DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-004 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was commenced on November 7, 2001, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s complete application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  18,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to remove an Administrative Remarks form CG 
3307 (page 7), dated September 8, xxxx, from his record; to advance him to pay grade E-
5 as of March 1, xxxx; and to award him back pay and allowances.  
 

The applicant alleged that in xxxx, he was one of the few and first Coast Guard 
members stationed at a particular base of another military service.  On April 1, xxxx, he 
was  informed  that  he  would  have  to  pay  the  base  directly  for  his  $785  monthly  rent 
with half due on the 1st and half due on the 15th of each month.  Unfortunately, he did 
not receive any BAH in his pay check until April 15, xxxx, and so started in arrears.   

 
The applicant alleged that when he realized he was in arrears on the rent, he con-
tacted  a  base  housing  office  representative  and  was  told  just  to  try  to  get  caught  up.  
However, in June xxxx, a new housing representative reported him to a member of his 
command, a chief warrant officer (CWO).  He alleged that the CWO told him to “come 
up with a plan of action” for repaying the rent.  So the next day, he emailed the CWO a 
“very aggressive plan” for getting caught up by mid August.  However, when a family 
medical emergency arose requiring travel expenses and when their car required repairs, 
his wife spent some of his basic allowance for housing (BAH), instead of setting it aside 
for rent, and so he fell even further behind in his rental payments.  

Final Decision in BCMR No. 2002-004                                                                              p. 2  

 

 
On August 24, xxxx, because he had not caught up and was one month behind in 
paying the rent, the base housing representative again reported him to the CWO, who 
suggested that he apply for a mutual assistance loan.  He alleged that he filled out the 
loan papers the same day and sent them to the CWO.  Several days later, however, the 
CWO told him that his family income was sufficient to pay the rent and he should not 
need a loan.  After he explained all of the financial obstacles he had faced, his CWO told 
him to resubmit the loan application.  The applicant did so “within hours.”  However, 
during the following week, the CWO did not return any of his calls or emails, and he 
was never in the office when the applicant stopped by. 

 
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.  Moreover, because the applicant was becom-
ing ill and had to take leave, he “made arrangements with Coast Guard legal office to 
have  a  power  of  attorney  done  up  for  [his]  wife  and  again  emailed  [the  CWO]  and 
informed him to get in contact with [his] wife and all her contact numbers” for getting 
the loan.  While he was ill, his wife and the base housing representative repeatedly tried 
to contact the CWO without success.  The base was threatening to evict them.  Finally, 
on  September  20,  xxxx,  the  housing  representative  bypassed  the  CWO  and  went  to 
another chief warrant officer who was “shocked and enraged” to learn that the CWO 
had not acted upon the loan application for almost a month.  Their loan was approved 
the same day, and the money was used to pay the rent in full. 

 
The applicant alleged that because of his financial difficulties, the CWO placed a 
negative administrative entry (“page 7”) in his record and he received an unsatisfactory 
conduct mark.  Moreover, his name was removed from the advancement list and so he 
was not advanced on March 1, xxxx, as he otherwise would have been.  He alleged that 
these  were  unjust  consequences  of  his  financial  difficulties.    In  support  of  his  allega-
tions, the applicant submitted copies of some of his email correspondence.  It shows that 
in response to an inquiry from the applicant on August 24, xxxx, the CWO told him to 
apply for a Mutual Assistance loan. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted on May 19, xxxx.  He was advanced to E-4 on February 11, 
xxxx.  Following the May xxxx servicewide examination (SWE), he was xxth on the list 
for advancement to E-5.  The list was to expire on June 16, xxxx.  

 
On September 8, xxxx, the CWO entered the following page 7 in the applicant’s 

record: 
 
Unreliable  due  to  failure  to  pay  debts.    On  or  about  15  June  xxxx  you  were  counseled 
regarding  your  need  to  catch  up  on  paying  for  the  government  quarters  you  were 
assigned  on  [the  base].    This  counseling  took  place  because  of  a  complaint  from  the 
Housing Office at [the base] that you had not paid you bill for quarters.  At the time of 

Final Decision in BCMR No. 2002-004                                                                              p. 3  

 

the counseling you were told that you would need to set up a plan on how you would 
become current on your payments.  On 19 June xxxx you stated in e-mail to me that you 
would become current on your account with [the base] by paying $785 on 3 July, $392.50 
on 17 July, another $392.50 on 1 August and $785 on 15 August in order to become cur-
rent.    On  or  about  31  August  I  was  advised  that  you  would  require  a  loan  from  Coast 
Guard Mutual Assistance because you needed to pay [the base] for your quarters in order 
to avoid eviction.  Your failure to become current in your payments for quarters to [the 
base]  was  compounded  by  waiting  to  request  assistance  until  the  need  became  critical.  
You further compounded the problem by going on leave for a week despite not having 
approval on your request for a loan. 

 
 
On an Enlisted Performance Evaluation Form (EPEF) completed in mid Septem-
ber,  the  applicant  received  an  “unsatisfactory”  conduct  mark,  and  he  was  not recom-
mended  for  advancement.1    A  page  7  in  his  record  dated  September  30,  xxxx,  docu-
ments  the  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  and  states  that  his  period  of  eligibility  for  a 
Good Conduct Award had ended.  Because of the unsatisfactory conduct mark and his 
loss  of  his  commanding  officer’s  (CO’s)  recommendation  for  advancement,  the  appli-
cant’s name was removed from the advancement list.  However, his command appar-
ently  failed  to  counsel  him  properly  about  his  removal  from  the  list.2    If  he  had 
remained eligible, he would have been advanced to E-5 on March 1, xxxx.   

 
On  May  21,  xxxx,  the  applicant’s  CO  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Enlisted  Personnel 
Management  Division  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  in  which  he 
stated that after reviewing the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s indebtedness 
and the preparation of the page 7s and the EPEF the previous fall, he had determined 
that the page 7s should be expunged from the record and that the conduct mark should 
be  changed  to  satisfactory.    The  CO  stated  that  the  EPEF  and  page  7s  had  had 
unintended,  excessive  adverse  consequences  for  the  applicant  in  that  he  had  been 
removed  from  the  advancement  list  and  was  ineligible  to  compete  in  the  May  xxxx 
SWE.    He  asked  CGPC  to  correct  the  applicant’s  records,  restore  his  eligibility  for  a 
Good Conduct Award, and, if possible, advance him to E-5.3 

 
On June 15, xxxx, CGPC notified the CO that his request to correct the marks on 
the  EPEF  and  expunge  the  page  7  dated  September  30,  xxxx,  was  approved,  but  his 
request to have the page 7 dated September 8, xxxx, expunged was denied.  CGPC did 
not address the CO’s request to advance the applicant.  Because the advancement list 

                                                 
1  Article 5.C.6.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that a member who receives an “unsatisfactory con-
duct mark” is ineligible to advance or to compete in the next SWE.  Article 5.c.4.e.4. provides that a CO’s 
recommendation for advancement is “the most important eligibility requirement.” 
2  Article  5.C.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  requires  that  a  member  be  advised  in  a  page  7  when  he  is 
removed from an advancement list, and he must be counseled on how he can regain his eligibility.  
3    The  applicant’s  CO  was  the  “marking  official”  for  the  EPEF.    Article  10.B.11.b.1.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual permits a marking official to change any EPEF mark of a member still attached to the unit if the 
marking official receives “additional information that applies to the particular evaluation period.” 

Final Decision in BCMR No. 2002-004                                                                              p. 4  

 

expired  on  June  16,  xxxx,4  and  he  had  not  participated  in  the  most  recent  SWE,  the 
applicant was required to take a “make-up” SWE. 
 

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.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  based his recommendation on a memorandum from CGPC.  
In it, CGPC laid out the facts of the case and stated that “[a]fter a thorough review of 
applicant’s  record  and  BCMR  application,  [the  Enlisted  Personnel  Management  Divi-
sion  of  CGPC]  agreed  that  the  [page  7]  dated  September  8,  xxxx  should  also  be 
expunged from applicant’s record.”  CGPC further concluded that, because the appli-
cant was clearly recommended for advancement by his CO before the expiration of the 
advancement  list  on  June  16,  xxxx,  he  should  be  advanced  retroactively  to  E-5  as  of 
March 1, xxxx, and awarded “all associated back pay and allowances.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On March 20, 2002, the BCMR sent a copy of the Chief Counsel’s advisory opin-
ion to the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On April 8, 2002, the 
applicant responded, stating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

2. 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
 The letter of the applicant’s CO dated May 21, xxxx, indicates that, if he 
had  understood  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  rental  arrears  and  the 
consequences of the marks in the September xxxx EPEF, he would not have withdrawn 
his  recommendation  for  the  applicant’s  advancement  or  awarded  the  applicant  an 
unsatisfactory conduct mark.  The record indicates that, if the CO had not withdrawn 
his recommendation for advancement or awarded the unsatisfactory conduct mark, the 
applicant  would  have  been  advanced  to  E-5  on  March  1,  xxxx.    Therefore,  the  Board 
finds  that  the  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was 
unintentionally and unjustly denied advancement to E-5 on March 1, xxxx, because of a 
misunderstanding.    The  record  also  indicates  that  the  applicant  clearly  regained  his 
                                                 
4  Article 5.C.25.c.3. of the Personnel Manual provides that, once a member loses his CO’s recommenda-
tion  for  advancement,  he  can  only  be  advanced  if  he  regains  his  CO’s  recommendation  before  the 
advancement list expires.  If the list expires, he must take another SWE. 

Final Decision in BCMR No. 2002-004                                                                              p. 5  

 

3. 

CO’s recommendation for advancement before the advancement list expired on June 16, 
xxxx.    Therefore,  under  Article  5.C.25.c.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  Coast  Guard 
erred in failing to advance him off the list. 
 
 
The CO’s letter dated May 21, xxxx, indicates that he was convinced that 
the applicant’s debt was not caused by unreliability and that the applicant was not neg-
ligent in attempting to resolve the matter.  In light of the CO’s letter and the recommen-
dation of the Enlisted Personnel Management Division of CGPC, the Board finds that 
the  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  page  7  in  his 
record dated September 8, xxxx, is misleading and unjust and should be removed.   
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

4. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted. 

 

Final Decision in BCMR No. 2002-004                                                                              p. 6  

 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for correction of his military record 

In addition, the Administrative Remarks (page 7) dated September 8, xxxx, shall 

 
 
is granted. 
 
 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  advanced  to  xxx/E-5  on 
March 1, xxxx.  The Coast Guard shall pay him all back pay and allowances he may be 
due as a result of this correction. 
 
 
be removed from his record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Astrid Lopez-Goldberg 

 
 
John A. Kern  

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs