DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-195 
 
 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
This is a proceeding under 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 
28, 2004, upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  19,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant, a machinery technician first class (MK1; pay grade E-6), asked the 
Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  has  been  advanced  to  chief  machinery 
technician (MKC; pay grade E-7).  

 
The applicant alleged that upon his discharge from ten years of active duty, he 
immediately  joined  the  Selected  Reserve  on  August  18,  2002.    He  was not allowed to 
take the servicewide examination (SWE) in October 2002 for advancement to MKC in 
the Reserve because he had been released into the Reserve too recently and the deadline 
had  passed.    In  February  2003,  he  was  recalled  to  active  duty  under Title 10 to serve 
overseas in Kuwait for nine months.  In October 2003, he returned home, took the SWE, 
and  was  ranked  number  20  on  the  Reserve  SWE  list  for  advancement  to  MKC.    In 
January 2004, he was again recalled to active duty to serve at a Marine Safety Office. 

 
The applicant alleged that in spring 2004, while still on active duty under Title 
10, he inquired about returning to the regular Coast Guard.  He was very conscious of 
his position on the Reserve advancement list and asked the MK force manager if he was 
likely  to  be  advanced  if  he  remained  in  the  Reserve.    He  alleged  that  the  MK  force 
manager told him that it was not likely that he would be advanced off the list since he 
was number 20. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  July  2004,  he  was  considering  remaining  in  the 
Reserve until his Title 10 recall orders expired and rejoining the regular Coast Guard at 
that time.  However, the MK detailer advised him that he “needed to lateral back [to the 
regular Coast Guard] by 15 July 2004 to avoid having to get a waiver because of [his] 
time in service.”  After he was told by the MK force manager a second time that it was 
unlikely that he would be advanced off the Reserve list if he remained in the Reserve, 
he decided not to wait to reenlist in the regular Coast Guard.  Instead, he reenlisted on 
July 15, 2004, as advised by the MK detailer.  Thereafter, he took leave in order to return 
home and get his family moved to his new duty station on time.  On August 25, 2004, 
just a few days after he reported to his new unit, a bulletin was issued showing that all 
MK1s down to number 30 on the Reserve MKC advancement list would be advanced. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  “got  dropped  through  the  cracks”  twice  with 
respect to his advancement to MKC: once when he was not allowed to participate as a 
Reserve in the October 2002 SWE even though he would have been eligible if he had 
remained on active duty, and again when he was removed from the Reserve list because 
he  integrated  into  the  regular  Coast  Guard  after  being  told  twice  by  the  MK  force 
manager that it was unlikely he would be advanced from the list even if he stayed in the 
Reserve. 

 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of the October 2003 
SWE eligibility list, which shows that he was in 20th place on the Reserve SWE list for 
advancement  to  MKC.    He  also  submitted  a  copy  of  ALCGPERSCOM  072/04,  which 
was issued on August 25, 2004, and lists members on the advancement lists who could 
be advanced as of September 1, 2004, to fill vacancies in the Selected Reserve.  ALCG-
PERSCOM 072/04 shows that twenty MK1s on the Reserve SWE list—down to the 30th 
place—were to be advanced to MKC. 

 
The applicant also submitted copies of email messages.  In one, dated April 13, 
2004, a chief warrant officer asked the Reserve Force Master Chief about the applicant’s 
chances for advancement from the 20th place on the list.  In response, the Reserve Force 
Master  Chief  stated  on  April  19,  2004,  that  “it  looks  like  4  is  the  current  vacancy  at 
MKC.  [My] gut feeling is it will be tough to get down to #20.”   

 
In another email message dated August 31, 2004, the Reserve Force Master Chief 
told  the  applicant  that  “the  RPAL  [Reserve  Personnel  Allowance  List]  which  was  in 
effect  on  [July  15,  2004]  and  remained  in  effect  until  [August  5,  2004]  (when  the  re-
aligned 8100 RPAL was signed by G-CCS) held very little promise of reaching down to 
#20.    However,  the  8100  RPAL  re-alignment  ultimately  did  create  significant  unanti-
cipated opportunities within the BM and MK ratings effective [September 1, 2004].  Due 
to  your  integration  into  the  USCG  [on  July  15,  2004]  you  were  no  longer  eligible  for 
advancement off the OCT [2003] RSWE list.” 

In an email message dated September 1, 2004, the EAD, HYT, CIR & RIR Coor-
dinator  at  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  informed  the  applicant  that 
“had you held off on your integration request and been advanced to chief and then put 
in  your  request  for  integration,  it  would  more  than  likely  have  been  disapproved 
because we are not short of MKC’s.  However, we are very short at the MK1 level and 
that was a big plus in getting your integration approved.” 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 15, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The JAG stated that the record indicates that the applicant was treated fairly and 
in accordance with Coast Guard policies.  He stated that it is true that the applicant’s 
decision to shift back and forth between the regular Coast Guard and the Reserve has 
prevented his advancement to MKC, but his failure to advance “has not been the result 
of any error or injustice on the part of the Coast Guard.”  He stated that in deciding to 
integrate back into the regular Coast Guard on July 15, 2004, the applicant acted based 
on  the  best  information  available  at  the  time  and  in  his  own  best  interests.    The  JAG 
stated  that  no  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  misled  the  applicant  and  pointed out that 
absent evidence to the contrary, Coast Guard officials must be presumed to have acted 
“correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. 
Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  The JAG explained 
its policies as follows: 
 

Operationally,  the  active  duty  force  and  the  reserves  function  as  an  integrated  whole.  
Nevertheless,  they  are  not  an  integrated  whole  for  a  myriad  of  purposes,  including 
retirement,  entitlements,  and  most  relevant  to  this  case,  promotions.    In  hindsight, 
Applicant  could  have  stayed  in  the  reserves  and  made  Chief.    He  chose  not  to  do  so.  
Applicant’s decision was likely affected by his desire to return to active duty.  If he had 
waited  to  see  if  he  would  make  Chief,  he  would  have  faced  significant  hurdles  in  his 
attempt  to  return  to  active  duty.    First,  he  would  need  a  waiver  due  to  his  length  of 
service  (over  11  years)  and  second,  the  Coast  Guard  would  have  had  to  have  a  critical 
shortage of MK Chiefs.  The record shows, and Applicant was aware, that it was unlikely 
he would be able to return to active duty if he chose to wait. 

 
 
The JAG based his recommendation in part on a memorandum on the case pre-
pared  by  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  he  adopted.    CGPC 
stated that the applicant asked to be integrated back into the regular Coast Guard on 
May 5, 2004.  CGPC submitted a copy of the applicant’s request for integration, which 
indicates that it was signed by him on May 5, 2004, and endorsed by his commanding 
officer on May 14, 2004.   
 

CGPC  also  submitted  a  copy  of  an  analysis  page  regarding  the  applicant’s 
request for integration.  It states that his Title 10 recall orders would expire on Septem-
ber 30, 2004, and that because he was approaching his 11th anniversary on active duty, 
he should integrate by July 15, 2004, or he would have to receive a waiver.   

 
In  addition,  CGPC  submitted  a  copy  of  a  message  dated  June  23,  2004,  from 
CGPC to the applicant’s command authorizing his reenlistment on July 15, 2004.  This 
message  references  ALCOAST  080/02,  which  states  that  Reserve  members  in  certain 
ratings, including MK3 and MK2, could be integrated if they had less than eleven years 
of active service.  ALCOAST 080/02 further states that applications for integration from 

members  in  higher  pay  grades  would  be  considered  on  a  case-by-case  basis  in 
accordance with “specific Service needs.” 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  when  the  applicant  requested  integration,  the  regular  Coast 
Guard needed MK1s but not MKCs.  If the applicant had waited to integrate until after 
he  was  advanced  to  MKC,  his  request  to  integrate  as  an  MKC  “would  have  been 
disapproved.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On March 2, 2005, the BCMR received the applicant’s response to the views of 
the Coast Guard.   The applicant stated that he still believes he was misled and “was not 
given  the  most  accurate  information  available”  even  though  the  misinformation  was 
apparently  not  intentional.    He  stated  that  he  inquired  about  his  chance  of  being 
promoted off the October 2003 RSWE list several times, and no one ever mentioned that 
a “force restructuring” was under consideration.  The applicant questioned why he was 
not informed about the upcoming “force restructuring” and alleged that if he had been, 
the  knowledge  would  have  “dramatically  weighed  on  my  decision.”    He  questioned 
why  the  Coast  Guard  would  claim  that  there  was  no  need  for  MKCs  in  the  regular 
Coast Guard if the “force restructuring” resulted in so many more Reserve MK1s being 
advanced to MKC. 

 
The applicant stated that he was unaware that he might not have been integrated 
after advancement to MKC until September 1, 2004, when he received the email from 
the  EAD,  HYT,  CIR  &  RIR  Coordinator.    He  stated  that  when  he  was  making  his 
decision about whether to integrate or to wait, he had no knowledge that he would not 
have been allowed to integrate as an MKC.  He questioned how such a conclusion could 
even be reached when CGPC was supposed to make decisions about integrating MKCs 
on a case-by-case basis. 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  CGPC’s  allegations  in  this  regard  contradict  what  he 
was  told  by  the  MK  assignment  officer  prior  to  his  integration.    He  alleged  that  the 
assignment officer advised him to apply for integration and get his “ducks in a row” so 
that on July 15, 2004, he would have an option.  He alleged that the assignment officer 
told him that if he was advanced to MKC before he integrated, his “billet choices would 
change and [he] would have a short time to make a new billet choice.”  The applicant 
stated that the day before he reenlisted he checked again on his chances for advance-
ment and was told that there was “no way” he would be advanced off the list.  Ulti-
mately, he alleged, he chose to integrate on July 15, 2004, rather than to wait to see if he 
might be advanced, based on the assessments of the MK force manager, the MK assign-
ment  officer,  and  the  Reserve  Force  Master  Chief.    He  alleged,  in  essence,  that  the 
advancement of so many Reserve MK1s to MKC, which was announced on August 25, 
2004, must have been known or foreseeable by someone at CGPC before July 15, 2004, 
and that he should have been told so that he could have made an informed decision. 

 

On May 18, 2005, the applicant informed the Board that the person in 21st place 
on  the  October  2003  Reserve  SWE  list,  who  was  advanced  to  MKC,  was  thereafter 
allowed to integrate into the regular Coast Guard as an MKC. 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

2. 

1. 

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 reenlisted in the regular Coast Guard on July 
15,  2004,  because  he  had  been  misinformed  about  the  likelihood  that  he  would  be 
advanced to MKC from the 20th place on the Reserve SWE eligibility list.  He alleged 
that if he had been told that he would likely be advanced, he would have waited until 
after his advancement and then reenlisted in the regular Coast Guard.  He alleged that 
he should have been told that a “force restructuring” was under consideration and that, 
if he had been, he would have waited to reenlist even if it meant having to request a 
waiver.  He argued that for twenty Reserve MK1s to be promoted to MKC on Septem-
ber 1, 2004, someone at CGPC must or should have known it was likely to happen by 
July 15, 2004, and should have shared that information with him so that he could make 
a more informed decision. 
 

3. 

Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard 
officials—such  as  those  the  applicant  consulted  prior  to  his  integration—have  acted 
“correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.”    Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037 
(1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  The applicant has not 
proved  that  any  of  the  people  he  consulted  about  his  chance  of  advancement  off  the 
Reserve SWE eligibility list knew prior to his integration that numerous Reserve MK1s 
would  be  advanced  to  MKC  on  September  1,  2004,  and  failed  to  respond  to  his 
questions honestly and in good faith.  Nor has he proved that they were aware that a 
“force  restructuring”  was  under  way  that  would  likely  result  in  such  a  dramatic 
increase in the number of Reserve advancements to MKC.  In response to his query in 
April  2004,  the  Reserve  Force  Master  Chief  stated  that  “it  looks  like  4  is  the  current 
vacancy at MKC.  [My] gut feeling is it will be tough to get down to #20.”  The Reserve 
Force Master Chief’s “gut feeling” was ultimately inaccurate because a new RPAL was 
issued in August 2004.  However, the applicant has not proved that in April or July 2004 
he was deliberately misled or that anyone deliberately withheld information to which 
he was entitled. 
 
 
The record indicates that the applicant’s failure to achieve advancement to 
MKC  to  date  has  resulted  from  his  own  decisions  about  his  career  and  some  very 
unfortunate  timing.    However,  he  has  not  proved  the  existence  of  any  error  in  his 

4. 

record.  Nor has he proved that his failure to be advanced constitutes “treatment by the 
military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice,  but  is  not  technically  illegal.”  See 
Reale  v.  United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976);  Decision  of  the  Deputy  General 
Counsel, BCMR Docket No. 2001-043. 
 
 
Because the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  he  was  wrongfully  denied  any  information  regarding  expectations  for  the 
advancement of Reserve MK1s to MKC that existed on July 15, 2004, the Board need not 
address other issues raised in the case, such as whether the applicant might have been 
denied integration after advancement to MKC. 
 

5. 

 
 
 

6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

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

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller