DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-101 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 the 
applicant’s request for correction on May 3, 2004. 
 
 
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 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was appoint-
ed a chief warrant officer (CWO2) on January 1, 2002, which he alleged is the date he 
would have been appointed to CWO had he not asked for his name to be removed from 
the final eligibility list on March 28, 2001.  He alleged that he only removed his name 
from the list because the regulations were confusing. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD AND REGULATIONS 

 
 
On November 16, 1987, the applicant, a native of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, enlisted in 
the Coast Guard.  He had previously served in the Marine Corps for four years and, at 
the  time  of  his  enlistment  in  the  Coast  Guard,  was  a  member  of  the  xxxxxx  National 
Guard.  Upon completing boot camp, he was assigned to a cutter for about one year, 
and  then  attended  “A”  School  to  become  a  third  class  yeoman  (YN3;  E-4  in  the 
administrative rate).  
 

Upon  becoming  a  YN3  in  1989,  the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Personnel 
Reporting Unit (PERSRU) of the xxxxxx Coast Guard District in xxxxx.  He worked in 
xxxxx  in  various  administrative  capacities  until  1997,  and  advanced  to  YN1  (E-6).    In 
1997, he was transferred to xxxx as the Administration Department Head and PERSRU 
Chief.  While in Xxxx, he advanced to YNC (E-7).  In June 2000, while still in Xxxx, he 
was on the 1999 and 2000 eligibility lists for advancement to YNCS (E-8), and he was a 
candidate for selection for appointment to CWO.   
 
 
 

Article 1.D.10.c.2. of the Personnel Manual provides that  

[u]pon  publication  of  the  [CWO]  Final  Eligibility  List,  candidates  will  be  given  two 
weeks  from  the  date  time  group  of  the  ALCGPERSCOM  message  to  request  removal 
from  the  list  with  a  two-year  loss  of  eligibility.    A  candidate  who  declines  an  appoint-
ment to warrant grade, or elects removal from the Final Eligibility List after the two-week 
period has elapsed shall be required to wait five years from the anniversary date of that 
election  before  being  eligible  to  re-compete.    At  the  time  the  candidate  makes  either  of 
the  above  elections,  Commander  (CGPC-opm)  and  (CGPC-epm)  shall  be  notified  by 
expeditious  means,  and  the  following  Administrative  Remarks  (CG-3307)  entry 
documenting the election, shall be made in the candidate’s Headquarters PDR: 
 
DATE:  “I have read and understand Article 1.D.10.c., Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  I 
voluntarily elect to be removed from the eligibility lists for appointment to warrant grade.  I 
understand that I will not be eligible to apply for appointment to warrant grade for (two or 
five  whichever  is applicable)  years from the anniversary date  of this election.  I under-
stand that I will be eligible to reapply as a candidate for appointment to warrant grade on 
or about  (date).” 

Article 5.C.13.d. of the Personnel Manual provides the following: 

 

 

Personnel who have been selected for promotion to chief warrant officer, above the cutoff 
on the CWO list, are ineligible for advancement to [chief petty officer, senior chief petty 
officer, or master chief petty officer].  Their names automatically will be removed from 
established enlisted eligibility lists 60 days after publication of the officer eligibility lists, 
unless an individual concerned has notified Commander (CGPC-epm) that they do not 
intend to accept the chief warrant officer appointment. 

 
 
On  August  11,  2000,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  issued 
ALCGPERSCOM 065/00, which contained the final eligibility list for members selected 
by  the  June  2000  CWO  appointment  board.    For  members  eligible  for  the  Personnel 
Administration specialty, including the applicant, the “cut”1 fell under the xth name on 
the  list.    The  applicant’s  name  was  xxth  on  the  list.    It  also  stated  that  “[o]nly  those 
                                                 
1 When issuing such a list, the Coast Guard notes how many people it expects to appoint from the list.  
The fact that the applicant’s name was “not above the cut” means that when the list was issued, the Coast 
Guard noted that it was not certain he would be appointed to CWO before the list expired, although he 
was eligible for appointment if enough CWOs retired or were separated to open up sufficient vacancies.  
Because  more  vacancies  occurred  than  were  anticipated,  appointments  were  later  made  from  the  list 
below the cut. 

