DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-049 
 
XXXXX, XXXXX X. 
xxx xx xxxx, XXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 March 7, 2003 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  December  18,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 

The  applicant  asked  that  the  Board  to  correct  his  final  point  multiples  for  the 
19xx and 19xx Servicewide Examinations (SWEs) and to advance him to xxxxx from the 
19xx promotion list.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
The applicant stated that he competed for promotion to HSC during the 19xx and 
19xx SWEs.  He alleged that in May 19xx, he was awarded a Coast Guard Achievement 
Medal that was not entered into his personnel file prior to taking the examinations.  He 
alleged  that  as  a  result  of  this  error,  his  standing  on  both  advancements  lists  was 
miscalculated  by  two points  and  he  was  not  promoted.    He  alleged  that  had  he  been 
given  timely  credit  for  the  award,  “his  position  on  the  advancement  list  would  have 
been much higher” and he would have been advanced to pay grade E-7 “if not from the 
19xx list, most assuredly from the 19xx list.”   

 

The applicant asserted that there was “some confusion” about his Achievement 
Medal.  He alleged that because he was being recognized for his service while assigned 
to a detached billet, “at least 4 units were involved with administration, personnel, and 
pay  record  support  [with  respect  to  his  personnel  files].”    He  alleged  that  the  award 
should have been entered by the unit which prepared it.  However, he stated, in many 
instances, service and record entries were recorded by the four different units, “with no 
single office, unit, or individual point of contact.”  The applicant asserted that until he 
reviewed his profile letter in July 19xx (for the advancement exam he had taken in May 
19xx), he inadvertently overlooked the failure to include the award in his record.   

 
The applicant asserted that when he discovered the error in his points, he asked 
to  have  the  problem  corrected  but  had  no  success.    He  stated  that  his  unit  personnel 
office told him that because he signed his personnel data extract (PDE), he confirmed by 
his  signature  that  the  information  contained  therein  was  correct.    The  applicant 
acknowledged the fact that he had missed the opportunity to correct the administrative 
error at the time he signed the PDE but argued that he should “simply receive the credit 
for  the  award  earned  …  when  it  should  have  been  credited”  and  should  not  be 
penalized for not “catching an administrative error.”   

 
The applicant asserted that he did not discover the error until after the June 1, 
19xx cutoff date to submit corrections to PDEs.  He alleged that for months thereafter, 
he was given inaccurate information and improper guidance from his personnel office 
and chain of command regarding how the error could be corrected.  He stated that in 
July 19xx, he had his PDE corrected to show the award and proper credit for purposes 
of  future  examinations.    He  alleged  that  during  the  following  month,  while  the 
advancement  list  was  still  active,  his  new  supervisor  contacted  a  master  chief  petty 
officer  (MCPO)  on  his  behalf  at  the  Coast  Guard  Human  Resources  and  Information 
Center (HRSIC) to determine whether a correction could be made.   

 
According to the applicant, the MCPO indicated that it was too late to make the 
correction but had the matter been brought to his attention earlier, he would have “felt 
inclined”  to  add  the  points.    The  MCPO  also  indicated,  the  applicant  alleged,  that  it 
would  not  be  fair  to  everyone  else  if  the  correction  was  made  in  August  19xx.  
However,  the  applicant  argued,  “no  member  from  that  current  list  would  have  been 
denied advancement by my being placed in the proper position on the list.”  In closing, 
the applicant asserted that although he was proud to have his service acknowledged by 
this  award,  “the  fact  that  it  was  not  considered  during  the  window  of  opportunity 
which would have significantly impacted [his] career taints the award itself and leaves 
[him] feeling that the support [he] received is not equal to the service [he] provided as a 
member of the Coast Guard.”   

 
In  support  of  his  application,  he  submitted  a  letter  from  his  supervisor  and 
copies of endorsements by his command, which strongly support his request; a copy of 

the Commandant’s denial of his request; and other documents related to his promotion 
points,  including  a  copy  of  his  award,  his  profile  letters  for  19xx  and  19xx,  and 
eligibility lists for 19xx and 19xx. 
 
