DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-194 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Ulmer, D. 
 
 
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  application  was 
docketed on September 27, 2004, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application 
and military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  9,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  adjusting  his 
promotions to reflect his prior military active duty service.  He alleged that the Coast 
Guard  incorrectly  computed  his  prior  military  service  time  "to  the  detriment  of  my 
promotions, pay raises, and bonuses."  He claimed that his advancement to pay grade 
E-4 upon his graduation from "A" school should have been October 1, 1977, rather than 
November 1, 1977; his advancement to E-5 should have been June 1, 1978, rather than 
July 1, 1978; and his advancement to E-6 should have been June 1, 1980, rather than July 
1, 1980. 1  

                                                 
1  The  applicant  also  requested  that  the  Board  reconsider  its  decision  in  BCMR  No.  50-94  denying  his 
request for a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  The Board denied the applicant's request in that 
case because at the time the extension of enlistment for which he hoped to receive an SRB would have 
become operative, the applicant had more than the 10 years and was therefore ineligible for the SRB.  In 
reaching  the  decision  to  deny  the  applicant's  request  in  BCMR  No.  50-94,  the  Board  took  into 
consideration  the  two-month  period  of  active  duty  for  training  that  the  applicant  performed  in  1976.  
Accordingly, even if the applicant had not been properly credited with prior service with respect to his 

 
 
 The applicant submitted a statement of creditable service from the Coast Guard 
Personnel Service Center dated June 11, 2004, showing his pay base date to be May 14, 
1976  and  his  active  duty  base  date  to  be  April  18,  1977.    The  statement  credits  the 
applicant with the two months of recruit training as a member of the Reserve from June 
28, 1976 to August 27, 1976.  The cover letter accompanying the statement of creditable 
service stated that no discrepancies were found in the member's pay base date, active 
duty base date, or career sea time or pay. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on May 14, 1976 for a period 
of six years.  He began recruit training on June 28, 1976 and was released from active 
duty  on  August  27,  1976.    Subsequently,  he  enlisted  in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  as  a 
seaman [SN; pay grade E-3] on June 18, 1977 and enrolled in MK "A" School on June 19, 
1977. The achievement sheet in the applicant's enlisted record shows that he graduated 
from  "A"  school  on  October  7,  1977  at  the  rank  of  FNMK  (pay  grade  E-3)  and  was 
advanced to MK3 (pay grade E-4) on November 1, 1977.  
 
 
As  an  enlisted  member,  the  applicant  was  advanced  several  times,  eventually 
reaching  the  rank  of  MKC  (pay  grade  E-7)  on  January  1,  1988.    While  serving  as  an 
MKC, he was selected for an appointment to warrant officer.  On December 1, 1991, he 
was appointed to the grade of warrant officer - W1.  The applicant continues to serve in 
the Coast Guard and has been promoted to the rank of CWO4 (chief warrant officer - 
W4).   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  15,  2005,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s 
request.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  does  not  explain  when  his  prior  military 
service began and ended or how the alleged failure to credit him with any prior military 
service entitled him to promotions, pay raises, and bonuses.  He further stated that the 
applicant has been appropriately credited with his prior military service.   
 

                                                                                                                                                             
advancements, it would not make a difference with respect to the outcome of the decision in BCMR No. 
50-94.  The Chair advised the applicant on September 24, 2004, that the Board would not reconsider its 
decision in BCMR 50-94, because he offered no evidence that could cause a different outcome in that case, 
as  required  by  33  CFR  §  52.67.      The  applicant  was  also  advised  that  the  Board  would  consider  that 
portion of his application requesting correction to the dates of his advancements and promotions, with 
back pay and allowances as a new case.   
 