whose names appear at or above the cutoff for each specialty are assured appointment.”  
Paragraph 6 stated the following: 
 

Per Article 5.C.13.D. of [the Personnel Manual], those whose names appear at or above 
the  cutoff  are  not  eligible  for  advancement  …  .    Their  names  will  automatically  be 
removed from the Enlisted Advancement Eligibility List 60 days after publication of this 
msg unless they have notified the Coast Guard Personnel Command … that they do not 
intend to accept appointment to warrant grade.  Also, those who decline appointment or 
who voluntarily elect removal from the [CWO] eligibility list are not eligible to re-com-
pete for appointment as follows: 
 
A.  Those who elect removal within two weeks of the date time group of the May 2000 
SWE  eligibility  cutoff  msg  are  not  eligible  to  compete  for  warrant  officer  for  two 
years. 

B.  Those  who  elect  removal  after  the  two-week  period  are  not  eligible  to  compete  for 

warrant officer for five years. 

 

Paragraph 7 of ALCGPERSCOM 065/00 instructed commands to ensure that the 
CG-3307  required  by  Article  1.D.10.f.2  of  the  Personnel  Manual  was  prepared  and 
entered into the record of “those who decline appointment or voluntarily elect removal 
from the eligibility list.” 
 

On  August  25,  2000,  CGPC  issued  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00,  with  the  subject 
“Amended Timetable for Publishing May 2000 Servicewide Exam (SWE) Eligibility List 
Cutoffs.”  It stated that the cutoffs for the SWE eligibility lists would not be published 
until about September 15, 2000.  Therefore, to allow those on the CWO list to see the 
SWE  cutoffs  before  deciding  whether  to  stay  on  the  CWO  list,  the  deadlines  set  in 
ALCGPERSCOM 065/00 would be delayed as follows: 
 

2.    [ALCGPERSCOM  065/00],  which  provides  the  eligibility  list  and  guidelines  for 
appointment to warrant grade, established timetables for members at or above the cutoffs 
to decide to accept or decline their appointment.  Given the delay in publishing the May 
2000  SWE  eligibility  cutoffs,  the  timetables  in  para  6  of  [ALCGPERSCOM  065/00]  are 
modified to allow mbrs to wait until the May 2000 SWE eligibility cutoff msg is released 
to decide to elect removal from the warrant eligibility list. 
 
A.  Those who elect removal within two weeks of the date time group of the May 2000 
SWE  eligibility  cutoff  msg  are  not  eligible  to  compete  for  warrant  officer  for  two 
years. 

B.  Those  who  elect  removal  after  the  two-week  period  are  not  eligible  to  compete  for 

warrant officer for five years. 

 

On September 7, 2000, CGPC issued the May 2000 SWE eligibility list cutoffs in 
ALCGENL  049/00.    It  stated  that  “[a]s  per  [ALCGPERSCOM  074/00],  the  [date  time 

                                                 
2 Change 31 of the Personnel Manual, issued in 1999, revised Article 1.D.10. and moved the penalties and 
requirement for the CG-3307 from subparagraph f. to subparagraph c. 

group] of this msg shall be used to establish the new timetable for mbrs at or above the 
cutoff for appointment to warrant grade.” 

 
On  February  1,  2001,  CGPC  issued  ALCGENL  011/01,  which  authorized  the 
applicant’s  advancement  to  YNCS on  March  1,  2001.   The  applicant  was  advanced  to 
YNCS on March 1, 2001.  He also received transfer order to a YNCS billet in Xxxxx. 

 
On  March  28,  2001,  the  applicant  asked  CGPC  to  remove  his  name  from  the 
CWO final eligibility list.  On April 10, 2001, CGPC responded to his office, the PERSRU 
in  Xxxx,  with  a  message  noting  that  his  name  had  been  removed  from  the  list  and 
stating “[e]nsure CG-3307 is submitted [in accordance with Article 1.D.10.c.2. of the Per-
sonnel  Manual].”    However,  there  is  no  such  CG-3307  in  the  applicant’s  record.    The 
applicant  transferred  to  Xxxxx  and  has  not  been  allowed  to  compete  for  CWO,  in 
accordance with Article 1.D.10.c.2. of the Personnel Manual. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant stated that in March 2001, because he was not “above the cut” on 
the CWO final eligibility list, he was not certain whether he would be appointed.  Along 
with his advancement to YNCS, he received transfer orders from Xxxx to Xxxxx.  He 
“did  not  want  to  transfer  to  Xxxxx  and  then  have  the  possibility  of  being  offered  an 
appointment [to CWO] after [he] arrived, which would have meant an immediate addi-
tional transfer.”  Therefore, he decided to remove his name from the CWO eligibility list 
and re-compete for CWO during the next cycle.   

 
The applicant alleged that when he asked for his name to be removed from the 
list, he did so “with the understanding that [he] would be able to re-compete for war-
rant  officer  before  the  2001  appointment  board.”    He  alleged  that  ALCGPERSCOM 
074/00  stated  that  members  at  or  above  the  cut  on  the  eligibility  list  “would  incur  a 
penalty if they removed themselves from the list.”  Because he was not at or above the 
cut,  he  did  expect  to  incur  the  penalty.    He  noted  that  another  bulletin,  ALCGENL 
049/00,  which  referenced  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00,  also  referred  to  a  “new  timetable 
for members at or above the cutoff for appointment to warrant grade.” 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  on  April  10,  2001,  his  command  received  notification 
that his name had been removed from the CWO eligibility list, in accordance with his 
request, and an instruction to place an administrative entry (CG-3307) in his record to 
show that he was ineligible to compete for CWO for five years.  The applicant alleged 
that if he had known that he would not be able to re-compete for CWO for five years, he 
would not have had his name removed from the list.  Moreover, he alleged, even if he 
were allowed to re-compete for CWO in the next cycle, he would not be able to obtain 
the rank of CWO4 prior to reaching 30 years of service. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 20, 2004, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submit-
ted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  this 
case.  He based his recommendation, in part, on a memorandum on the case prepared 
by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC stated that although the applicant alleged that he was confused by ALCG-
PERSCOM 065/00, it “stated the policy for removal, referenced the section in the [Per-
sonnel Manual] on CWO appointments, and listed a point of contact with a phone num-
ber.    The  message  clearly  stated  that  a  candidate  who  voluntarily  removes  his/her 
name  after  the  two-week  period  is  not  eligible  to  compete  for  CWO  appointment  for 
five years.  The policy applies to everyone on the list whether above the cut or not.  If 
the applicant had any doubt or any confusion, he should have called the P.O.C. on the 
message and/or referred to Section 1.D.10.c.2. of the [Personnel Manual].” 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00  “announced  a  delay  and  extended 
the  two-week  period  for  only  those  candidates  at  or  above  the  cut  on  the  2001  CWO 
Appointment Board Final Eligibility List, until the message for the May 2000 SWE Cut-
offs was released.  It did not in any way change or waive the policy concerning other 
candidates removed from the 2001 CWO Appointment Board Final Eligibility List. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  it  could  not  find  a  copy  of  the  CG-3307  required  by  Article 
1.D.10.c.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  that  it  “is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  CG-
3307 was never completed.”  However, CGPC noted that “[t]he applicant was in charge 
of  the  PERSRU  [personnel  reporting  unit]  at  that  time  and  acknowledges  seeing  the 
message from CGPC (opm-1) directing the CG-3307 entry.  The applicant did not pro-
vide a reason why the CG-3307 was not completed, but it is reasonable to assume the 
applicant  understood,  upon  seeing  the  message,  that  the  five-year  penalty  applied  to 
him.”  CGPC stated that “[t]he applicant, especially as a Senior Chief Yeoman, should 
have  not  only  known  and  understood  this  policy,  but  he  should  have  asked  CGPC 
(opm-1)  for  clarification  if  he  had  confusion  or  doubt  about  the  CWO  Appointment 
process and policy.” 
 
