DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2002-145 
 

  FINAL DECISION 

This final decision, dated April 30, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 
 
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 July 23, 2002, upon the 
Board’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  complete  application  for  correction  of  his  military 
record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  was 
advanced  to  senior  chief  storekeeper  (SKCS;  pay  grade  E-8)  retroactive  to  September 
XX, 200X through May XX, 200X, the date immediately preceding his promotion to chief 
warrant  officer  -  W2  (CWO2),  with  back  pay  and  allowances.    He  stated  that  he  was 
removed  unfairly  from  the  September  XX,  200X  E-8  advancement  list  when  he 
announced  his  intention  to  accept  an  appointment  to  chief  warrant  officer  (CWO) 
effective June 200X.  
 

EXCERPTS FROM RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard's  policy  of  requiring  an  enlisted 
member's name to be removed from the enlisted advancement eligibility list if he elects 
to accept a warrant officer appointment is unfair.  He stated that simply announcing an 
intention  to  accept  a  CWO  appointment,  rather  than  actually  accepting  the 
appointment, causes one's name to be removed from the enlisted advancement list.  He 
asserted  that  the  Coast  Guard  should  give  more  consideration  to  the  time  and  effort 
required  of  enlisted  members  who  successfully  compete  in  the  advancement  process 
and  to  how  its  advancement  policy  affects  enlisted  members  and  their  families.  He 
stated that by the time he was promoted to CWO in June 2002, he had lost eight months 
of  time  in  grade  as  an  E-8  and  approximately  $3,787.64  in  pay.  He  stated  that  if  had 
declined  the  appointment  to  CWO,  he  would  have  been  required  to  wait  two  years 
before he could reapply to the CWO selection board. 
 

 
The applicant stated that he took the May XXXX servicewide examination (SWE) 
for advancement to SKCS (E-8). He placed number 4 on the SKCS advancement list, but 
he was not guaranteed advancement because the then cut-off was at number 1.  
 

In  January  200X,  the  applicant  applied  to  the  CWO  selection  board  for  an 
appointment.  Also, about this time, the cut-off for advancement to SKCS was revised 
from 1 to 5, which meant that the applicant would have been advanced to E-8, if he was 
not above the cutoff on the CWO appointment list or if he was above the cutoff on the 
list but declined the appointment.    
 

On  August  XX,  200X,  the  eligibility  list  for  appointment  to  CWO  was  released 
and the applicant ranked number 8 on the list, with the cut-off at number 8.  Since he 
was at or above the cut-off, he was guaranteed an appointment to CWO from this list, if 
he  indicated  an  intention  to  accept  it.    The  message  releasing  the  eligibility  list  for 
appointment  to  CWO  advised,  "those  whose  names  appear at or above the cutoff are 
not eligible for advancement to chief, senior chief, or master chief petty officer.  Their 
names will be automatically removed from the enlisted advancement eligibility list 60 
days  after  publication  unless  they  have  notified  [CGPC]  that  they  do  not  intend  to 
accept  an  appointment  to  warrant  grade"  per  Article  5.C.13.D.  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Manual.   

 
On  August  XX,  200X,  Headquarters  released  a  message  authorizing  the 
applicant's advancement to E-8 on September 1, 2001.  The message also advised those 
like  the  applicant  who  were  above  the  cutoff  on  the  CWO  appointment list to advise 
Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  of  their  decision  to  either 
accept  advancement  or  appointment  to  CWO  prior  to  September  1.    The  message 
indicated  that  a  failure  to  notify  CGPC  would  result  in  the  removal  of  the  member's 
name from both lists.   

 
The  applicant  elected  the  CWO  appointment  and  his  name  was  removed  from 
the  enlisted  advancement  list.    He  stated  that  his  CWO  appointment  did  not  become 
effective  until  June  200X,  which  meant  that  he  was  neither  advanced  to  E-8  nor 
appointed to CWO for a period of eight months. He asserted that if he had been on the 
August  XX,  200X  enlisted  advancement  list  rather  than  the  September  XX,  200X 
advancement list, he would have been advanced to E-8 and subsequently appointed to 
CWO in June 200X.   
 
 
On January 3, 200X, the applicant wrote the Commandant requesting a waiver of 
Coast  Guard  policy,  which  if  approved  would  have  allowed  the  applicant  to  be 
advanced  to  E-8  while  waiting  for  his June 2002 CWO appointment.  In this letter he 
made assertions similar to those discussed above. 
 
On February 12, 200X, the Commandant disapproved the applicant's request for 
 
a waiver.  The Commandant wrote that "the policy of requiring individuals to declare 
their decision to elect or decline promotion to chief warrant officer, while at the same 
time appearing on the eligibility list for advancement, is necessary to effectively manage 

 

 

our  military  workforce."    The  Commandant  further  explained  to  the  applicant  that 
requiring  members  to  commit  to  a  career  path  meets  the  needs  of  the  service  by 
providing  assignment  officers  a  clearer  and  more  up-to-date  picture  of  assignment 
vacancies  and  personnel  eligible  to  fill  those  vacancies.    The  Commandant  further 
explained that "[b]y permitting a member to advance and remain on the chief warrant 
officer  promotion  list,  especially  in  the  controlled  E-8  and  E-9  pay  grades,  the  next 
person  below  the  cutoff  would  be  prevented  from  receiving  an  advancement 
opportunity they . . . deserve." 
 
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
 
On November 29, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard, recommending that the Board deny relief.  He adopted the 
comments in a memorandum from the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC), which was attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.   
 
 
CGPC stated that Article 5.C.13.d. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual contains 
the policy with respect to promotion to warrant officer. CGPC stated the following with 
respect to this provision:   
 

[P]ersonnel selected for promotion to CWO, above the cutoff on the CWO 
list, are ineligible for advancement to E-7, E-8, and E-9.  Their names are 
automatically  removed  from  the  enlisted  advancement  eligibility  list  60 
days after the publication of the CWO list, unless an individual concerned 
has notified CGPC  . . . that they do not intend to accept the appointment.  
If a member is selected to be advanced to E-8 during the 60-day window, 
the  member  must  make  a  decision  at  that  time,  vice  60  days  after 
publication,  regarding 
to  accept  either  enlisted 
advancement or appointment to CWO. 

intentions 

their 

 
 
CGPC stated there were no procedural or other errors committed by the Coast 
Guard  in  carrying  out  the  policy  requiring  the  applicant  to  choose  between 
advancement  to  pay  grade  E-8  and  appointment  to  CWO.    He  stated  that  the  Coast 
Guard properly applied Article 5.C.13.d. of the Personnel Manual in the applicant's case 
and did not commit an injustice by refusing to grant the applicant a waiver.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Board  should  give  great  deference  to  the 
personnel  management  policy  explained  in  the  CGPC  memorandum  and  the 
Commandant's  February  XX,  200X,  reply  to  the  applicant's  request  for  a  waiver.    He 
argued  that  granting  the  applicant's  request  would  detrimentally  affect  the  Coast 
Guard's  ability  to  manage  its  assignment  and  workforce  processes  and  would 
ultimately place the member's desires above the needs of the service.   
 
Applicant’s Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On December 18, 2002, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of 

the Coast Guard.  He disagreed with them. 

 
The applicant stated that the comment that the Coast Guard's  policy "enabl[es] 
the next person below the E-7, E-8, or E-9 cutoff [on the enlisted advancement list] to 
receive an advancement opportunity" is false.  With respect to this contention, he stated 
the following: 

 
I was number 4 on the advancement list for E-8.  The personnel who were 
in advancement position 1, 2, and 3 (above me) all received extensions in 
their  current  assignments.    This  left  someone  who  was  advanced  to  E-8 
but was filing an E-7 position for a whole year's time period.  This decision 
to do this totally refutes the quote . . . and . . . the Coast Guard uses this as 
a  crutch  [to]  justify its decisions.  If personnel advance to a position . . . 
that position should be held by [a person of that rank].  This [is] not what 
happened  in  my  case.    If  I  held  my  E-8  advancement  and  turned  down 
promotion to chief warrant officer my assignment officer told me I would 
complete my full tour at my present unit . . .  as an E-8, which by the way 
was a 3 year assignment, but the assignment I was filling was an E-7.  I 
asked the assignment officer if I would transfer to an E-8 assignment once 
making E-8; he flat out stated, "No, you will complete a full tour on the 
Coast Guard cutter [to which I was assigned]  . . . It seems to me they, the 
Coast Guard, apply this policy when it's in their best interest and not in 
the interest of the military member.      
 
 
The applicant stated that CGPC's comment that the policy of requiring a member 
to  choose  between  enlistment  advancement  or  electing  a  warrant  officer appointment 
permits  another  member  below  the  cutoff  to  have  an  opportunity  for  advancement, 
disregards  the  member  who  earned  the  advancement.    He  pointed  out  that  there  are 
only 22 E-8s in his field in the Coast Guard.  He maintained his assertion that the Coast 
Guard erred in his case and did not act in good faith.   
  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case under section 1552 of title 10, United 

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.  The applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice  in  his  case.    Articles  1.D.9.c.  and  5.C.13.d.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Manual clearly state that a member who is on the enlistment advancement eligibility list 
and the warrant officer appointment will only be permitted advancement from one or 
the  other,  not  both.    Specifically,  Article  5.C.13.d.  states  that  personnel  who  are  at  or 
above  the  cutoff  on  the  CWO  appointment  list  shall  be  removed  from  the  enlisted 

eligibility advancement list 60 days after publication of the officer eligibility lists, unless 
an  individual  concerned  has  notified  Headquarters  they  do  not  intend  to  accept  the 
CWO appointment.  The provision further states, "If a member who has been selected is 
to be advanced to  [senior petty officer] during the 60 day window, the member must 
make a decision at that time, vice 60 days after publication, regarding their intentions to 
accept  either  advancement  or  appointment  to  CWO."    The  Coast  Guard  followed  its 
regulations  by  requiring  the  applicant  to  chose  whether  to  accept  a  warrant  officer 
appointment or to be advanced to E8 from the enlisted advancement eligibility list.   
 
 
3.      The  applicant  claims  that  he  has  suffered  a  monetary  loss  because  he  was 
neither advanced to E-8 nor appointed a warrant officer for a period of eight months.  
The  Board  finds  no  injustice  in  this  situation.    The  regulations  were  published  at  the 
time  the  applicant  took  the  enlistment  SWE  and  at  the  time  he  applied  for  a warrant 
officer appointment.  He knew or should have known that if he chose appointment as a 
warrant  officer,  he  probably  would  not  be  advanced  to  E-8.    If  immediate  monetary 
gain  was  the  applicant's  main  goal,  he  could  have  accepted  advancement  to  E-8  and 
foregone  the  warrant  officer  appointment.      The  Board  concludes  that  he  chose  the 
career path that was most advantageous for him.   
 
 
4.  The Commandant, in his letter to the applicant, explained that service need 
was  the  basis  for  the  Coast  Guard's  policy  in  requiring  members  to  choose  between 
advancement and appointment to CWO.  The Board will not interfere with Coast Guard 
personnel  policy,  including  the  assignment  policy,  in  the  absence  of  an  error  or 
injustice; neither of which has been established in this case.  The rules discussed herein 
apply to all not just the applicant.  
 
 
 
5.  Even if relevant, the applicant has not presented any evidence, and the Board 
is not aware of any, supporting his allegation that if his name had been on the August 
XX,  200X  advancement  list,  instead  of  the  September  XX,  list,  he  would  have  been 
advanced to E-8 and subsequently appointed to CWO in June 200X. 
 
 
 
 
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied. 

 
 
 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

 
 
denied. 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 Gerald H. Meader 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer