DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-012 
 
XXXXX, 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 November 25, 2002 upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  25,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to advance him from xxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxx, 

pay grade XX, effective April 1, 20xx, by adjusting his date of rank.   

 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that his integrated support command (ISC) failed to enter 
information  in  his  record  regarding  his  July  20xx  completion  of  Chief  Petty  Officer 
(CPO) Academy, after he twice requested that his record be updated.  He alleged that 
he participated in the October 20xx Reserve Servicewide Examination (RSWE) and that 
based on his multiple, he would have been number XX on the eligibility for promotion 
list.    He  stated  that  advancements  to  XXXX  from  the  eligibility  list  were  made  to 
number XX.  However, as a result of the above error on the part of the ISC, he alleged, 
his name never appeared on the eligibility list and he was erroneously prevented from 
being advanced.   

 

 

 

In support of his allegations, he submitted a statement in which he chronicled his 
efforts  to  ensure  that  his  eligibility  for  advancement  was  entered  into  his  record.    He 
also  submitted  a  copy  of  information  that  the  Coast  Guard  published  about  the 
requirements to compete for the RSWE and a copy  of an email showing  that  on April 
11, 20xx, he was misadvised about his ability to be placed on the eligibility list. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

On January 9, 19xx, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for a term 
of eight years.  Based on his prior military service with the Coast Guard, United States 
Army, and United States Army Reserve, he joined the Reserves as a xxxxxxx.  He was 
advanced to a XXX, pay grade XX, on January 1, 20xx.   
 
On  May  14,  20xx,  the  Commandant  published  a  general  message  informing  all 
 
chief petty officers who had been advanced to XX on or after January 1, 1999, that they 
were required to successfully complete the Chief Petty Officer (CPO) Academy in order 
to  compete  in  the  servicewide  examination  for  advancement.    The  message  further 
stated that upon successful completion, CPOs “must show proof of completion to their 
unit admin[istrative] office … so that the qualification code and the school completion 
can be entered into the PMIS [Coast Guard’s personnel management database].”1   
 

On July 26, 20xx, the applicant graduated from the CPO Academy.   

 

According to the memorandum prepared by Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC),  on  August  8,  20xx,  the  applicant  delivered  a  copy  of  his  CPO  Academy 
graduation certificate to his ISC for its entry into his record.  The ISC, however, took no 
action on the document. 
 

Also  in  August  20xx,  the  applicant  applied  and  was  approved  for  a  waiver  to 
participate in the October 20xx RSWE.  This waiver was required for any member who 
had not completed the CPO Academy by June 30, 20xx.   

 
In September 20xx, the applicant received his personal data extract (PDE), which 
indicated  that  he  was  ineligible  to  take  the  October  20xx  RSWE  because  he  had  not 
completed the CPO Academy.  In response to this notice, the applicant again contacted 
his ISC to have the information regarding his completion of the CPO Academy entered 
into  his  record  and  the  Coast  Guard  Human  Resources  Management  System 
(CGHRMS).  Unbeknownst to the applicant, the ISC again took no action.   

 

                                                 
1  In  a  separate  message  regarding  Reserve  CPO  Academy  classes,  dated  May  14,  20xx,  reservists  were 
notified that they must verify that the school completion and/or qualification code had been entered into 
the CG database to ensure timely receipt of the SWE.  It further stated that if the database did not have 
the correct codes, “members will NOT receive the SWE in October 20xx.”  (Emphasis supplied.)   

 

 

On October 20, 20xx, the applicant received and took the RSWE for promotion to 
PSCS.  However, he received no written test results and the Reserve Eligibility List for 
Advancement, published on December 27, 20xx, failed to list his name.   

 
In January 20xx, the applicant  contacted his unit about his  name  not appearing 
on the eligibility list.  At that time, he was informed that  the waiver he applied for in 
August  20xx  was  for  taking  the  RSWE  but  was  not  for  qualifying  for  advancement.  
Between January 1 and April 1, 20xx, xx individuals on the Reserve Eligibility List were 
advanced to XXXX.   

 
On  April  6,  20xx,  the  applicant  contacted  his  area  District  Command  Master 
Chief  (MCPO)  about  his  name  not  appearing  on  the  eligibility  list.    He  was  informed 
that  based  on  the  waiver,  he  was  permitted  to  participate  in  the  October  20xx  RSWE, 
but  was  not  eligible  for  advancement  because  he  graduated  from  the  CPO  Academy 
after June 30, 20xx. 

 
On September 3, 20xx, the applicant received his 20xx PDE for the October 20xx 
RSWE, which indicated that he lacked proof of his graduation from the CPO Academy.  
He again contacted his ISC regarding the discrepancy and received assurances that the 
error  would  be  corrected  by  September  7,  20xx.    At  that  time,  he  faxed  a  copy  of  his 
signed PDE to the ISC. 

 
On September 23, 20xx, the applicant’s CPO Academy graduation certificate was 

finally entered into CGHRMS.   

 
On  September  26,  20xx,  the  applicant  was  advised  by  Coast  Guard  Human 
Resources  Service  and  Information  Center,  Advancements  Section  (HRSIC-ADV)  that 
he  would  not  be  able  to  sit  for  the  October  20xx  RSWE  because  his  CPO  Academy 
information had not been timely entered into the CGHRMS.   

 
On October 8, 20xx, the applicant again contacted the MCPO, who informed him 
that  when  he  created  the  December  20xx  Reserve  Advancement  List,  he  removed  the 
applicant’s name from the eligibility list because his record contained no documentation 
indicating his completion of the CPO Academy.   The MCPO further stated that  based 
on the applicant’s multiple of xxx, he would have been advanced to XXXX on April 1, 
20xx. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  March  20,  2003,  the  Board  received  an  advisory  opinion  from  the  Chief 
Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard.    In  adopting  the  analysis  of  CGPC,  the  Chief  Counsel 
recommended that the Board grant relief in this case. 
 

 

 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  the  ISC  committed  numerous  administrative 
errors in the matter.  He stated that because no member has the authority or capability 
to enter information into his or her own account in the CGHRMS, it was reasonable for 
the  applicant  to  rely  on  the  ISC  to  update  his  CPO  Academy  graduation  information.  
He stated that because the CGHRMS program was new for Reserve members who have 
access  to  the  system  only  when  performing  duty,  the  applicant  could  not  personally 
verify whether the information was entered into his record.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that had the ISC timely entered the applicant’s proof of 
graduation from the CPO Academy, he would have placed number xx on the Reserve 
Advancement  List  and  been  advanced  on  April  1,  20xx.    He  stated  that  the  record 
documents  that  the  applicant  made  all  reasonable  efforts  to  ensure  that  his  CPO 
Academy  graduation  was  included  in  his  record.    He  stated  that  when  the  applicant 
attempted  to  resolve  the  fact  that  he  was  not  placed  on  the  eligibility  list,  he  was 
erroneously  advised  by  his  unit  supervisor  and  the  MCPO.    He  stated  that  due  to 
failures  beyond  his  control,  the  applicant  was  unjustly  deprived  of  advancement  on 
April 1, 20xx.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On March 24, 2003, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
 
applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  April  3,  2003,  the  Board 
received  a  response  from  the  applicant,  stating  that  he  had  no  objections  to  the  Chief 
Counsel’s recommendation.  
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Extract (PDE) information.  It provides the following:  
 

Article  5.D.1.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  deals  with  collecting  Personnel  Data 

Commanding  Officer,  Human  Resources  Service  and  Information  Center  (HRSIC/adv) 
collects the PDE [personnel  data extract] information from the  members’ PMIS data.  A 
crucial  part  of  accurate  data  collection  is  timely  submission  of  PMIS  transactions.  
Members,  commands,  and  PERSRUs  [personnel  reporting  units]  should  ensure  the 
necessary PMIS transactions are submitted promptly by the specified deadlines. 

 

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: 
 

 

 

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

1. 

 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  asserted  that  he  was  prevented  from  being  advanced  to 
XXXX,  pay  grade  XX,  on  April  1,  20xx  because  the  Coast  Guard  committed  a  clerical 
error  regarding  his  graduation  from  CPO  Academy.    Under  Article  5.D.1.b.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant’s  ISC  should  have  but  failed  to  enter  his  CPO 
Academy graduation information into the CGHRMS in a timely manner for inclusion in 
the  applicant’s  PDE.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an 
error  when  it  found  the  applicant  ineligible  for  advancement  and  removed  his  name 
from the 20xx Reserve Advancement List.   

 
3. 

The  applicant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he 
should  have  been  advanced  to  XXXX  as  of  April  1,  20xx.    The  Chief  Counsel  has 
determined  that  had  the  applicant’s  proof  of  graduation  been  timely  entered  into  his 
record and the CGHRMS, the applicant would have placed number xx on the Reserve 
advancement  eligibility  list  and  been  advanced  to  PSCS  on  April  1,  20xx.    The  record 
further indicates that  despite the applicant’s making reasonable efforts to establish his 
eligibility  for  advancement,  the  error  in  his  record  was  due  to  administrative  failures 
beyond his  control.  In view of the Coast Guard’s errors and the  applicant’s efforts to 
correct the same, the Chief Counsel recommended that relief should be granted in this 
case.   

 
4. 

Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to  show  that  he 

was advanced to XXX, pay grade XX, on April 1, 20xx. 

 [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 
 

 

 

ORDER 

 
 
of his military record is granted as follows:   
 
 
grade XX, on April 1, 20xx.   
 

The application of XXX Xxxxx X. Xxxxx, xxx xx xxxx, USCGR, for the correction 

His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  advanced  to  xxxxxxxx,  pay 

The Coast Guard shall pay him any back pay and allowances he is due as a result 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

______________________________. 
 Julia Andrews 

______________________________ 
 Margot Bester 

______________________________ 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

of this correction.