DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-078 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR docketed this 
case on March 12, 2004, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  lieutenant  commander  (LCDR;  pay  grade  O-4)  in  the  Coast 
Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant (LT; O-
3)  from  September  30,  1998,  to  March  27,  1997,  which,  he  alleged,  was  the  date  he 
received  his  commission  as  a  law  specialist with  the  rank  of  lieutenant  (junior  grade) 
(LTJG; O-2).  He also asked that his DOR as a LCDR be backdated accordingly and that 
he be awarded all backpay and allowances he would be due as a result of such correc-
tions.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that on March 27, 1997, he received a direct commission as 
a LTJG law specialist.  He alleged that according to 14 U.S.C. § 727, which grants newly 
appointed attorneys three years of constructive service, he should have been commis-
sioned as a LT.  He alleged that the Coast Guard acknowledged this fact in April 2001 
and “attempted to rectify its mistake by adjusting [his] then DOR to Sep[tember] 1998; 
however, the proper remedy would have been to adjust [his] DOR to [his] initial date of 

commission.”  He pointed out that the Coast Guard has renewed its practice of commis-
sioning law specialists as lieutenants with concurrent DORs. 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a letter from the 
 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  dated  April  27  2001,  to  another  Reserve 
direct commission law specialist.  The letter states the following: 

 
1. 
In accordance with [14 U.S.C. § 727] a Reserve officer appointed for the purpose 
of  assignment  or  designation  as  a  law  specialist  shall  be  credited  with  a  minimum  of 
three years service in an active status.  As explained in [a letter from the Chief Counsel 
dated  April  23,  2001],  upon  appointment  in  the  Coast  Guard  as  a  lieutenant  (junior 
grade) you were inadvertently credited with only 18 months in an active status as a result 
of an administrative error.  Your date of rank is being adjusted to reflect a total of three 
years service in an active status upon commissioning.  The correction will be made prior 
to the promotion year 2002 board season, which starts 1 July 2001.  You are authorized 
any back pay and allowances due as a result of this correction. 
 
2. 
Although the correction will be applied uniformly, it will affect officers in differ-
ent ways, depending on their status.  Some officers will be in zone for the next scheduled 
selection board sooner than anticipated.  Those officers must go before the board.  Some 
officers  will  have  missed  the  selection  board  for  which  they  should  have  been  eligible.  
Those officers will compete in the next scheduled board and if selected, will receive back 
DOR’s as if they had been selected the year they should have been eligible.  Some officers 
have been selected for lieutenant but not yet promoted.  Those officers will be given new 
back DOR’s for lieutenant (junior grade) and subsequently, will also receive back DOR’s 
for lieutenant.  Some officers will merely be 18 months closer to their next selection board 
and the correction will have little impact. 
 
3. 
You  were  commissioned  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  as  a  lieutenant  (junior 
grade) with a DOR of [April 26, 1999].  In order to reflect a total of three years service in 
an active status, your DOR will be adjusted to [October 26, 1997].  This adjustment would 
have placed you in zone for promotion to lieutenant in September 1999.  Your record will 
appear before the lieutenant selection board in September 2001.  If selected, your LT DOR 
will be [October 26, 2000] which it would have been had you been selected by the lieu-
tenant selection board held in September 1999. 

The  correction  of  this  administrative  error  is  an  entitlement,  which  cannot  be 

4. 
refused or delayed. … 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On March 31, 1997, the applicant accepted a commission and signed an oath of 
office to become a LTJG (O-2) in the Reserve.  On the same day, he signed a four-year 
extended active duty contract.  He had prior military service in several branches of the 
Armed Forces and had been discharged from the Army Reserve as a First Lieutenant 
(O-2) the day before, March 30, 1997.  From March 31, 1997, to June 12, 1998, he served 
as a “staff attorney” in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
 

From June 13, 1998, to July 31, 1999, the applicant served as defense counsel for 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.    On  July  16,  1998,  CGPC  informed 
him that he had been designated a “law specialist.”   

 
From August 1, 1999, to March 31, 2001, the applicant again served in the xxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxx.    In  1999,  he  was  selected  for  promotion,  and  on  March  31,  2000,  three 
years after receiving his commission, he was promoted to LT (O-3).  On March 31, 2001, 
having completed his four-year contract, the applicant was released to inactive duty. 
 
 
Thereafter, the applicant spent six months in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), 
before entering the Selected Reserve (SELRES), in which he currently drills.  His record 
shows that his DOR as a LTJG was backdated 18 months from the date of his commis-
sioning, March 31, 1997, to September 30, 1995, and his DOR as a LT was adjusted by 18 
months, from March 31, 2000, to September 30, 1998.  He was selected for promotion to 
LCDR in 2003 and promoted to that rank on August 1, 2004. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On July 20, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.  
TJAG attached and adopted a memorandum on the case prepared by CGPC.   
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant received his commission as a LTJG on March 31, 
1997, under the Coast Guard Direct Commission Law (DCL) Specialist Program.  CGPC 
stated that on April 23, 2001, the Chief Counsel sent a memorandum to all law special-
ists  and  attorney-advisors  “acknowledg[ing]  administrative  error  in  accessing  direct 
commission  attorneys  in  the  rank  of  LTJG,  specifically  acknowledging  that  these  law 
specialists  were  due  an  additional  18  months  of  contractive  active  service  credit.”    In 
response,  CGPC  adjusted  the  date  of  rank  of  all  affected  officers  “to  reflect  a  total  of 
three years service in an active status upon commissioning.”  Therefore, the applicant’s 
“DOR as a LTJG was adjusted from 31 Mar 1997 to 30 Jun 1995 to reflect a total of three 
years service in an active status” and his “DOR as LT was adjusted from 31 Mar 2000 to 
30 Sep 1998.”  He received backpay and allowances accordingly. 
 
 
CGPC stated that Article 4.D.5. of COMDTINST M1100.2D, the Recruiting Man-
ual then in effect, provided that the DCL program was “intended to commission quali-
fied law school graduates in the Coast Guard Reserve as LTJG (pay grade O-2) to serve 
at  major  commands  such  as  district  offices.”    CGPC  noted  that  Article  4.D.5.b. 
“oblige[d] DCL applicants who have been admitted to the bar to serve a minimum of 
four years on active duty.” 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  three  years  of  constructive  service  credit  awarded  under 
14 U.S.C. § 727 (1997) “[did] not entitle a candidate to appointment as a LT.  Rather, it 

enable[d] the service to assign the member to a precedence on the promotion list three 
years ahead of where that officer would have otherwise stood had they [sic] not been 
recruited specifically to serve as law specialists.” 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  initially  credited  with  18  months  of  con-
structive service when he received his commission on March 31, 1997.  The administra-
tive error acknowledged by the Chief Counsel in April 2001 meant that the applicant’s 
DOR  “upon  initial  appointment  should  have  been  equivalent  to  the  precedence  of  a 
LTJG with 18 months of service.”  Therefore, the applicant’s DOR as a LTJG was back-
dated by 18 months to September 30, 1995.  CGPC stated that, had the applicant origi-
nally  received  this  DOR,  “he  would  have  been  placed  in  zone  for  consideration  for 
promotion  to  LT  in  September  1997.”    Backdating  his  DOR  as  a  LT  to  September  30, 
1998,  “not  only  awarded  the  additional  18  months  constructive  active  service  credit 
required, but also reflected the appropriate date of rank had Applicant competed on the 
LT selection board in September 1997.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  20,  2004,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant requested 
an extension of 22 days and responded on September 9, 2004.  
 
 
The applicant argued that although 14 U.S.C. § 727 (1997) “[did] not specifically 
indicate the rank of accession, the Coast Guard has resumed the correct interpretation 
of this statute to mean that … one who is accessed thru the Direct Commission Lawyer 
(DCL) program be commissioned in the rank of lieutenant.  There is no other practical 
means to apply the statute.”  The applicant pointed out that in BCMR Docket No. 2002-
012,  the  Board  acknowledged  that  “the  constructive  credit  provision  of  14  USC 727 
comported with DCLs being appointed as lieutenants.”1   
                                                 
1 In BCMR Docket No. 2002-012, the applicant was already a Reserve officer with more than three years of 
service  when  he  became  a  law  specialist.    He  argued  that  under  14  U.S.C.  § 727,  he  was  entitled  to  an 
additional  three  years  of  constructive  service  credit.    The  Board  denied  his  request,  finding  that  under 
14 U.S.C.  § 727,  only  individuals  appointed  as  law  specialists  were  entitled  to  the  credit,  whereas  the 
applicant  had  been  appointed  an  officer  years  before  and  did  not  resign  his  commission  to  be 
reappointed as a law specialist.  In finding 7 of the decision, the Board noted the following: 
 

 7.        The  Commandant,  by  delegation  of  the  Secretary,  issued  COMDTINST  1131.23, 
which addresses credit to be given for those receiving a direct appointment in the Coast 
Guard.  The regulation permitted law graduates to apply for a Reserve appointment at 
the  rank  of  lieutenant,  thereby  giving  them  active  service  credit  for  years  they  would 
normally  have  spent  in  the  grades  of  ensign  and  lieutenant  junior  grade.    For  these 
officers,  the  instruction  states  that  the  date  of  rank  for  appointment  under  the  DCL 
program shall be the date of appointment.   Neither the law nor the regulation requires 
law  specialists  to  be  given  credit  for  time  already  spent  in  the  Reserve  if  reappointed 
under  the  DCL  program,  and  the  applicant  has  not  presented  any  law  or  regulation  to 

 
 
The  applicant  argued  that  COMDTINST  M1100.2D,  relied  on  by  the  Coast 
Guard, did not go into effect until March 23, 1999, two years after his appointment.  He 
stated that “[a]rguably, COMDTINST 1131.23 with an effective date of January 6, 1993 
was  controlling  because  it  was  not  officially  cancelled.    That  instruction  correctly 
applied 14 USC 727 by appointing DCLs as lieutenants.”  He noted that after acknowl-
edging its error in April 2001, the Coast Guard resumed the practice of commissioning 
DCLs as lieutenants. 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  applicant  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  interpretation  of  the 
statute is disingenuous and impractical as it “would result in an individual being com-
missioned  a  lieutenant  junior  grade  and  eligible  for  promotion  review  shortly  upon 
accession as a DCL.”  The applicant argued that although the Coast Guard adjusted his 
LT DOR back 18 months to September 30, 1998, the right correction would have been to 
adjust it back to his date of commissioning, March 31, 1997.  “By not doing so, the Coast 
Guard in effect has allowed DCLs commissioned after [him] to be eligible for promotion 
on a quicker timeline.  The correct remedy would have made me eligible for [promotion 
to LCDR] in 2002 vice 2003.” 
 
 
The  applicant  also  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  assertion  that  it  did  not  dis-
cover the error until 2001 is erroneous because he himself formally communicated with 
the Chief Counsel about the issue in 1998. 
 
Finally, the applicant noted that he has already been promoted to LCDR.  There-
 
fore, he asked only that his DOR as LCDR be backdated by one year to August 1, 2003, 
to “reflect the fact that had the Coast Guard properly commissioned [him] initially [as a 
LT],  [he]  would  have  been  eligible  for  promotion  to  [LCDR]  in  2003  vice  2004.”    The 
applicant  stated  that  if  the  Board  agrees  with  this  proposition,  he  would  forgo  “any 
claim to additional back pay as a lieutenant.” 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

Title 14 U.S.C. § 727, titled “Constructive credit upon initial appointment,” states 
that “[u]nder regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a person, appointed as a Reserve 
officer,  may  be  assigned  a  date  of  rank  and  precedence  which  reflects  that  person's 
experience, education, or other qualifications. …. [A] person appointed for the purpose 
of assignment or designation as a law specialist in the Reserve shall be credited with a 
minimum of three years service in an active status.”2   

                                                                                                                                                             

the contrary.   See Dock v. United States, 46 F.3d 1083, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating that 
the  “rights  and  benefits  of  a  member  of  the  military  services,  including  pay  and 
allowances, are defined by statute”). 

2 In 2004, the credit was reduced to one year. Pub. L. 108-293, Title II, § 208, 118 Stat. 1035 (Aug. 9, 2004). 

 

Commandant Instruction 1131.23, which went into effect on January 6, 1993, con-
tained the regulations for the Coast Guard's direct commission programs.  Paragraph 
10.a.  of  the  instruction  concerns  the  direct  commissioning  of  law  school  graduates  as 
lawyers in the Coast Guard Reserve and provides that “[u]nder this program, graduates 
of accredited law schools may apply for appointment in the Coast Guard Reserve at the 
rank of lieutenant.  The date of rank shall be the date of appointment to commissioned 
status in the Coast Guard Reserve.” 

 
Paragraph  5.M.1.a. of Commandant  Instruction  M1100.2C,  the Recruiting  Man-
ual in effect in 1997,3 stated that “[q]ualified law school graduates are commissioned in 
the Coast Guard Reserve as lieutenants to serve as lawyers.” 

