DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-012 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 docketed on December 7, 2001, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated October 10, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant asked the Board to adjust his signal number,1 to provide him with 
a  minimum  of  three  years  constructive  credit,  and  to  correct  his  dates  of  rank  for 
lieutenant,  lieutenant  commander,  and  commander  with  entitlement  to  all  backpay, 
accordingly.    He  stated  that  the  corrections  will  allow  him  to  receive  the  pay  that 
Congress  mandated  pursuant  to  14  U.S.C.  §  727,  in  recognition  of  the  advanced 
education and experience he obtained prior to entering active duty as a law specialist in 
198X. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant stated that 14 U.S.C. § 727 mandates that the Coast Guard provide  
constructive credit for a minimum of three years of active duty to Reserve officers who 
                                                 
1 Signal numbers are annually assigned to each officer on the active duty promotion list.  This  number 
designates each officer’s seniority in relation to other active duty officers, at the beginning of the year. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 2  

are appointed for assignment as a law specialist.  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.  The applicant stated that, in fact, the Coast Guard failed to inform him that he 
was entitled to receive the mandatory credit.   

 
The applicant claimed that, based on his advanced education and the nature of 
his  recruitment,  he  should  have  been  provided  with  the  mandatory  credit.    He 
explained  that  prior  to  accepting  his  appointment,  he  was  interviewed  for  the  direct 
commission  lawyers  (DCL)  program,  along  with  other  candidates,  by  a  direct 
commission  screening  panel.    He  further  alleged  that  after  he  was  appointed,  he 
attended  officer  indoctrination  training  with  other  successful  candidates  and  was 
thereafter assigned a  new effective date of  appointment, which initially differed from 
his  original  May  198X  appointment  to  lieutenant  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve.    The 
applicant alleged that, because he was processed in an identical manner as other officers 
who  received  the  constructive  credit,  he  believed  that  he  was  entering  active  duty 
through the DCL program.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  had  the  Coast  Guard  provided  him  with  the 
mandatory credit, he would have been assigned a signal number that corresponded to 
an  officer  who  had  been  appointed  to  lieutenant  three  years  prior  to  his  original 
permanent appointment in May 198X.   Therefore, the applicant contended,  he would 
have  been  in  zone  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  commander,  commander,  and  captain 
four years earlier for each grade.   

 
 

 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

On November 17, 196X, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  
He served on active duty until August 17, 197X, at which time he was transferred to the 
Coast Guard Ready Reserve.  There, he drilled as a ready reservist from 197X to 198X. 

 
On September 26, 198X, the applicant was informed by Commandant letter that, 
effective on his oath of office, he was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer in the 
grade of ensign.  On October 5, 198X, he was administered the oath of office, making his 
appointment  and  date  of  rank  effective  from  that  date  in  accordance  with  Article 
2.A.4.a. of the Personnel Manual.  He was promoted to lieutenant junior grade on July 1, 
198X,  with  a  date  of  rank  of  April  2,  198X.    On  May  6,  198X,  he  was  promoted  to 
lieutenant,  grade  O-3,  with  a  date  of  rank  of  May  1,  198X.    (All  of  these  promotions 
occurred prior to the applicant’s applying for an appointment under the DCL program.) 

 
In 198X, the applicant completed his legal education, earning a law degree.  On 
March 25, 198X, he applied to enter active duty under the Coast Guard’s law specialist 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 3  

program.  He was notified on June 8, 198X of his selection for a direct commission as a 
lieutenant in the Coast Guard Reserve through the program and received orders on July 
11, 198X, calling him to extended active duty.  See 14 U.S.C. § 745.  The July 11th active 
duty orders provided, in part, that his “active duty agreement will be executed at RTC 
Yorktown.    The  agreement  will  serve  as  a  4-year  contractual  obligation  between  the 
member and the U.S. Coast Guard.” 

 
On October 11, 199X, the applicant requested integration into the regular Coast 
Guard.    His  request  was  subsequently  approved  by  the  January  xx,  199X  integration 
panel.  On August 7, 199X, he was appointed a permanent commissioned officer in the 
grade of lieutenant commander (grade O-4), having a date of rank of August 1, 199X.  
On  May  1,  199X,  he  was  selected  for  promotion  to  commander  (grade  O-5)  with  a 
corresponding date of rank.  See 14 U.S.C. § 735 (b).  To date, the applicant continues to 
serve on active duty as a commander.   
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 