The  JAG  argued  that  “absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  government 
officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith,” citing Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and Sanders v. 
United  States,  594  F.2d  804,  813  (Ct.  Cl.  1979).    He  argued  that  the  applicant  never 
identifies  the  period  of  prior  military  service  he  is  complaining  about  or  how  that 
period negatively affected his promotions, pay raises, and bonuses.  The JAG stated that 
the  June  11,  2004,  audit  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center  found  "no 
discrepancies in member's pay base date, active duty base date, or career sea pay/time." 
The JAG stated that the record supports a finding that the applicant has already been 
credited for all of his prior military service.   

 
The  JAG  attached  comments  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command  (CGPC)  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.      CGPC  stated  the 
following: 

 
The applicant has provided no evidence to support his allegation that at 
the time of his advancement to MK3 (E-4) the Coast Guard erred by not 
crediting him with the proper active duty time.  The applicant completed 
MK "A" School on October 7, 1976 . . . The applicant reported to his first 
unit  on  Friday,  October  28,  1977.    On  Tuesday,  November  01,  1977,  the 
applicant was promptly advanced to MK3 (E-4).   

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  February  16,  2005,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond.  The BCMR did not receive a response to the 
advisory opinion.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  5-C-26(a)(1)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  at  the  time  the  applicant 
was  advanced  to  pay  grade  E-4  in  1977  stated  that  the  Commandant  authorized 
advancements to grades E-4 through E-9 from eligibility lists established as a result of 
service wide competition.   
 
 
Article 5-C-26(a)(2) of the Personnel Manual provided that district commanders 
and  commanding  officers  were  authorized  to  advance  from  pay  grade  E-3  to  E-4 
without  regard  to  vacancies,  members  who  graduated  from  Class  "A"  schools  during 
the current enlistment and who met the other applicable requirements for advancement 
in rate under Article 5-C-3.    
 

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 
applicable 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 under Detweiler v. Pena, 
38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ 
Civil Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s 
period of active duty”). 

 
2.  The evidence submitted by the applicant shows that he has been credited with 
the two months of active duty that he earned prior to joining the regular Coast Guard in 
1977.    His  pay  base  date  is  calculated  from  May  14,  1976,  the  date  he  enlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard Reserve.  During the approximately one year he spent in the Reserve, he 
performed  two  months  of  active  duty  from  June  28,  1976  until  August  28,  1976.    The 
two  months  of  active  duty  were  included  in  the  calculation  of  the  applicant's  active 
duty base date when he enlisted in the regular Coast Guard on June 18, 1977.  Taking 
the  two  months  of  active  duty  into  consideration,  the  Coast  Guard  adjusted  the 
applicant's active duty base date retroactive to April 18, 1977.   

 
3.  The applicant complained that he was not credited with his prior active duty 
when  the  Coast  Guard  determined  his  advancements  and  promotions  and  pay.  
However, the applicant never explained how the prior service would have caused him 
to  have  different  advancement  dates  than  those  documented  in  his  record.    Until 
December  1991,  the  applicant  was  an  enlisted  member.    Advancement  in  rate  for 
enlisted  members  to  pay  grades  E-4  through  E-9  are  not  determined  by  the  date  of 
enlistment  or  by  how  long  one  has  been  on  active  duty,  but  by  the  inclusion  of  a 
member's  name  on  an  authorized  advancement  list  after  taking  a  servicewide 
examination, except that "A" school graduates may be advanced upon graduation and 
meeting the other eligibility requirements contained in the Personnel Manual without 
taking  the  SWE  and  without  regard  to  vacancies.    The  applicant  graduated  from  "A" 
school on October 7, 1977, and was advanced to MK3 on November 1, 1977.  He has not 
presented any evidence that he should have been advanced earlier, except to argue that 
he was not credited with prior military service. As stated above, prior military service 
or current service for that matter is not determinative of advancement.   

 
4.  Nothing in the applicant's military record or his submissions establishes that 

he has any prior active duty except for the two months that has been credited to him.  
 

5. 

Accordingly, the applicant has failed to prove an error or injustice, and his 

request should be denied.   

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The application of ___________________, for correction of his military record is 

ORDER 

 

 
 

denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
J. Carter Robertson 

 

 

 
 
Darren S. Wall