 
TJAG argued that the five-year ineligibility period was set forth in both the Per-
sonnel Manual, ALCGPERSCOMs 065/00 and 074/00, and ALCGENL 049/00.  TJAG 
stated  that  CGPC  complied  will  all  regulations  in  enforcing  the  five-year  ineligibility 
period.  Moreover, TJAG alleged, the “only possible ‘error’ in Applicant’s record is the 
lack of a CG-3307 documenting Applicant’s understanding of the consequences of his 
actions.  The message that effected Applicant’s removal from the list mandated such an 
entry, an entry that Applicant was responsible for preparing in his job as supervisor of 
the PERSRU.” 
 

 
TJAG alleged that the applicant’s claim that he was confused by the language in 
CGPC’s messages is doubtful considering his “professional training and responsibilities 
as a senior enlisted leader in the Yeoman rating.”  Moreover, TJAG alleged, “the Coast 
Guard did nothing to mislead him.  Both messages of which Applicant complains put 
him on notice that seeking voluntary removal from the CWO eligibility list would make 
him ineligible to compete again for either two or five years.  Both messages contained a 
point  of  contact  (POC)  to  consult  if  there  were  any  questions  regarding  the  message.  
The Coast Guard Personnel Manual …, the ‘bible’ of the Yeoman rating, set forth the 
consequences for Applicant’s voluntary removal of his name from the eligibility list … 
[and]  Applicant  knew,  or  should  have  known,  of  the  consequences  of  his  actions.”  
CGPC argued that the applicant now “posits a strained reading of the messages in ques-
tion and ignores both the guidance provided in the [Personnel Manual] and his failure 
to consult with the provided POC.” 
 
 
Finally,  TJAG  argued  that,  even  if  the  applicant  “were  unaware  of  the  conse-
quences of his actions when he requested removal, [he] was certainly on notice when 
his command received the message sent on 10 April 2001 approving his removal and 
directing the command to prepare a [CG-3307] documenting that [he] was ineligible for 
five years.  Applicant’s decision not to complain or seek clarification at that time, but 
rather to execute his apparently desirable orders to Xxxxx provides additional evidence 
that rather than being misled, Applicant was merely engineering a post hoc argument 
to overcome a decision he now regrets.  The only injustice in this case would be for the 
Board to reward such behavior.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 20, 2004, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant responded on 
October 20, 2004. 
 
 
The  applicant  objected  to  the  tone  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion.    He 
stated that it suggests that he is dishonest and untruthful.  He pointed out that such an 
assessment  is  contrary  to  his  performance  evaluations,  in  which  he  has  received  high 
marks for integrity.  He argued that CGPC has “circled the wagons” in response to his 
application because they sent out the misleading messages. 
 
 
The applicant repeated his argument that ALCGPERSCOM 065/00 is misleading 
because paragraph 6 refers only to those members whose names appear at or above the 
cut-off and establishes the penalties for them.  He alleged that paragraph 2 of ALCG-
PERSCOM  074/00  “could  not  be  more  clear  when  it  indicates  that  ALCGPERSCOM 
065/00 established timetables for members at or above the cutoff to elect removal from 
the list.”  He argued that if CGPC intended for the penalties to apply to members below 
the  cut,  the  messages  should  have  said  so  explicitly.    He  alleged  that  paragraph  3  of 
ALCGENL 049/00 “is clear that the timetable to elect removal from the eligibility list is 
for members at or above the cutoff.” 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not  contact  the  POCs  about  the  messages 
because he relied on the messages to be correct.  He pointed out that, although the com-
parable messages released in 2001, 2002, and 2003 contain the same language as those 
he relied on in 2000, after preparing the memorandum for the advisory opinion for his 
case, CGPC amended  the language in the messages released in 2004.  In ALCGPERS-
COM  061/04,  he  pointed  out,  CGPC  has  clarified  the  language  to  remove  the  ambi-
guity.3 
 
The applicant alleged that when in April 2001, he saw that his name was not on 
 
the list of those who would be considered for appointment to CWO that year, he was 
disturbed  and  pondered  “taking  [his]  case  up  the  chain  of  command”  but  thought  it 
was  too  late.    He  stated  that  for  the  past  three  years  he  has  been  thinking  about  the 
unfairness of having made an important, irrevocable decision based on misinformation, 
and  decided  to  seek  relief  from  the  Board.    He  argued  that  his  delay  is  irrelevant,  as 
CGPC  would  have  made  the  same  arguments  in  2001.    The  applicant  mentioned  the 
criticism in the advisory opinion about his failure to take action when he saw the mes-
                                                 
3  ALCGPERSCOM 061/04, is similar to ALCGPERSCOM 065/00.  However, in ALCGPERSCOM 061/04, 
the information about penalties for removing one’s name from the list appears separately in paragraph 7, 
while  paragraph  6  pertains  only  to  the  fact  that  those  above  the  cut  will  be  removed  from  enlisted 
advancement  eligibility  lists  within  60  days  unless  they  remove  their  names  from  the  CWO  final  eligi-
bility list. 

sage from CGPC concerning his removal from the list, but did not explain why he did 
not complain or complete the CG-3307 at that time. 
 
The applicant alleged that he had nothing to gain from removing his name from 
 
the CWO final eligibility list and that it is illogical to think he would have done so if he 
had known about the five-year penalty.  He alleged that he “could have remained on 
the list with no penalty and waited to see if [CGPC] got to [his] number.” 
 

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  in  March  2001,  he  reasonably  believed  that 
paragraph  2  of  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00  established  a  five-year  penalty  for  removing 
one’s name from the CWO final eligibility list only for those candidates whose names 
were above the cutoff.  He alleged that he believed that, contrary to Article 1.D.10.c.2. of 
the Personnel Manual, he could remove his name from the list without incurring any 
penalty.  For the reasons cited below, the Board finds that the applicant’s alleged belief, 
if true, was not reasonable, especially in light of the fact that the applicant, as a YNCS, is 
supposed to be expert in such matters. 
 
 
None  of  the  bulletins  cited  by  the  applicant—ALCGPERSCOM  074/00, 
ALCGPERSCOM 065/00, and ALCGENL 049/00—purported to establish new penalties 
or amend the penalties for removing one’s name from the CWO final eligibility list pro-
vided under Article 1.D.10.c. of the Personnel Manual.  If, as the applicant’s allegation 
suggests, he removed his name from the CWO final eligibility list without knowing or 
consulting the regulations for doing so in Article 1.D.10. of the  Personnel Manual, he 
made a significant career-altering decision with extreme negligence.  Moreover, he did 
so as a YNCS who should have known to consult Article 1.D.10. if he did not know the 
exact content of the regulation. 
 
 
The  subject  line  for  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00  was  “Amended  Timetable 
for Publishing May 2000 Servicewide Exam (SWE) Eligibility List Cutoffs.”  This mes-
sage, which is quite short, did not purport to “establish” the penalties, as the applicant 
alleged.  Its purpose was only to note the need for an amended timetable for requiring 
those on the CWO final eligibility list to decide whether to remain on the list because of 
the  delay  in  publication  of  the  SWE  eligibility  list  cutoffs.    Likewise,  the  language  in 

3. 

1. 

2. 

4. 

5. 

ALCGENL 049/00 cited by the applicant was clearly intended to alert members to the 
new timetable and did not even refer to the penalties. 
 
Neither  paragraph  2  of  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00  nor  paragraph  6  of 
 
ALCGPERSCOM 065/00 stated that the penalties applied only to those at or above the 
cutoff.  While the first part of these similar paragraphs noted that those at or above the 
cutoff for appointment to CWO were not eligible for advancement as enlisted members, 
no such limitation appeared in the discussion of the penalties in subparagraphs A or B, 
which  referred  generally  to  “[t]hose  who  elect  removal.”    Although  the  information 
about those at or above the cutoff being ineligible for advancement and the penalties for 
self-removal from the list are grouped in the same paragraphs in the ALCGPERSCOMs, 
the Board is not persuaded that anyone making a significant career-directing decision 
could reasonably assume, without further inquiry, that contrary to Article 1.D.10.c. of 
the  Personnel  Manual,  the  penalties  would  be  applied  not  to  all  “[t]hose  who  elect 
removal”  but  only  to  those  at  or  above  the  cutoff.    The  fact  that  CGPC  has  recently 
revised the bulletin to separate the information into two separate paragraphs does not 
persuade  the  Board  that  the  applicant  could  or  should  have  been  confused  about 
whether the penalty in Article 1.D.10.c. applied to him because of the grouping of infor-
mation in paragraph 2 of ALCGPERSCOM 074/00 and paragraph 6 of ALCGPERSCOM 
065/00. 
 