 
In 1994, COMDTINST 1131.23 was amended by a memorandum dated Septem-
ber 14, 1994, from the Chief of the Military Personnel Division to the Chief of the Office 
of  Personnel  and  Training,  who  approved  a  proposal  to  require  DCLs  to  be  commis-
sioned  as  LTJGs  rather  than  LTs.    This  amendment  was  incorporated  in  the  new 
Recruiting Manual issued in 1999.  The rationale for the amendment was attached in a 
memorandum by the Chief Counsel dated August 18, 1994, who stated the following in 
pertinent part: 

 
1.    Acting  upon  the  recommendation  of  my  Quality  Management  Board,  I  have  con-
curred  in  a  proposal  to  commission  Direct  Commission  Lawyers  (DCLs)  as  lieutenants 
(junior grade) (OD) rather than full lieutenants (O3).  This change in policy, should you 
approve, would improve the DCL’s ability to compete with Academy and OCS officers 
for promotion and operational assignments, the benefits of which  will flow  not only  to 
the DCLs, but to the Coast Guard as a whole. 
 
2.  Currently,  DCLs  first  compete  for  promotion  on  a  best-qualified  basis  (to  O4)  after 
approximately 5 years [of] commissioned service.  They compete primarily against offi-
cers with 9 years [of] commissioned service—a 4 year (8 OER) differential.  In a few cases, 
this  has  disadvantaged  the  DCL;  more  often  it  has  created  the  perception  of  disadvan-
tage.  Shifting the DCL accession grade to O2 would reduce the experience differential at 
the first best-qualified promotion board (to O3) to only 18 months (3 OERs), thus mini-
mizing the DCLs’ disadvantage of not entering the service as Ensigns.  DCLs also would 
benefit from the higher stated opportunity for selection to O3 than O4. 
 
3.  Because DCLs now enter as O3’s, they compete for their second assignments after 4 
years  in  service  as  senior  O3’s  likely  to  be  promoted  to  O4  midway  through  that  tour.  
Consequently,  they  have  seniority  without  experience,  which  disadvantages  them  in 
seeking out of specialty operational assignments.  And if, for whatever reason, they do 
not  obtain  out  of  specialty  second  tour  assignments,  at  the  third  tour  point  (mid-grade 
O4) their seniority very nearly forecloses them from obtaining career-enhancing out for 
specialty assignments.  This situation would be alleviated by shifting the DCL accession 

                                                 
3  As  alleged  by  the  applicant,  the  version  of  the  Recruiting  Manual  relied  on  by  the  Coast  Guard, 
COMDTINST M1100.2D, did not go into effect until 1999. 

 

Grade In Which Serving 
Lieutenant (junior grade) 
Lieutenant 

Length of Service [in Grade] 
2 years [for eligibility for promotion to LT] 
3 years [for eligibility for promotion to LCDR] 

grade to O2. …  DCLs would be starting their second assignments as brand new O3’s—
four  years  more  junior  than  at  present.    Officers  this  junior  should  have  no  difficulty 
obtaining assignment to O2 or O3 operational tours … . 

 

Under  Article  5.A.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  an  ensign  becomes  eligible  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  LTJG  after  completing  1  year  of  active  duty  as  an  ensign.  
The  ensign  must  be  selected  by  a  “fully  qualified”  selection  board  and  the  selection 
must  be  approved  by  the  Commandant.    Article  5.A.5.f.1.  provides  that  following 
selection by the first board to review his record “an ensign eligible for promotion may be 
promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) without regard to vacancies on the day after he or 
she completes 18 months of active service.” 

 
Under Article 5.A.4.a. of the Personnel Manual, an officer “becomes eligible for 
consideration for promotion to the next higher grade at the beginning of the promotion 
year in which he or she completes the following amount of service computed from date 
of rank in the grade in which serving: 

  
Under Article 5.A.4.g.4. of the Personnel Manual, promotions for LTJGs selected 

for LT are effected as follows: 

 
a. After Selection by First Board. A lieutenant (junior grade) eligible for promotion may be 
promoted to the grade  of lieutenant  without regard  to vacancies on the day  after com-
pleting 36 months of service in grade. 
 

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 submissions, and appli-
cable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, act-
ing pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition of 
the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
Title 14 U.S.C. § 727 provides that “a person appointed for the purpose of 
assignment  or  designation  as  a  law  specialist  in  the  Reserve  shall  be  credited  with  a 
minimum of three years service in an active status.”  The applicant and the Coast Guard 
have indicated that he was appointed for the purpose of assignment or designation as a 
law specialist, and the record indicates that he was in fact designated a law specialist.  

3. 

4. 

6. 

5. 