 
 
opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for relief. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  “because  [the  applicant]  was  not  ‘appointed’  a 
commission upon his entry onto active duty as a law specialist,” the constructive credit 
mandated by 14 U.S.C. § 727 does not apply in the applicant’s case.  He stated that the 
applicant was tendered and accepted his initial appointment as a commissioned officer 
in October 198X, as an ensign in the Coast  Guard Reserve.  He further stated that on 
July  11,  198X,  the  applicant  was  ordered  to  extended  active  duty  for  the  purpose  of 
assignment to a law specialist billet, while he concurrently held the grade of lieutenant 
in the Coast Guard Reserve, ranking from May 1, 198X on the Inactive Duty Promotion 
List2 (IDPL).  The Chief Counsel contended that upon the applicant’s July 198X entry on 
active duty, however,  his record fails to indicate that the applicant was tendered and 
accepted an appointment as a commissioned officer. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  it  is  clear  from  the  record  that  the  applicant 
served continuously from his October 198X appointment as a commissioned officer in 
the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  and  that  he  has  not  proved  that  he  was  appointed  in  July 
198X, within the meaning of the plain language of 14 U.S.C. § 727.  The Chief Counsel 
argued  that  “14  U.S.C.  §  727  clearly  delineates  the  intent  of  Congress  to  provide  an 
individual  holding  a  Juris  Doctorate  degree  a  minimum  of  three  years  constructive 
service  credit  upon  initial  appointment  of  a  commission  in  a  military  service  for  the 
purpose of serving as a law specialist.”(emphasis supplied)  He therefore argued that, 

                                                 
2 The IDPL is the lineal list of Coast Guard Reserve officers in an inactive status. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 4  

because  the  applicant  was  already  holding  a  commission  based  on  his  198X 
appointment, he was not entitled to the constructive credit or the attendant adjustment 
to his dates of rank. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  admitted  that  in  connection  with  processing  the  applicant’s 
extended  active  duty,  he  was  erroneously  provided  a  “Notice  of  Intention”  form, 
offering the applicant an original appointment as a lieutenant in the Reserves, when, in 
fact, he already held that status.  The Chief Counsel argued, however, that the express 
terms  of  the  Notice  of  Intention  did  not  appoint  the  applicant  a  commission  as  a 
lieutenant.    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  contended  that  even  assuming  arguendo  that  the 
applicant  was  appointed  a  commission  through  the  DCL  program,  the  applicant  is 
entitled to no additional years of constructive credit because he entered active duty as a 
grade  O-3  on  July  30,  198X  and,  in  fact,  had  been  given  credit  for  more  than  the 
minimum  of  three  years  service  in  an  active  status.3    He  stated  that  14  U.S.C.  §  727 
provides  no  requirement  that  the  constructive  credit  supplement  “other  entitlements, 
such  as  DOR  based  on  a  prior  appointment.”    The  Chief  Counsel  added  that,  had 
Congress intended to award constructive credit for advanced education and experience 
outside an original appointments, it would have drafted legislation accordingly.   
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  1,  2002,  the  Chair  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.   On July 15, 2002, the applicant 
provided the Board with his response. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  advisory  opinion  is  factually  inaccurate  and 
unsupported  by  the  record.    He  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  was  incorrect  in  its 
assertion that he accepted an extended duty contract because the record reveals that he 
applied for and was selected for a direct commission as a lieutenant in the Coast Guard 
Reserve through the DCL program.  He maintained that he accepted his appointment 
by signing a Notice of Intention prior to entering active duty, and that the Coast Guard 
failed  to  offer  evidence  to  the  contrary.    The  applicant  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard’s 

                                                 
3 The Chief Counsel argued that, when the applicant was brought onto active duty as an O-3, it normally 
took 4.5 years for a new officer to reach grade O-3.  He argued therefore that the applicant received five 
years and eight months of constructive credit (4 years and 6 months to O-3 plus 1 year and 2 months in 
grade). 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 5  

explanation that documents tendered to him merely contained boilerplate language is 
inadequate to preclude the mandatory credit from applying under these circumstances. 
 
The applicant asserted that the Coast Guard also failed to support its assertion 
 
that he entered active duty under a lateral entry program.  He argued that, in fact, the 
Coast Guard produced no evidence of the program’s existence.  He contended that he 
was never informed of nor offered an alternative entry program at any time during the 
law  specialist  application  process.    He  stated  that  he  “applied  for,  competed  as  a 
candidate with other civilian candidates, interviewed and was accepted specifically into 
the  direct  commission  program.”    The  applicant  alleged  that  contrary  to  the  Coast 
Guard’s opinion, the record of evidence demonstrates the Coast Guard’s intention that 
he enter active duty through the direct commission program.  The applicant moreover 
contended that the Coast Guard’s reference to the 199X Register of Officers, wherein his 
name  appeared  as  a  lieutenant  with  a  date  of  rank  of  May  1,  198X,  was  of  no 
consequence in supporting the manner in which he was recruited onto active duty. 
 
 
The  applicant  further  alleged  that  in  its  advisory  opinion,  the  Coast  Guard 
misinterpreted the law.  He contended that the Coast Guard incorrectly states that 14 
U.S.C.  §  727,  entitled  “Constructive  credit  upon  initial  appointment,”  provides  for 
constructive credit only upon the initial appointment of a commission to an individual 
holding a law degree.  (emphasis supplied)  He argued that under the rules of statutory 
construction, section headings fail to provide appropriate interpretive guidance on the 
meaning  of  statutory  provisions. 
  Therefore,  he  argued,  the  Coast  Guard’s 
interpretation  of  14  U.S.C.  §  727  is  particularly  erroneous,  in  light  of  the  fact  that  the 
term “initial” appears in the title of § 727, but not the body of the text.  He claimed that, 
in  fact,  the  development  of  the  law,  as  revealed  by  the  history  of  the  predecessor 
legislation of 14 U.S.C. § 727, shows quite an opposite intent by Congress, and makes it 
abundantly  clear  that  Congress  specifically  changed  the  law  in  contemplation  of 
providing constructive credit to members who already held commissions in the Armed 
Forces. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  alternative  argument  that  he  has 
been credited with a minimum of three years of active service is also unsupported.  The 
applicant  argued  that  because  his  lineal  number  precedence  could  not,  by  law,  be 
reduced and his date of rank in the Ready Reserve remained as May 1, 198X, the Coast 
Guard’s  assertion  that  he  has  already  received  the  minimum  constructive  credit  is 
unfounded.  He claimed that, had the Coast Guard correctly applied 14 U.S.C. § 727, his 
date of rank would have been adjusted to May 1, 1984 or earlier at the time he entered 
onto active duty in 198X and his precedence on the lineal list would have been adjusted, 
accordingly.  He stated that he is entitled to receive the constructive credit, to have his 
DORs  for  “lieutenant  commander,  commander  and  captain  (if  selected  in  the  current 
board)”  adjusted  accordingly,  and  to  receive  any  back  pay  for  such  periods  of 
adjustment. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 6  

 
 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Title  14  U.S.C.  §  727,  entitled  “Constructive  credit  upon  initial  appointment,” 

provides the following:  
 

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a person, appointed as a 
Reserve  officer,  may  be  assigned  a  date  of  rank  and  precedence  which  reflects 
that person’s experience, education, or other qualifications.  For the purpose of 
this subchapter [14 USCS §§ 720 et seq.] only, a person appointed for the purpose 
of assignment or designation as a law specialist in the Reserve shall be credited 
with a minimum of three years service in an active status.  … 

 
 
Under “Promotion; acceptance; oath of office,” 14 U.S.C. § 735 (b) provides that 
“[a]  Reserve  officer  who  has  served  continuously  since  taking  the  oath  of  office 
prescribed in section 3331 of title 5 [Oath of Office], is not required to take a new oath of 
office upon appointment in a higher grade.” 
 

Title 14 U.S.C. § 745, entitled “Grade on entry upon active duty,” provides that 
“[a]  Reserve  officer  ordered  to  active  duty  for  training  shall  be  ordered  in  the  grade 
held ….” 
 
 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  2.A.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  entitled  “Appointment,”  states  that 
“[u]pon original appointment in the Coast Guard, the date of rank of a commissioned 
officer … shall be the date specified in the appointment letter, or, if there be no specified 
date, then the date the oath of office is taken.”   
 
 
Article 5.A.12.a. of the Personnel Manual contains the procedures implemented 
to  permanently  appoint  reserve  officers.    The  article  provides  that  “[w]ith  the  advice 
and consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint … Reserve officers  selected for 
integration as permanent Regular officers. …”   
 

Article  5.A.12.b.,  entitled  “Acceptance,”  states  that  “[a]n  appointment  as  a 
permanent  commissioned  officer  becomes  effective  only  when  the  officer  concerned 
accepts the appointment by completing the Acceptance and Oath of Office … to indicate 
acceptance ….” 