Summary of Applicant’s Relevant Evidence 
 
Supervisor’s Letter 
 
 
On February 26, 19xx, the supervisor wrote that in July 19xx, he became aware of 
the  error  in  the  applicant’s  award  points  and  of  the  fact  that  the  applicant  had 
attempted to obtain a correction for more than a year.  He stated that the applicant had 
spoken with a senior chief yeoman who verified that the deadline for correcting errors 
to the PDE had, indeed, expired.  He stated that he called a MCPO about the matter and 
was told that if the error had been brought to the MCPO’s attention earlier, he would 
have been more inclined to add the two points to correct the applicant’s record.   
 

The  supervisor  stated  that  although  the  applicant  obtained  endorsements  from 
his  entire  chain  of  command,  his  request  was  denied  because  the  applicant  “did  not 
catch [the] mistake soon enough.”  He stated that the applicant was given poor advice 
and  the  manner  in  which  the  applicant  was  treated  is  not  consistent  with  the 
Commandant’s  policy  of  “taking  care  of  our  people.”    He  stated  that  the  applicant 
earned  the  two  points  at  issue  long  before  the  SWE  list  was  published  and  that  this 
error and injustice should have been corrected some time ago. 
 
Applicant’s Request for a Waiver 
 
 
By memorandum, dated September 23, 19xx, the applicant submitted a request to 
CGPC that he be granted a waiver to allow his PDE for the May 19xx SWE to reflect two 
additional points for the award he received on May 20, 19xx.  He stated that because he 
signed  the  PDE  form  verifying  that  the  information  was  correct,  he  was  told  by 
members of his chain of command that nothing could be done to correct the error.   
 

The  applicant  also  stated  that  he  discussed  the  matter  with  his  immediate 
supervisor, who contacted an MCPO at HRSIC.  He stated that he had tried to resolve 
the matter long before August 19xx but believed that he was not given the best advice.  
He stated that had his unit and supervisors sought advice from those outside the XXX, 
he  believes  that  the  error  could  have  been  resolved  earlier.    He  stated  that  he  agreed 
with the Commandant’s Direction 19xx message, wherein it was stated that the Coast 
Guard  is  committed  to  its  members  and  the  members  are  committed  to  the  Coast 
Guard.   
 
First Endorsement on the Applicant’s Request 
 

 
On  September  26,  19xx,  the  applicant’s  division  chief  wrote  that  he  strongly 
recommended approval of the applicant’s waiver request.  He stated that the applicant 
is an outstanding performer and that his service to the fleet was remarkable.  He noted 
that the applicant’s attempts to resolve the matter locally were unsuccessful. 
 
Second Endorsement on the Applicant’s Request 
 
 
On  October  29,  19xx,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  (CO)  wrote  that  he 
strongly urged an immediate correction of the applicant’s award points to be made to 
the current xxx advancement list.  He stated that his first class yeoman’s response to the 
applicant’s attempts to have the error corrected was “entirely unsatisfactory.”  He also 
stated the following: 
 

[Article 5.D.1. of the Personnel Manual] in no way prohibits the proper crediting of [the 
applicant’s]  award  and  the  subsequent  revision  of  the  advancement  eligibility  list 
contained in [the Commander of the Coast Guard Personnel Command’s letter of July 14, 
19xx].    [The  applicant]  is  directly  on  target  when  he  refers  to  the  Commandant’s  own 
stated commitment to an emphasis on Coast Guard people. … 

 
Other Relevant Evidence  
 

The applicant submitted a copy of his 19xx SWE results notification from HRSIC.  
The final  multiple points listed for “medals/awards” is 7.00 (instead of 9.00), and his 
standing on the advancement eligibility list is noted as xx.  The applicant also submitted 
a copy of his 19xx SWE results notification from HRSIC.  The final multiple points listed 
for “medals/awards” is still 7.00 and his standing on the advancement eligibility list is 
xx. 
 
 
The applicant also submitted signed copies of his May 19xx and May 19xx PDEs.  
On both forms, the “creditable awards for servicewide only” sections list seven awards 
worth one point each.  The May 19xx Coast Guard Achievement Medal is not listed on 
either of the PDEs.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

On July 25, 19xx, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  On July 1, 1993, he 

was promoted to a xxxxxxxx.   

 
On May 20, 19xx, the applicant was awarded a Coast Guard Achievement Medal, 
which for purposes of the SWE is worth two points in calculating final  multiples.   In 
June  of  19xx,  he  was  presented  the  Achievement  Medal  at  a  ceremony  held  by  his 
command. 

 

On  December  8,  19xx,  CGPC  published  a  general  message,  announcing  the 
eligibility  requirements,  deadlines,  and  responsibilities  of  members  for  the  upcoming 
May  19xx  SWE.    The  message  stated  that  “…  the  importance  of  proper  and  timely 
verification of the personal date extract (PDE) cannot be overemphasized,” and that “[i]t 
is the member’s responsibility to ensure that all eligibility requirements to compete in 
the SWE are met.” 

 
On  March  15,  19xx,  the  applicant  signed  his  PDE  for  the  May  19xx  SWE, 
certifying that he had reviewed the PDE and listed all necessary changes.  Although the 
applicant’s Achievement Medal was not listed on the PDE, he requested no changes to 
the PDE.  
 
 
By letter dated July 10, 19xx, the applicant was notified that he had passed the 
May 19xx SWE.  He was provided his total final multiple for the examination and his 
standing  of  xx  on  the  advancement  eligibility  list.    The  total  points  listed  for  the 
“medal/awards” category was 7, instead of 9.   
 
 
On  December  14,  19xx,  CGPC  published  a  general  message,  announcing  the 
eligibility  requirements,  deadlines,  and  responsibilities  of  members  for  the  upcoming 
May 19xx SWE.  The message stated that “[i]t is the member’s responsibility to ensure 
that all eligibility requirements to compete in the SWE are met … and to … ensure all 
corrective action has been completed by June 1, 19xx (no corrections will be authorized 
after this date).”   
 
 
On March 6, 19xx, the applicant signed his PDE for the May 19xx SWE, certifying 
that he had reviewed the PDE and listed all necessary changes.  Again, the applicant’s 
Achievement Medal was not listed on the PDE, but he requested no changes to the PDE. 
 
 
By letter dated July 14, 19xx, the applicant was notified that he had passed the 
May 19xx SWE.  He was provided his total final multiple for the examination and his 
standing  of  xx  on  the  advancement  eligibility  list. 
  The  total  points  for  the 
“medal/awards” category was again listed as 7.   
 
In July 19xx, the applicant’s requested that his PDE be corrected to include his 
 
Coast Guard Achievement Award.  However, because the deadline for correcting errors 
was June 1, 19xx, the change had no effect on his PDE for the May 19xx SWE.   
 
 
On  November  20,  19xx,  CGPC  published  the  names  of  eligible  personnel  from 
the May 19xx SWE to be advanced to pay grades E-7 through E-9, effective December 1, 
19xx.  Because advancements for HSC were made to number 16, the applicant, who was 
number xx on this list, was not advanced.   
 

 
On August 1, 19xx, CGPC published a revised cutoff list for the May 19xx SWE 
for pay grades E-7 through E-9.  It stated that “those not advanced, but at [or] above the 
cutoff  at  the  end  of  the  cycle,  are  carried  over  to  the  next  SWE  eligibility  list.”    The 
cutoff  point  listed  on  the  HSC  eligibility  list  was  number  xx.    Because  the  applicant 
placed at number xx, he was below the cutoff.   
 
 
On September 23, 19xx, the applicant requested that CGPC credit him with two 
additional  award  points  in  computing  his  total  final  multiple  for  the  May  19xx  SWE, 
and  make  a  corresponding  adjustment  to  his  standing  on  the  advancement  list.    In 
support of his request, the applicant submitted two endorsements from members of his 
chain of command, who strongly supported the applicant’s request.   
 
 
By  memorandum  dated  November  26,  19xx,  CGPC  denied  the  applicant’s 
request to be credited with the two additional award points.  In supporting its reasons 
for the disapproval, CGPC stated the following: 
 

2.    As  per  [Article  5.D.1.c.21.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  the  general  message 
announcing the May 19xx SWE], you are responsible for verifying the accuracy of your 
Personal Data Extract (PDE) and to take action to make corrections if necessary.  Based 
on our review of the case, it appears you took no action until the summer of 19xx.  This is 
well after 1 June 19xx deadline established in [the above-noted general announcement].   
 
3.  In your request, you reference the Commandant’s Direction 19xx.  We fully embrace 
his  emphasis  on  people.    However,  we  must  establish  individual  accountability  and 
deadlines  to  prevent  confusion,  uncertainty,  and  unpredictability  in  the  advancement 
process. … 

 
 
On November 27, 19xx, the Commander of xxxxxxxx appealed CGPC’s denial on 
behalf of the applicant to the Commandant.  He asserted that although the applicant did 
not notice the error before the June 1, 19xx deadline, he did notice and report the error 
in July 19xx—more than a year before the advancement list was to be published.  He 
argued  that  “surely  [that  was]  enough  time  to  ensure  the  desired  certainty  and 
predictability in the advancement process described in [the denial letter from CGPC].”  
He  stated  that  the  applicant’s  situation  was  “unique”  in  that  “even  with  the  award 
points  credited,  [for  the  19xx  SWE,  the  applicant  would]  not  be  above  the  cut  for 
advancement  off  the  next  advancement  list  that  will  run  through  December  19xx.  
Therefore, he urged that the award points be credited when they were earned in 19xx, 
to enable the applicant to be advanced to HSC in December 19xx.   
 
 
On February 4, 19xx, the Commandant concurred with the decision of CGPC.  In 
denying the applicant’s request, the Commandant reasoned that because the applicant 
was a senior officer, who was familiar with the SWE process and had been awarded (in 
a  personal  ceremony)  only  one  Achievement  Medal,  the  absence  of  the  award  was 
readily apparent.  The Commandant noted that the applicant also had the opportunity 
to  correct  his  record  one  year  earlier  when  he  participated  in  the  19xx  SWE.  The 

Commandant  further  stated  that  based  on  the  applicant’s  case,  and  others  like  it, 
HRSIC, CGPC, and other appropriate Coast Guard offices “will look for enhancements 
to  improve  the  advancement  system.”    The  Commandant  stated  that  the  PDE 
verification  process  was  specifically  designed  to  have  both  the  command  and  the 
member review the PDE to guard against oversights and that “[t]he individual service 
member’s scrutiny is an essential component to quality and accuracy.”  
 
 
 

To date, the applicant continues to serve in the Coast Guard as an XXX. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 21, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the  Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion  to  which  he  attached  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  CGPC.    In 
adopting the analysis of CGPC, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board deny 
the applicant’s request for relief.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  pointed  out  that  the  applicant’s  record  reflects  the  Coast 
Guard Achievement Medal and therefore, has already been corrected.  He argued that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  show  how  Coast  Guard  regulations,  which  hold  him 
accountable  for  his  own  failure  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  his  record,  are  unjust.    He 
asserted  that  the  Coast  Guard  has  “consistently  applied  a  rational  policy  of  setting  a 
cut-off  date  after  which  it  will  not  make  corrections  to  a  record  that  affect  an 
individual’s final multiple on an individual Service Wide Exam.”   
 
 
The Chief Counsel asserted that the Coast Guard does, in fact, consider waivers 
in situations where a member has reviewed their PDE, found errors and submitted the 
PDE  for  correction  by  the  established  deadline,  but  no  action  had  been  taken  by  the 
Coast Guard.  However, he argued, because the applicant signed his PDE as correct and 
later  discovered  the  error  after  the  established  deadline,  the  waiver  policy  is 
inapplicable to the applicant’s case.  He asserted that any information the applicant may 
have  received  to  the  contrary  was  provided  under  the  assumption  that  he  had  not 
verified his PDE as being correct.   
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  prior  to  taking  the  SWE,  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 argued that there is nothing unfair about holding the applicant, 
who  seeks  advancement  to  the  rank  of  chief  petty  officer,  accountable  for  failing  to 
correct “a glaring error” on his PDE when provided with two separate occasions to so 
do.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 28, 2003, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  On August 18, 2003, the applicant 
responded by stating that he generally disagreed with the advisory opinion.  

 
The applicant asserted that he accepted responsibility for his actions.  However, 
he  argued  that  the  MCPO  indicated  to  his  supervisor  that  exceptions  to  the  stated 
regulations are routinely made and would have been made in his case if the MCPO had 
been contacted earlier.  He argued that he initiated his request for an exception because, 
contrary to the MCPO’s comment, he had pursued a correction many months earlier but 
was given erroneous advice.   

 
The applicant pointed out that he received positive endorsements on his request 
from his entire local chain of command and noted that his CO went on to state that “his 
own staff … acted unsatisfactorily when [the applicant] tried to correct [his] record over 
2 years ago.”  He concluded his response by reiterating his request for 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,  …,  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.”   
 
 
member to verify the information for correctly computing the SWE Final Multiple.   
 
 
Extract (PDE) information.  It provides the following:  
 

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

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 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. 

 

identifying 

rank, 

information,  award  points,  date  of 

Article  5.D.1.c.  provides  that  among  the  information  contained  in  a  member’s 
PDE 
creditable 
is 
awards/points/date, and a signature block.  With respect to the signature block, 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.” 

 
 
Medals and Awards Manual (COMDTINST M1650.25B)  
 
 
Article  1.A.12.g.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Medal  and  Awards  Manual  (MAM) 
addresses the procedures for processing point credits for enlisted awards with respect 
to  the  SWE  competition.    It  states  that  “[i]t  is  the  responsibility  of  each  awarding 
authority  to  notify  their  servicing  PERSRU  of  each  award  approved  for  enlisted 
personnel.    This  action  is  required  immediately  to  substantiate  point  credit  toward 
Servicewide examination competition, ….”(Emphasis in original.)   
 
 
Article 1.A.19.c. provides that PERSRUs “must submit PMIS/JUMPS [personnel 
management  database]  transactions  to  record  any  award  earned  by  Coast  Guard  … 
members.”    Article  1.A.19.e.    provides  that  the  member  is  ultimately  “responsible  for 
ensuring the accuracy of PMIS/JUMPS award data.”   
 

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 alleged that had his two points been properly credited to his 
record when they were earned in May 19xx, he would have been advanced to XXX from 
either the 19xx or the 19xx XXX advancement list.  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]  ….”    See  Article  5.C.4.a.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.   
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  servicing  PERSRU  failed  to 
timely  enter  his  award  points  into  the  PMIS/JUMPS  in  accordance  with  Articles 
1.A.12.g. and 1.A.19.c. of the MAM.  As a result of this delay, the Coast Guard erred by 
failing to process the applicant’s award points to allow their inclusion in his PDEs.  The 
Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  PDE  is  a  verification  tool  to  be  used  by  both  “the 
command  and  the  member  ….”    (Emphasis  added.)    As  acknowledged  by  the 
Commandant in his February 4, 19xx dated memorandum, the Board agrees that there 
is  a  need  to  “look  for enhancements  to  improve  the  advancement  system,”  especially 
with respect to the command’s responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the member’s 
records.   
 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

 
However,  the  record also  indicates  that  prior  to  taking  the  SWE  in  19xx 
and  in  19xx,  the  applicant  had  multiple  opportunities  to  have  his  PDE  corrected.  
Notwithstanding  the  Coast  Guard’s  error,  the  applicant  is  ultimately  responsible  for 
ensuring  the  accuracy  of  his  award  data  and  his  eligibility  for  the  SWE.    See  Article 
5.C.4.a. of the Personnel Manual and Article 1.A.19.e. of the MAM.  Furthermore, the 
positive endorsements received by the applicant from his command in support of his 
request fail to relieve him of his responsibilities with respect to making corrections to 
his PDE, prior to signing it in acknowledgement of its accuracy.  Insofar as a member is 
best situated to discover errors in and verify the accuracy and completeness of his or 
her  own  record,  the  length  of  time  that  the  error  remained  in  the  applicant’s  record 
must largely be attributed to his own oversight.  
 
 
Moreover, the Board notes that in July 19xx, when the applicant brought 
the error in his award points to his unit’s attention, the Coast Guard promptly corrected 
the error.  The applicant has failed to cite any statute or regulation that permits the error 
to be retroactively corrected. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that even though he reported the error in July 19xx, 
after the June 1, 19xx deadline for correcting PDEs, it was unjust for the Coast Guard 
not to correct the advancement list to reflect the two points for his Achievement Medal.  
The applicant has not persuaded the Board that, under the circumstances of this case, 
the  Coast  Guard’s  failure  to  waive  the  deadline  for  him  constitutes  an  injustice.    The 
applicant  has  therefore  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is 
entitled to relief.   
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.   

7. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The application of XXX XXXXX X. XXXXX, xxx xx xxxx, USCG, for the correction 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
of his military record is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger