DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-123 
 
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  June  20,  2002,  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  May  29,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant asked the Board to recalculate his position on the 19xx Servicewide 
Examination  (SWE)  promotion  list  and  to  advance  him  to  xxxxxx  xxxxxx  (XXX),  pay 
grade E-7, effective October 1, 19xx, by adjusting his date of rank. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  at  the  time  he  passed  the  May  19xx  SWE  for 
promotion to XXX, his active duty base date was incorrect due to  “an incomplete  [or] 
incorrect  Statement  of  Creditable  Service  [SOCS].”    He  alleged  that  as  a  result  of  this 
error,  his  final  standing  on  the  promotion  list  put  him  at  number  xx.    He  stated  that 
advancements to XXX from the promotion list were made to number xx.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  based  on  a  review  of  his  record,  on  May  17,  20xx, 
Coast Guard Human Resources Services and Information Center (HRSIC) adjusted his 
active duty base date from February 18, 198x to October 4, 198x.  He alleged that had his 
active duty base date been correct at the time of the May 19xx SWE, he would have been 

 

 

advanced from the promotion list in 19xx.  In support of his allegations, he submitted a 
copy  of  his  adjusted  SOCS,  dated  May  17,  20xx.    He  also  submitted  copies  of  the 
enlisted  personnel  advancement  announcements  for  September  though  December  of 
19xx,  showing  number  xx  as  the  last  number  to  be  advanced  to  XXX  before  the  list 
expired on December 31, 19xx. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

On February 16, 198x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  On February 12, 
198x,  prior  to  his  enlistment  date,  the  Coast  Guard  sent  an  expedited  Request  for 
Statement of Service form to the United States Air Force Reserve to verify all dates of 
the applicant’s active duty training.  The form was later returned, indicating 1 year, 10 
months, and 17 days of inactive service and no active service. 
 

On  March  12,  198x,  the  Coast  Guard  forwarded  an  expedited  Request  for 
Statement  of  Service  form  to  the  United  States  Army  and  the  United  States  Army 
Reserve  to  verify  all  dates  of  the  applicant’s  service.    Subsequently,  the  form  was 
returned with a Statement of Service indicating that the applicant had served 2 years, 11 
months, and 28 days on active duty, and 9 months and 26 days on inactive duty.  

 
On March 3, 19xx, a SOCS Worksheet was entered in the applicant’s record.  The 
form documents his above noted active duty service with the United States Army, and 
inactive duty service with the United States Army Reserve and United States Air Force 
Reserve.    Moreover,  the  worksheet  also  indicates  the  applicant’s  then  active  duty 
service  with  the  Coast  Guard  and  that  his  active  duty  base  date  was  established  as 
February 18, 198x.   
 

On  July  1,  19xx,  the  applicant  was  advanced  to  xxxxxx  xxxxxx  (XXX).  
Throughout  the  applicant’s  record  are  several  positive  page  7s,  commendations,  and 
letters of appreciation documenting his meritorious service.   

 
 
On May 7, 19xx, the applicant took the SWE for promotion to XXX.  The results 
of  the  19xx  SWE  indicated  that  the  applicant  had  qualified  for  promotion  and  was 
ranked at number xx for advancement during the January 1, 19xx through December 31, 
19xx effective period of the promotion list.  During the last quarter of 19xx, numbers xx 
through  xx  on  the  19xx  SWE  XXX  eligibility  list  were  advanced.    The  promotion  list 
expired on December 31, 19xx, without the applicant, number xx, being advanced. 
 
 
qualified for promotion and was advanced to XXX on November 1, 19xx.   
 

In  May  19xx,  the  applicant  again  took  the  SWE  for  promotion  to  XXX.    He 

 

 

 
By  memorandum  dated  July  24,  20xx  to  Coast  Guard  HRSIC,  the  applicant 
requested an adjustment to his active duty base date, based on previously un-credited 
active duty served in the United States Air Force Reserve.   
 
 
On May 17, 20xx, HRSIC informed the applicant that an adjustment was made to 
his active duty base date.  After an additional total of 4 months and 15 days of active 
duty service were added to his creditable service, the applicant was issued a new SOCS, 
reflecting an adjustment in his active duty base date from February 18, 198x to October 
4, 198x.   
 
 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  November  27,  2002,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 

 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  admitted  that  the  applicant’s  active  duty  base  date  was 
incorrect  at  the  time  the  applicant  took  the  19xx  SWE.    However,  he  argued  that  the 
applicant  had  extensive  notice  and  opportunity  to  correct  the  error.    He  argued  that 
beginning  as  early  as  198x,  the  applicant  had  notice  that  his  active  duty  base  date 
(ADBD)  was established as February 18, 198x, as that  date was indicated on each  and 
every monthly Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) the applicant received.  He asserted 
that    “[the  applicant]  had  the  ability  and  responsibility  to  correct this  error  before the 
May 19xx SWE.”   
 

