DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2000-157
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor:
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The BCMR docketed
this case on July 7, 2000, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application.
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
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 his
advancement, March 6, 2000, instead of May 26, 2000. He alleged that the latter
date of advancement was the result of an administrative error and that he lost
pay and allowances as a result of the error.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of documents
proving that he had completed the required steps for advancement to SN before
March 2000. He also submitted a copy of a document showing that on March 6,
2000, his command approved his request for advancement and certified that he
had completed all necessary tests and “practical factors” to qualify.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On November 22, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recom-
mended that the Board grant the applicant’s request for the reasons provided in
a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command
(CGPC) on October 31, 2000.
In the memorandum, CGPC stated that the applicant’s supervisor had
provided a statement indicating that he had personally carried the applicant’s
approved advancement “chit” to the unit’s PERSRU (personnel reporting unit)
for input on March 6, 2000, but that for unknown reasons, the chit was not proc-
essed by the PERSRU until June 26, 2000. CGPC stated that under Article
5.C.28.c. of the Personnel Manual, the PERSRU could not backdate the appli-
cant’s advancement by more than one month, so his date of advancement could
only be backdated to May 26, 2000, by the PERSRU. However, under Article
5.C.28.a.1., advancement to pay grade E-3 is normally effective as of the “date
subsequent to the completion of the applicable requirements.” Therefore, CGPC
recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s date of
advancement to March 6, 2000, and by ordering payment of any pay and allow-
ances the applicant may have lost as a result of the error.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On November 28, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief
Counsel’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days. On
December 19, 2000, the applicant responded, stating that he had no objections to
the Chief Counsel’s recommendation.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of
the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions,
and applicable law:
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-
tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. The application was timely.
2.
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
he met the requirements for advancement to seaman, pay grade E-3, by March 6,
2000, and was recommended for advancement by his chain of command on that
day. He has also proved that an administrative delay on the part of the Coast
Guard caused his date of advancement to be recorded as May 26, 2000. But for
that delay, he would have been advanced when his command first recommend-
ed it. See Personnel Manual, Article 5.C.28.a.1.
record to show that he was advanced to pay grade E-3 on March 6, 2000.
Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s
3.
ORDER
Robert H. Joost
The application of XXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record
is granted. His record shall be corrected to show that he was advanced to
seaman, pay grade E-3, on March 6, 2000. The Coast Guard shall pay him any
back pay and allowances he is due as a result of this correction.
Jacqueline L. Sullivan
Betsy L. Wolf
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...
On November 2, 2002, the applicant’s PERSRU recommended remission of the $5,748.29 debt in full, finding that “it is reasonable to assume [the applicant] was not properly counseled.” The PERSRU noted that the applicant’s record contains no CG- 3307 documenting SRB counseling upon his enlistment in April 1999 or at the time his change in rating was approved by CGPC. (7) of Enclosure (1) and Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33, the Coast Guard had a duty (a) to counsel the applicant about SRB...
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 | 2004-040
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 | Other Cases | 2001-121
from my pay after not having drilled for 2 years due to serving a mission for my church.” He submitted a SGLI Election and Certificate form, dated November 7, 2000, stating “I do not want insurance at this time.” Views of the Coast Guard On January 11, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant was not granted full relief because there is no independent evidence supporting the applicant’s assertion that...
CG | BCMR | Dental and Optical Benefits | 2002-148
2. the Coast Guard Personnel Command that The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provi- The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: sions of 10 U.S.C. The Board agrees with the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard and the Commander of the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that by December 19, 2000, the applicant properly...
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 | Other Cases | 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 | 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 | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2000-166
The Chief Coun- sel pointed out that the applicant’s RE-3R reenlistment code is not an absolute bar to his reenlistment “if, in the opinion of his Recruiter, Applicant has resolved his disqualifying factor and his Recruiter believes the Coast Guard would benefit from Applicant’s reenlistment.” The Chief Counsel adopted by reference a memorandum prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) concerning the applicant’s case. of the Personnel Manual, members in pay grades E-3 and...