 
Article  5.A.12.c.,  entitled  “Oath  of  Office,”  provides  that  “[a]n  oath  of  office  is 
required  ….    The  officer  shall  not  execute  the  oath  of  office  before  the  date  of  rank 
specified in the appointment letter.  …” 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 7  

 
Provisions of the Direct Commission Program 
 
Commandant Instruction 1131.23 contains the regulations for the Coast Guard’s 
 
direct commission programs.  Paragraph 4.c. of the instruction, entitled “Coast Guard 
Officers,” contains the following provisions: 
 

…  If  a  Reserve  Officer  on  the  Inactive  Duty  Promotion  List  (IDPL)  meets  the 
criteria  for  on[e]  of  the  direct  commission  programs,  they  may  apply  for  the 
program provided a conditional resignation, approved by G-RSM, is included in 
the application.  Reserve officers who meet the criteria for a direct commission 
may also apply for extended active duty to Commandant (G-PO) via their chain-
of-command. … 

 

Paragraph  10.a.  of  the  instruction  concerns  the  direct  commissioning  of  law 
school  graduates  as  lawyers  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  and  provides  that,  “[u]nder 
this  program,  graduates  of  accredited  law  schools  may  apply  for  appointment  in  the 
Coast  Guard  Reserve  at  the  rank  of  lieutenant.    The  date  of  rank  shall  be  the  date  of 
appointment to commissioned status in the Coast Guard Reserve.”   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
 
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: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The applicant contends that he was appointed as a lieutenant in the Coast 
Guard  Reserve  through  the  DCL  program  and  was  thereby  entitled  to  three  years’ 
constructive  credit,  pursuant  to  14 U.S.C.  § 727,  upon  his  entry to  active  duty  in  July 
198X.  However, under the facts presented, the applicant’s contentions are unsupported 
by  evidence  which  shows  that  he  was  appointed  as  a  lieutenant  in  July  198X.    While 
holding  an  appointment  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  the 
applicant  applied  for  a  new  Reserve  appointment  through  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve 
DCL program.  Under the DCL program, qualified law school graduates may apply for 
appointment in the Coast Guard Reserve at the grade of lieutenant.  The date of rank is 
the  date  of  appointment  to  commissioned  status.    COMDTINST  1131.23,  Art.  10.a.  
Although the applicant was notified by letter dated June 8, 198X of his selection for a 
“direct  commission  as  a  lieutenant  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  through  the  Lawyer 
Program,” and received and affirmatively executed a “Notice of Intention” to accept the 
appointment,  the  record  reveals  that  he  was  never  appointed  as  an  officer  under  the 
DCL program.  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 8  

3 . 

 
 
By the Coast Guard’s letter of June 8, 198X, the applicant was advised that, 
if he indicated an intention to accept the appointment on a Statement of Intentions form 
enclosed therewith, “a  formal appointment [would] be forwarded at a later date.”  The 
letter also advised the applicant that, “[i]t is anticipated that you will be sworn in and 
go on active duty in time to report to the Coast Guard Reserve Training Center ….”  The 
record,  however,  fails  to  support  a  finding  that  the  applicant  received  the  formal 
appointment that was to follow his affirmatively executed Statement of Intentions form, 
or  that  he  was  sworn  in,  prior  to  his  reporting  to  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  Training 
Center.   Personnel Manual, Articles 5.A.12.a. and 5.A.12.c. 
 

4. 

6. 

It  is  well  settled  that  no  appointment  to  a  position  with  the  Federal 
Government is final  until the last act required by the person or body vested with the 
appointment power is performed.  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803);  
Goutos v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 95, 552 F.2d 922 (1976).  In urging the Board to find 
that  he  was  appointed  as  a  lieutenant  in  July  198X,  the  applicant  has  overlooked  the 
absence of actions required to finalize his alleged appointment.  See Article 5.A.12.b. of 
the  Personnel  Manual.    Consequently,  the  applicant  has  not  presented  persuasive 
evidence  that  he  was  tendered  an  appointment  or  administered  an  oath  of  office  in 
acceptance thereof in July 198X.  The Board therefore finds that the Notice of Intention 
alleged by the applicant to be an acceptance of his appointment was, in fact, a written 
acceptance of his selection, and not an appointment in the grade of lieutenant.  Insofar 
as  a  member’s  entitlement  to  the  mandatory  credit  provided  in  14  U.S.C.  §  727 
presupposes  an  appointment  as  a  Reserve  officer  in  the  law  specialist  program,  the 
applicant has failed to show that he is entitled to the mandatory credit upon his entry 
onto active duty in July 198X because he has failed to demonstrate that he received a 
new appointment as a Reserve officer in the law specialist program at that time.   
 