The Chief Counsel argued that the error was not caused by Coast Guard action.  
He  alleged  that  at  the  time  the  applicant  enlisted,  his  recruiter  submitted  the 
appropriate  documents  requesting  information  to  verify  his  prior  service.    He  argued 
that in accordance with the requests, timely adjustments were made to the applicant’s 
ADBD, as that information was received from the other branches of service.  He argued 
that in forwarding the applicant’s active duty service information, the Air Force failed 
to  inform  the  Coast  Guard  of  the  applicant’s  active  duty  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve.  
Consequently, he argued, there is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard had 
any prior knowledge of the applicant’s active duty service in the Air Force Reserve until 
the applicant’s letter to HRSIC in July 20xx.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that members are given thorough guidance about the 
advancement  process  and  are  informed  that  they  are  ultimately  responsible  for 
ensuring  the  accuracy  of  the  information  on  which  their  final  multiple  is  based.    He 
asserted  that  the  January  19xx  announcement  of  the  19xx  SWE  informed  members  of 
their responsibility to verify, correct, and sign their personal data extract (PDE), which 

 

 

includes the member’s ADBD, by March 27, 19xx.  He argued that by signing the PDE, 
the applicant acknowledged and indicated that all his PDE information was correct. In 
fact,  he  argued,  according  to  SWE  files  maintained  by  HRSIC,  the  applicant  has  been 
validating as correct each PDE he received back to 19xx. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that each time the applicant competed in the SWE, he 
was  provided  an  opportunity  to  note  any  errors  in  his  PDE  and  request  corrective 
action.  He argued that although the applicant  revealed in his July  24, 20xx request to 
HRSIC  that  he  knew  of  the  error  but  could  not  prove  it,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the 
record  which  indicates  that  the  applicant  attempted  to  correct  his  ADBD  prior  to  that 
time.  He argued that excusing the applicant of the requirement to verify the accuracy of 
his PDE or take corrective action until 20xx “would severely impact the Coast Guard’s 
enlisted advancement process and other workforce management processes.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 2, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 
the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  He responded on December 
18, 2002.  
 
The applicant alleged that the advisory opinion is based on the assertions that (a) 
 
he  is  unable  to  show  Coast  Guard  error,  and  (b)  had  he  timely  verified  his  PDE,  he 
would  have  been  promoted  in  19xx.    He  argued  that,  contrary  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
view, he does not allege that the Coast Guard committed an error but that the mistake 
was  committed  by  the  Air  Force  in  failing  to  credit  him  with  all  of  his  active  duty 
service.   The applicant argued that although the Air Force caused the error, his military 
records nonetheless require correction, as he has suffered a one-year loss of seniority as 
a  result.    The  applicant  asserted  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  recommendation  to  deny  him 
relief  because  the  Air  Force,  and  not  the  Coast  Guard,  committed  the  mistake  “seems 
unjust and arbitrary.” 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  even  after  he  had  sufficient  proof  that  additional 
periods  of  active  service  were  not  credited  to  his  Air  Force  Reserve  service,  he  still 
encountered  problems  in  obtaining  a  corrected  SOCS  from  the  Air  Force.    He  alleged 
that despite the second request from HRSIC for his Air Force SOCS, a petty officer was 
required to personally call the Air Force records center in order to receive the necessary 
information.    He  argued  that  because  it  took  nearly  ten  months  for  the  Air  Force  to 
provide  the  Coast  Guard  with  the  corrected  information,  the  three-month  period 
between verifying his PDE and taking the SWE would have been an insufficient amount 
of  time  to  have  his  ADBD  corrected.    He  further  contended  that  even  if  an  “interim 
adjustment”  could  have  been  made  to  his  ADBD,  before  the  Coast  Guard  received 
corrected  information  from  the  Air  Force,  he  was  unwilling  to  risk  subsequent 

 

 

demotion  and  recoupment  of  pay  and  allowances,  had  the  Air  Force  forwarded  his 
SOCS without correction.   
 
The  applicant  asserted  that  the  PDE  verification  process  was  not  designed  to 
 
handle  the  circumstances  of  his  “fairly  unique  problem.”    He  argued  that  contrary  to 
Coast Guard’s opinion, the potential damage to the promotion system in advancing him 
effective October 1, 19xx is not likely to be great as the problem he experienced is rare. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he is aware of the responsibility placed on members to 
review  their  PDE  information  for  purposes  of  promotion  and  knowledgeable  of  the 
issues  that  can  arise  when  a  member  neglects  to  properly  review  their  information.  
However,  he  argued,  although  he  believed  he  should  have  been  credited  with  more 
active  duty  service,  he  assumed  that  he  was  unable  to  have  his  information  changed 
without  the  evidence  to  prove  such.    He  alleged  that  once  he  had  documentation  to 
prove his additional service, he immediately sought corrective action.  He argued that 
the  Coast  Guard’s  assertion  that  a  PDE,  once  signed,  can  never  be  adjusted  is 
“needlessly arbitrary” and reiterated that he is entitled to relief.   
 
 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
Article  5.C.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  “[i]t  is  each  individual’s 
 
responsibility to ensure their eligibility in all respects for the SWE.  The key to doing so 
is by verifying and signing the Personnel Data Extract, [PDE] …, received prior to the 
SWE date.  By signing the [PDE] …, members state all changes noted or information on 
the form are current and correct and no further  corrections are necessary. …” 
 
 
Article 5.C.4.f. provides that “[t]he Commanding Officer, [of HRSIC] is the single 
point  of  contact  for  all  SWE  inquiries,  corrections,  and  waivers;  and  is  responsible  for 
the preparation, printing, distribution, accountability, and scoring of the [SWE].” 
 
 
member  to  verify  the  information  for  correctly  computing  the  SWE  Final  Multiple.    
Article  5.D.1.c.  provides  that  among  the  information  contained  in  a  member’s  PDE  is 
identifying  information,  award  points,  active  duty  base  date,  date  of  rank,  creditable 
awards/points/date,  and  a  signature  block.    With  respect  to  the  signature  block,  the 
Article  5.D.1.c.21.  states  that  “[b]y  signing,  the  member  acknowledges  the  PDE  is 
correct, …, and requires no further changes.  If changes are required, the member must 
address them prior to signing.” 
 

Article  5.D.1.a.  states  that  the  PDE  is  the  tool  used  by  the  command  and  the 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

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

1. 

3. 

4. 

2. 

The applicant alleged that had his ADBD been correct at the time he took 
the 19xx SWE, he would have been advanced from the 19xx promotion list to XXX.  The 
record indicates that the additional periods of active duty added to his record in 20xx 
would  likely  have  placed  the  applicant  at  number  xx  on  the  promotion  list,  with  a 
corresponding promotion in 19xx. 
 
 
The record shows that  the Air Force Reserve, in responding to the Coast 
Guard’s Request for Statement of Service, failed to credit the applicant with any active 
duty  service.    The  record  further  shows  that,  prior  to  taking  the  19xx  SWE  (and 
previous  SWEs  as  well),  the  applicant  signed  his  PDE,  despite  apparently  “believ[ing 
that  he]  had  more  [active  service]  time  than  [he]  was  being  credited  with.”  
Notwithstanding  the  error  of  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  however,  the  inaccuracy  of  the 
applicant’s final multiple for the 19xx SWE must be attributed to the applicant himself.  
According  to  the  Personnel  Manual,  members  are  charged  with  the  responsibility  to 
“ensure their eligibility in all respects for the SWE … by verifying and signing the [PDE] 
….”  Personnel Manual, Article 5.C.4.a.  Even if the applicant could not prove the error, 
he evidently was aware that changes needed to be made to his PDE and was required 
under applicable regulations to “address [the changes] prior to signing [his PDE].”  See 
Article 5.D.1.c.21. of the Personnel Manual.   Because the applicant has not established 
by a preponderance of the evidence that he fulfilled his responsibilities with respect to 
noting necessary adjustments to his PDE, prior to signing  it in acknowledgment of its 
accuracy,  he  should  not  now  complain  about  the  adverse  consequences  of  his  own 
inaction.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  three-month  period  between  verifying  his 
PDE  and  taking  the  19xx  SWE  was  an  insufficient  amount  of  time  to  obtain  an 
adjustment to his ADBD.  However, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant had 
only the three months available in 19xx to obtain an ADBD adjustment for time owed 
from 198x and 198x.  Although, the applicant asserted that upon locating the executed 
active duty orders, he “immediately went through the appropriate channels to get the 
situation  resolved,”  nothing  in  the  record  establishes  that  he  only  recently  discovered 
that he was owed additional credit for periods of active service.  In fact, in his letter of 
July 24, 20xx to HRSIC, he stated that “[u]ntil [he] found the orders … [he] had assumed 
[he]  would  be  unable  to  get  [the  error]  rectified.”    Despite  the  fact  that  it  took 
approximately  eleven  months  from  the  date  of  his  request  for  an  adjustment  to  his 

 

 

5. 

ADBD to the date he received a corrected SOCS, the Board finds that the applicant had 
ample time—long before taking the 19xx SWE—to take action on correcting his PDE.  
 
The  Coast  Guard  followed  established  policy  and  procedure  when  it 
 
requested the applicant’s prior active service information from other military branches.  
Moreover, the Coast Guard timely corrected the error in the applicant’s ADBD when it 
was verified by the Air Force Reserve.  The applicant contends that because his ADBD 
has been adjusted, his date of rank to XXX should be back dated.  However, part of the 
purpose of verifying one’s PDE is to bring errors to the attention of the Commanding 
Officer of HRSIC so that corrections can be made.   See Article 5.C.4.f. of the Personnel 
Manual.  The record indicates that the applicant made no effort, prior to July 24, 20xx, to 
notify  the  Coast  Guard  of  his  erroneous  ADBD.    The  Board  finds  nothing  in  the 
applicant’s record to prove that the Coast Guard erred by not promoting him in 19xx.   
The applicant has therefore failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
is entitled to relief.   
 

6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 

 

ORDER 

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

 
 
correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher A. Cook 

 

 

 
 
 Patrick Judd Murray