official before the appli- cant reported to the unit. Moreover, he stated, under Article 10-B-10.a(3), the approving official’s mark regarding advancement is not appealable. The Chief Counsel stated that there is no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that his marking official promised him that the page 7 would not be entered in his record.
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2002-005
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. He went on to state that as part of their discretion, selection boards may “consider the nature of the offense, the time that has elapsed since the offense, the service member’s performance since the offense, and any other pertinent issues.” The Chief Counsel asserted that the 2001 CWO Appointment Board was charged with developing criteria per the...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2002-081
He alleged that the reduction was unjust because EPM could have given his command “other options or means to resolve the [command’s] issues with [the applicant].” The applicant further alleged that prior to his permanent reduction and subsequent transfer“, [he] did not receive evaluation[s] by yeoman and/or personnel other than [his assigned cutter] members.” SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On February 15, 19XX, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years. On December 26, 19XX, a...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2003-026
With respect to the applicant's allegation that the NJP proceeding was biased against him because the executive officer (XO) served as the person placing the applicant on report and the PIO, the Chief Counsel stated that neither the Coast Guard Military Justice Manual nor the Manual for Courts-Martial indicate that this practice constitutes procedural error. The basis for the imposition of punishment at NJP was applicant's violation of Article 87, UCMJ. The applicant has presented nothing...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2003-060
On October 18, xxxx, a page 7 was placed in the record, wherein the applicant VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 20, xxxx, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request. The Chief Counsel stated that under 10 U.S.C. The CO was required to document on a page 7 his decision not to recommend the applicant for reenlistment, which he did on May 2, xxxx.
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2003-150
All other conduct marks in his record are 4.0. and did not return to duty until July 10, 1967. He pointed out that “the evidence that is available in the record supports both actions by the Coast Guard.” APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On May 5, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days. Because the applicant has failed to justify his long delay in applying to this Board and has failed to submit...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-006
of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual provides for the appeal of enlisted performance marks. TJAG said that reviewing the application of one who failed to make use of an established appeals process would “effectively eviscerate the regulatory scheme implemented by Article 10 [of the Personnel Manual].” TJAG argued that the Board is without jurisdiction to consider this application in the absence of a completed appeal until the applicant has exhausted “all administrative remedies afforded...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-019
The applicant’s CO also prepared a page 7, which the applicant acknowledged, to document the lack of recommendation for advancement with the following text: [The applicant was] marked NOT RECOMMENDED in the Advancement section of his enlisted performance evaluation dated 12 October 2000. He alleged that standard practice was that only the senior member of the rate worked in the office and that junior personnel, and especially reservists, worked at “getting the crew fed” because regulars...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-036
This final decision, dated September 9, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record by removing (1) an administrative remarks (page 7) page that terminated her eligibility period for a Good Conduct award, (2) a page 7 documenting her First Alcohol Incident, and (3) an unsatisfactory conduct mark on her performance evaluation for the period ending December 30, 2002. A third individual received a page 7 documenting an...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-041
He pointed out that, if his rating chain had found him incapable, they should have counseled him on that fact, and they should have prepared required administrative entries for his record to document his loss of his 1 Enlisted members are evaluated by a rating chain, which consists of a Supervisor, who recommends evaluation marks; a Marking Official, who assigns the marks; and an Approving Official, who approves the EER. The applicant alleged that he received a mark of not recommended...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-046
3 Under Article 1.D.10.a.2 of the Personnel Manual, if CGPC had acted to remove the applicant's name from the Preboard Eligibility List based solely on the CO's recommendation, without the special evaluation, the applicant would have been entitled to review the recommendation, comment on it, and have his record reviewed by a special board that would have recommended whether his name should have been reinstated on the Preboard Eligibility list, if CGPC had acted to remove it. Under Article...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2005-129
On May 29, 2003, the Group Commander counseled the applicant and the chief warrant officer who served as commanding officer (CO) of the parent command of the applicant’s station concerning problems of communication and cooperation between the station and the parent command, which had increased since the applicant became the station OIC. LCDR D stated that the applicant’s CO reported that on one occasion the appli- cant had refused to come to the parent command for a meeting with his CO,...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2006-099
The JAG stated that the applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed any error by punishing him at NJP for violating Article 86 (UA) of the UCMJ. The JAG argued that the applicant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not appealing the NJP and the Board could deny the application on that basis. The Board notes the Coast Guard's argument that the Board could deny the applicant's request based solely on his alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2006-107
This final decision, dated January 31, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military records by removing an April 19, 1982, non-judicial punishment (NJP)1 and the associated performance marks, by awarding him his second good conduct medal, and by advancing him to chief fire control technician (FTC; pay grade E-7). However on April 21, 1982, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) requested that the...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2007-073
The applicant alleged that in January 2006, YNC H of the in Service Transfer Team told him that upon his release from active duty, “your unit will request that you be placed on the Reserve Advancement List based on your [active duty] results – that’s your incentive.” The applicant further stated that YNC H and SKSC N (Seattle Reserve Career Develop- ment Advisor) told him that all he had to do was to have his Reserve Unit send a message to have his name transferred from the active duty...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2007-081
The applicant was taken to mast the same day, September 17, 2001, and awarded NJP for communicating a “bomb threat.” As a result of the NJP, his record contains the following docu- ments: • A Court Memorandum of NJP states that the applicant made “a threatening statement toward the guards at the front gate of AIRSTA Xxxxxx. The Board finds that the results of the polygraph test do not affect the preponderance of the evidence in this case and so do not prove that the applicant did not...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2007-110
This final decision, dated November 29, 2007, 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 timely advanced to the rate of machinery technician, second class (MK2/E-5) off of the advancement list in 2004 and that he reenlisted for four years on April 15, 2004, to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 182/03. of the Personnel Manual states that members with less than six years of active service will...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2008-035
The applicant alleged that the marks he received in this first EER at the Waterways Division show that his next two sets of marks from that command were inaccu- rate and unfair. states that the Supervisor in a rating chain must “clearly communicate goals and acceptable standards of performance to the evaluee before and throughout the marking period”; provide a means by which the evaluee may provide input on his performance; complete the EER with recommended marks and any required supporting...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2008-076
CWO Z Xxxxx Branch | SKC X (husband of CWO X) Xxxxx Department The applicant alleged that this arrangement violated Article 8.H. The EER rating chain provides for additional levels of review and while the applicant claims that his supervisor was biased when conducting the evaluation, this is not supported by the record and there is no indication that the Approving Official was biased in his assignment of the not recommended for advancement marks assigned in the EER.” Declaration of CDR X,...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2008-131
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. This final decision, dated February 12, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by directing the Coast Guard to pay him severance pay due to his separation by reason of physical disability due to schizophrenia on November 26, 1980. The BCMR has jurisdiction of the...