 
Moreover,  at  the  time  the  applicant  applied  for  an  appointment  in  the 
Reserve under the DCL program, he already held a Reserve appointment in the grade 
of  lieutenant  and  would  not  have  been  offered  a  new  appointment  in  that  grade 
without  resigning  the  Reserve  appointment  he  currently  held.    Paragraph  4.c.  of 
COMDTINST 1131.23 clearly requires all applicants for a direct commission who are on 
the  IDPL,  like  the  applicant,  to  submit  a  conditional  resignation  in  their  application 
materials or, in the alternative, apply for extended active duty.  The record contains no 
evidence that the applicant ever submitted a conditional resignation as part of his DCL 
program application.  Instead, the applicant’s record shows that on July 11, 198X he was 
ordered to extended active duty under his then current appointment. 
 
 
Although  the  applicant  applied  for  an  appointment  as  a  Reserve  officer 
under  the  DCL  program,  he  never  received  one  despite  his  eligibility  for  such  an 
appointment  under  that  program.    There  is  no  evidence  in  the  military  record  that 
explains  why  the  applicant  was  never  appointed  under  the  DCL  program.    The 

5. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 9  

advisory  opinion  states  that  the  applicant  received  a  lateral  assignment  as  a  law 
specialist,  rather  than  being  reappointed  under  the  DCL  program.    While  this 
explanation seems plausible, the Coast Guard provided no evidence that this alternative 
method of assigning officers to the law specialty was in effect in 198X.  It is possible that 
the applicant was never appointed under the DCL program because he failed to submit 
his  resignation  from  his  then  current  reserve  status,  as  required  by  regulation.  
Nevertheless, since he was not appointed under program, the applicant maintained his 
original May 1, 198X lieutenant date of rank.   
 

7. 

The  Commandant,  by  delegation  of  the  Secretary,  issued  COMDTINST 
1131.23, which addresses credit to be given for those receiving a direct appointment in 
the  Coast  Guard.    The  regulation  permitted  law  graduates  to  apply  for  a  Reserve 
appointment  at  the  rank  of  lieutenant,  thereby  giving  them  active  service  credit  for 
years  they  would  normally  have  spent  in  the  grades  of  ensign  and  lieutenant  junior 
grade.    For these  officers,  the  instruction  states  that  the  date  of  rank  for  appointment 
under  the  DCL  program  shall  be  the  date  of  appointment.    Neither  the  law  nor  the 
regulation  requires  law  specialists  to  be  given  credit  for  time  already  spent  in  the 
Reserve  if  reappointed  under  the  DCL  program,  and  the  applicant  has  not  presented 
any  law  or  regulation  to  the  contrary.    See  Dock  v.  United  States,  46  F.3d  1083,  1086 
(Fed.  Cir.  1995)  (stating  that  the  “rights  and  benefits  of  a  member  of  the  military 
services, including pay and allowances, are defined by statute”). 
 

8. 

Section  727  of  Title  14  of  the  United  States  Code  provides  that  “under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a person appointed as a Reserve officer shall be 
assigned a date of rank and precedence which reflects a person’s experience, education, 
or  other  qualifications.”    The  law  requires  that  those  Reserve  officers  appointed  for 
assignments as law specialists receive a minimum of three years of active service credit.  
It does not require the Secretary to grant any additional credit to Reserve officers who 
already have at least three years of active service credit.  
 

9. 

The  Board  finds  that,  had  the  applicant  been  appointed  as  a  Reserve 
officer under the DCL program, he would have had a lieutenant date of rank not earlier 
than  June  198X,  which  is  approximately  when  his  reappointment  under  the  DCL 
program  would  have  occurred.    Because  he  maintained  his  original  May  198X 
lieutenant date of rank, the applicant actually benefited by not being reappointed as a 
lieutenant under the DCL program, as the May 198X date of rank was earlier than any 
he  would  have  received  had  he  been  reappointed  under  the  DCL  program.  The 
applicant therefore has not persuaded the Board that the Coast Guard acted toward him 
in  a  way  that  “shocks  the  sense  of  justice”4  in  not  awarding  him  an  additional  three 
                                                 
4 Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 
see also Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  The Deputy General Counsel has also ruled 
that in the absence of legal error, an applicant’s treatment by military authorities must “shock the sense of 
justice” to justify correction by the Board.  BCMR Docket No. 346-89. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 10  

years’  active  service,  as  the  record  fails  to  demonstrate that the  Coast  Guard  acted  in 
bad faith. 

 
10. 

In  light  of  the  foregoing,  while  the  Coast  Guard  may  have  sent  the 
applicant form letters that did not quite apply to his particular situation, the applicant 
has not been harmed by the error.  Accordingly, his request for relief should be denied. 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-012                                                               p. 11  

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  XXX  XX  XXXX,  USCG,  for  the 

 

 
 Laura A. Aguilar 

 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
 Angel Collaku 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
correction of his military record is denied.