 
 
Moreover,  ALCGPERSCOM  074/00  referred  the  reader  to  ALCGPERS-
6. 
COM 065/00.  Paragraph 7 of ALCGPERSCOM 065/00 clearly instructed commands to 
ensure that all members who voluntarily elected removal of their names from the CWO 
final  eligibility  list  completed  the  CG-3307 required  under Article  1.D.10.  to  acknowl-
edge the two- or five-year penalty that would be incurred.4  Paragraph 7 did not state 
that only those at or above the cut who elected removal from the list should complete 
the CG-3307.  Furthermore, as chief of the PERSRU, the applicant was chiefly responsi-
ble for ensuring that such requirements were fulfilled.  He apparently failed to do so 
either  as  instructed  under  ALCGPERSCOM  065/00  and  Article  1.D.10.c.  or  when  his 
office received the notice on April 10, 2001, acknowledging his request for removal and 
directing  the  preparation  of  the  missing  CG-3307.    He  has  provided  no  satisfactory 
explanation for his failure to complete the CG-3307 either at the time of his request for 
removal, in accordance with Article 1.D.10.c. of the Personnel Manual and ALCGPERS-
COM 065/00, or in response to CGPC’s order on April 10, 2001. 
 
 
The  record  indicates  that  upon  receiving  advancement  to  YNCS  and 
orders  to  his  home  state  in  March  2001,  the  applicant  voluntarily  removed  his  name 

7. 

                                                 
4  Although  paragraph  7  of  ALCGPERSCOM  065/00  referred  the  reader  to  subparagraph  f.  of  Article 
1.D.10., rather than to subparagraph c. (see footnote 2, above), the difference could not have caused any 
confusion as there no longer is a subparagraph f. in Article 1.D.10. and the only CG-3307 mentioned in 
the article is the one in subparagraph c.   

from  the  CWO  final  eligibility  list.    He  has  admitted  that  he  did  so  to  avoid  a  likely 
transfer away from Xxxxx in the event that he was appointed to CWO.  The applicant 
has not proved that the Coast Guard has committed any error in prohibiting him from 
competing for CWO during the five-year period following his voluntary removal from 
the CWO final eligibility list, in accordance with Article 1.D.10.c. of the Personnel Man-
ual.  The Board, however, 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.”5   
 

8. 

If the Coast Guard applied a five-year penalty for removing one’s name 
from the CWO final eligibility list without warning its members, the Board might find 
the application of such a penalty to be unjust.  However, the Coast Guard published the 
penalty  not  only  in  Article  1.D.10.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  but  also  in  ALCGPERS-
COMs  074/00  and  065/00.    Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  did  not  know  the 
penalty would apply to him, the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates 
that he knew or should have known about it.  In fact, as a YNCS serving as chief of the 
PERSRU,  he  was  not  only  particularly  well  placed  to  know  of  the  penalty  through 
communications  with  CGPC,  he  was  also  responsible  as  part  of  his  job  for  knowing 
about  the  penalty  or  knowing  to  consult  the  Personnel  Manual  in  such  a  situation.  
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard has 
committed any injustice in prohibiting him from competing for CWO during the five-
year period following his voluntary removal from the CWO final eligibility list in accor-
dance with Article 1.D.10.c. of the Personnel Manual.  
 

 
9. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
5 See Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010,1011 (1976); Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR 
Docket No. 2001-043. 

ORDER 

The application of YNCS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for the correction of 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
 Adrian Sevier  

 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
his military record is denied.