Therefore,  under  the  statute,  upon  his  commissioning  in  1997,  he  should  have  been 
credited with three years of active service.  The record indicates that in 2001, the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard determined that the applicant and certain colleagues had 
only been credited with 18 months of active service  upon commissioning.  Therefore, 
they were credited with an additional 18 months of active service. The applicant, who 
had been commissioned on March 31, 1997, had his DOR as a LTJG backdated to Sep-
tember 30, 1995, and his DOR as a LT backdated to September 30, 1998.  In addition, the 
Coast Guard has apparently resumed the practice of commissioning law specialists in 
the rank of LT. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  according  to  regulation,  he  should  have  been 
commissioned  as  a  LT.    However,  the  record  indicates  that  in  1994,  with  the  Chief 
Counsel’s  approval,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Personnel  and  Training  amended 
COMDTINST 1131.23 to have new law specialists commissioned as LTJGs in order to 
enhance  their  competitiveness  for  out-of-specialty  assignments  and  subsequent  “best 
qualified” promotions.  Therefore, the applicant’s appointment as a LT did not violate 
the regulation. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  under  14  U.S.C.  § 727,  he  was  entitled  to  be 
commissioned as a LT.  However, as the Coast Guard argued, the statute only requires 
an award of three years of constructive active service credit.  Under Article 5.A.5.f.1. of 
the Personnel Manual, an officer must have served as an ensign for at least 18 months 
before he can be promoted to LTJG.  Under Article 5.A.4.g.4. an officer must serve as a 
LTJG for at least 36 months before being promoted to LT.  Therefore, officers who have 
exactly  three  years  (36  months)  of  active  service  are  normally  officers  who  (a)  have 
been  LTJGs  for  18  months;  (b)  under  Article  5.A.4.a.,  will  soon  be  considered  for 
promotion  by  a  LT  selection  board;  and  (c)  even  if  selected,  must  remain  LTJGs  for 
another  18  months.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  language  in  14 U.S.C.  § 727  entitled  him  in 
1997 to be commissioned as a LT. 
 
 
 The  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard  violated  14 U.S.C. 
§ 727 or its own regulations in commissioning him as a LTJG in 1997.  The Board, how-
ever, is not limited to correcting legal errors in members’ records, but may also remove 
injustices.  “Injustice” is “treatment by the military authorities that shocks the sense of 
justice, but is not technically illegal.”4  The applicant complained that the Coast Guard 
has committed an injustice in refusing to backdate his DOR as a LT to his date of com-
missioning because law specialists commissioned before 1994 and after April 2001 have 
been  commissioned  as  LTs.    He  argued  that  “the  Coast  Guard  in  effect  has  allowed 
DCLs commissioned after [him] to be eligible for promotion on a quicker timeline.” 
 
                                                 
4 See Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010,1011 (1976); Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR 
Docket No. 2001-043. 

7. 

8. 

 
It is true that, under Article 5.A.4.a. of the Personnel Manual, DCLs com-
missioned  as  LTs  become  eligible5  for  selection  for  promotion  to  LCDR  within  three 
years of commissioning—much sooner than the applicant and his colleagues who were 
commissioned as LTJGs.  However, as shown in the Chief Counsel’s memorandum of 
August  18,  1994,  being  commissioned  as  a  LT  may  have  significant  drawbacks  and 
negative consequences for an officer’s career.  DCLs who, like the applicant, were com-
missioned as LTJGs between 1994 and 2001 may well have reaped the potential benefits 
outlined in that memorandum.  Although the Chief Counsel apparently concluded in 
2001 that the needs of the Service were best served by commissioning DCLs as LTs, this 
does not prove that the Coast Guard committed an injustice by correcting its 1997 error 
(in  awarding  him  only  18  months  of  constructive  service  upon  commissioning)  by 
awarding him another 18 months so that he would have a total of 36 months of  con-
structive service, as required by 14 U.S.C. § 727, instead of by adjusting his DOR as a LT 
to his date of commissioning.  The Board finds that the applicant’s commissioning as a 
LTJG  and  his  dates  of  rank,  as  corrected  in  2001,  do  not  constitute  “treatment  by  the 
military authorities that shocks the sense of justice.”6 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 

                                                 
5 Although LTs may technically be eligible for promotion to LCDR within 3 years under Article 5.A.4.a. of 
the Personnel Manual, the Board notes that they may not be considered “in zone” for promotion for a few 
more years.  See Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 5.A.4.c. 
6 Reale, at 1011. 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

(recused)* 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*This Board member recused himself from deliberating and deciding this case because 
he  has  worked  with  the  applicant.    Under  33  C.F.R.  52.11(b),  the  two  remaining 
members constitute a quorum of the Board. 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn