DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-081 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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  May  20,  2003  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 January 22, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his permanent 
 
rank is chief warrant officer, pay grade CWO3, (CWO3) rather than senior chief xxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pay grade E-8.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant stated that on June 1, 1999, the day he was appointed to temporary 
lieutenant (LT) through the direct commission engineers (DCE) program, he was also 
selected for advancement to chief warrant officer (CWO).  He alleged that Coast Guard 
regulations  provide  that  when  members  are  simultaneously  selected  for  CWO  and  a 
temporary LT commission, they are first appointed to CWO2 (chief warrant officer, pay 
grade CWO2), followed by their appointment to temporary LT commission.  He alleged 
that based on the regulations, he therefore was erroneously counseled that he could not 
be advanced to CWO prior to being appointed to the rank of temporary LT.  He alleged 
that had he been advanced to CWO2 before being appointed to LT, he would have been 
appointed to permanent rank of CWO3, on June 1, 2003.   

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

On July 8, 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  On August 1, 

1997, he was promoted to senior chief xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pay grade E-8.   

 
On  August  7,  1998,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  released  a 
general  message,  announcing  the  names  of  personnel  eligible  for  appointment  to 
warrant  grade  for  1999.    The  applicant  was  listed  as  number  one  on  the  list  for  the 
electronics specialty.   

 
On June 1, 1999, the applicant was administered the oath of office in a temporary 
appointment in the grade of LT (pay grade O3-E).  The applicant’s record contains no 
evidence that he accepted an appointment to CWO2. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  25,  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 
grant the applicant’s request for relief.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  the  applicant  was  erroneously  counseled  and, 
thereby, precluded from rightfully executing an oath of appointment to CWO2 on the 
same day he was appointed to temporary LT, June 1, 1999.  He pointed out that there 
are  no  provisions  within  any  Coast  Guard  statutes  or  regulations  that  prohibited  the 
applicant  from  accepting  his  appointment  to  CWO2  first  and  subsequently  executing 
the oath for the temporary appointment to LT on the same or following day.  In fact, he 
stated, the Coast Guard routinely accomplishes such appointments for members under 
similar  circumstances.    He  asserted  that  the  applicant  should  have  been  afforded  the 
opportunity  to  accept  the  commission  to  warrant  officer  that  he  “rightfully  earned 
before he executed his appointment to lieutenant.”   
 

The Chief Counsel asserted that the Coast Guard has “previously interpreted 14 
U.S.C.  §  214  to  authorize  an  appointment  to  CWO2  and  subsequent  appointment  to 
temporary  LT  on  the  same  day.”    Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended,  the 
applicant should be allowed to execute an oath to permanent CWO2, effective June 1, 
1999, and permitted to be promoted to permanent CWO3, effective June 1, 2003.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 20, 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  October  27,  2003,  the 

applicant responded, informing the Board that he had no objection to the Coast Guard’s 
advisory opinion.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Title 14 U.S.C. § 214, entitled “Appointment of temporary officers,” provides that 
“[t]he  President  may  appoint  temporary  commissioned  officers  in  the  Regular  Coast 
Guard  in  a  grade,  not  above  lieutenant  …  from  among  the  commissioned  warrant 
officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members of the Coast Guard ….”   
 
 
Title 10 U.S.C. § 575 (a) states that “[a] selection board … shall recommend for 
promotion  to  the  next  higher  grade  those  warrant  officers  considered  by  the  board 
whom the board, giving due consideration to the needs of the armed force concerned 
for warrant officers with particular skills, considers best qualified for promotion within 
each grade (or grade and competitive category) considered by the Board.   
 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  1.A.3.b.  of  the Personnel  Manual  deals  with  the  effect  that  a  temporary 
appointment  has  on  a  member’s  permanent  status.    It  states  that  a  temporary 
appointment  “does  not  change  these  temporary  officers’  permanent,  probationary,  or 
acting status; prejudice their promotion or appointment opportunities; or abridge their 
rights or benefits.  A temporary officer may not lose any rightful pay and allowances 
due to his or her permanent status when appointed.”   
 
 
Article 1.A.3.c. provides that “[a] temporary appointment … may be vacated at 
anytime.    If  an  officer’s  appointment  is  so  vacated,  he  or  she  reverts  to  his  or  her 
permanent status (14 U.S.C. § 214).”   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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 he was erroneously counseled that he could not 
be advanced to CWO prior to being appointed to the rank of temporary LT.  The Chief 
Counsel admitted that, in light of the Coast Guard’s interpretation of 14 U.S.C. § 214, it 
committed an error by precluding the applicant from executing an oath of appointment 
to CWO second class on the day he was also appointed to temporary LT.  Moreover, the 

1. 

2. 

Board  finds  that  there  are  no  Coast  Guard  regulations  that  prohibited  the  applicant 
from accepting his appointment to CWO2 first and subsequently executing the oath for 
the temporary appointment to LT on the same day.  Therefore, the applicant has proved 
by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  erroneously  counseled  and  that  his 
permanent rank should be changed.   
 

3. 

The  applicant  requested,  and  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended,  that  his 
(the applicant’s) permanent rank be changed to CWO3, as of June 1, 2003.  The record 
indicates  that  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  execute  an  oath  of  appointment  to 
permanent  CWO2  on  June  1,  1999.    However,  the  Board  finds  that  under  10  U.S.C.         
§ 575 (a), the applicant must be recommended for promotion to CWO3 by a promotion 
board  prior  to  being  promoted  to  the  permanent  rank  of  CWO3.    Therefore,  if  the 
applicant is selected for promotion to CWO3 when he is considered by the next CWO 
promotion  board,  his  date  of  rank  should  be  backdated  to  June  1,  2003,  the  date  he 
would  have  been  promoted  to  CWO3  had  he  been  duly  considered  by  a  CWO 
promotion board.   
 
Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to  show  that  he 
was commissioned to CWO2 on June 1, 1999 and that he is subsequently entitled to be 
considered by the next CWO promotion board for promotion to CWO3. 
 

4. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

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

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  the  correction  of  his  military 

 
 
record is granted as follows:   
 
 
His record shall be corrected to show that he executed an oath of office and was 
commissioned  to  CWO2  on  June  1,  1999.    Thereafter,  his  military  record  shall  be 
considered by the next CWO promotion board for promotion to CWO3.  If, at that time, 
he  is  selected  for  promotion  to  CWO3,  his  date  of  rank  shall  be  backdated  to  June  1, 
2003.  
 
 
of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 
 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer