DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-077 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 

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 Chair 
docketed the application on March 11, 2005, upon receipt of the applicant’s com-
pleted application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  8,  2005,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by advancing 
 
him  to  chief  machinery  technician  (MKC;  E-7)  as  of  June  1,  2002.    (After  the 
applicant applied to the Board, he was advanced from MK1 to MKC on May 1, 
2005.)  The applicant alleged that after taking the October 2001 Reserve service-
wide examination (RSWE), his name appeared above the cutoff for advancement 
on the MKC Reserve advancement list.  However, on October 20, 2001 he submit-
ted  a  request  to  serve  on  active  duty,  and on  January  22,  2002,  he  executed  an 
extended  active  duty  (EAD)  contract  to  serve  at  the  recruiting  office  in  San 
Antonio for two years beginning on March 1, 2002.  Paragraph 1(e) of his EAD 
contract  states  that  “[o]nce  an  extended  active  duty  contract  is  executed,  the 
member is not eligible to be advanced in the Reserve component.” 
 

The applicant alleged that on June 2, 2002, he was told that he had been 
advanced  to  MKC  from  the  inactive  duty  list.    He  was  given  a  certificate  of 
advancement and letter from the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard 

welcoming  him  to  the  “chief”  grade,  copies  of  which  he  submitted.    However, 
later he was told that he could not be advanced because he was on active duty.   

 
The applicant further alleged that at the time, he could have been put on 
the active duty supplemental advancement list then in effect if he had requested 
a waiver of the sea time requirement for active duty members being advanced to 
MKC.  However, no one advised him that he could seek such a waiver and get 
on the active duty supplemental list, so he  did not request one.  The applicant 
submitted a copy of ALCOAST 366/02, which was issued on July 22, 2002, and 
which, he alleged, supports his allegations.  ALCOAST 366/02 states the follow-
ing in pertinent part: 

 
SUBJ:  Policy change for enlisted reservists on extended active duty 
 
A.  Recall of enlisted reservists to extended active duty, COMDTINST 1141.3 … 
 
1.    The  purpose  of  this  ALCOAST  is  to  announce  changes  to  the  enlisted 
advancement  policy  for  reservists  serving  on  EAD.  …  This  input  showed  that 
many  reservists  are  hesitant  to  volunteer  for  EAD  because  of  the  different 
advancement standard applied to reserves on EAD than to those not on EAD.  By 
listening to field input and reviewing the issue, we have been able to change our 
policy to reflect current service needs and the needs of our members. … 
 
2.  Effective for the October 2003 Reserve advancement cycle, reservists on EAD 
desiring to compete for advancement must take the [RSWE].  Since the Reserve 
advancement eligibility list from that exam will not be effective until 1 JAN 2004, 
reservists  will be allowed to keep their  names  on the active duty supplemental 
advancement  lists  or  the  active  duty  advancement  eligibility  list  until  31  DEC 
2003, though placement on a supplemental list does not guarantee advancement. 
 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On July 22, 2005, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard 

submitted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief.  

 
The JAG adopted as a part of his advisory opinion a memorandum on the 
case  prepared  by  CGPC.    CGPC  stated that following  the  October  2001  RSWE, 
the  applicant  was  #14  on  the  January  2002  Reserve  advancement  list,  which 
expired  on  December  31,  2002.    However,  pursuant  to  his  EAD  contract,  he 
began serving on active duty on March 1, 2002, and was thereafter ineligible to 
be advanced off the list.  On June 1, 2002, CGPC advanced the MK1s who were 
#12,  #13,  and  #15  on  the  Reserve 
in  accordance  with 
ALCGPERSCOM 045/02. 

list  to  MKC, 

 

CGPC stated that the Coast Guard changed its policy in ALCGPERSCOM 
039/02,  which  was  issued  on  May  21,  2002. ALCGPERSCOM  039/02  provided 
that  beginning  with  the  upcoming  RSWE  in  October  2002,  reservists  on  EAD 
were eligible to compete in the RSWE as well as against active duty members in 
the regular SWE.  CGPC further stated that on July 22, 2002, ALCOAST 366/02 
made it mandatory for reservists on EAD to compete in the RSWE and advance 
within  the  Reserve  system  instead  of  the  active  duty  system  beginning  in 
October 2003.  CGPC stated that the applicant was #41 on the 2003 Reserve list 
but did not advance until May 1, 2005, after he placed #10 on the 2004 Reserve 
list. 

 
CGPC  stated  that  under  Article  7.C.1.f.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual 
(RPM) reservists above the cutoff for advancement who are not advanced prior 
to  beginning  EAD  may  only  be  advanced  if  authorized  by  CGPC  but,  if  not 
advanced  while  on  EAD,  should  ask  to  be  advanced  upon  their  release  from 
active duty.  CGPC argued that under Article 7.C.2.e. of the RPM, the “responsi-
bility to be advanced within the reserve system rests solely on the individual.” 

 
CGPC  stated  that  under  Article  5.C.15.c.4.  of  the  Personnel  Manual, 
members  on  active  duty  who,  like  the  applicant,  joined  their  ratings  before 
February 1, 1994, must have at least twelve months of time at sea while serving 
in  a  pay  grade  above  E-3  before  they  can  advance  to  MKC.    CGPC  stated  that 
under Article 5.C.15.a., waivers of this sea-time requirement may only be granted 
for members currently serving at sea or who are under orders to sea duty. 

 
CGPC alleged that the applicant was not eligible for advancement off the 
Reserve  list  once  he  executed  his  contract  and  that  any  request  to  CGPC  for 
advancement  “would  likely  have  been  disapproved  since  there  were  no  short-
ages  of  qualified  candidates  for  advancement.”    CGPC  further  alleged  that  the 
applicant  did  not  have  the  required  sea  time  to  be  advanced  within  the  active 
duty system and that, because his assignment did not involve sea duty, he would 
not have been granted a waiver.  Therefore, CGPC argued, the applicant was not 
denied advancement simply because he did not know about waivers. 

 
The JAG concluded that prior to June 2002, CGPC erroneously advised the 
applicant that he would be advanced to MKC off the Reserve list.  Under policy 
then  in  effect,  however,  Reserve  members  on  EAD  could  not  advance  off  a 
Reserve  advancement  list  and  were  required  to  compete  as  members  on  active 
duty.  Therefore, the error was corrected.  However, in October 2003, the policy 
changed to require reservists on EAD to compete within the Reserve system, and 
the applicant  was  subsequently advanced on May 1, 2005, after placing #10 on 
the list following the October 2004 RSWE. 

 

The JAG further argued that under Article 7.C.2.e. of the RPM, the appli-
cant was responsible for informing himself about the possibility of a waiver and 
that even if he had requested one, no waiver would have been authorized since 
the applicant was not on sea duty or under orders to sea duty. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  24,  2005,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast 
Guard.  The applicant stated that he does not understand why the Coast Guard 
requires  reservists  competing  for  advancement  to  MKC  on  the  SWE  to  have 
twelve  months  of  sea  time  but  not  if  they  compete  for  advancement  on  the 
RSWE.  Furthermore, he pointed out, under Article 7.C.1.f. of the RPM, reservists 
“who placed above the advancement cutoff on a [RSWE] advancement eligibility 
list  but  who  were  not  advanced  before  commencing  a  period of  EAD”  may  be 
advanced  with  authorization  from  CGPC  and  may  ask  to  be  advanced  upon 
release  from  active  duty.    The  applicant  argued  that  he  clearly  fell  within  the 
scope  of  this  policy  and  that  he  received  authorization  from  CGPC  when  the 
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard sent him the letter and certificate 
of advancement.  Therefore, he argued that his date of advancement should be 
corrected to June 1, 2002.   
 

The applicant also argued that paragraph 1(e) of his EAD contract “only 
pertains  to  reservists  who  did  not  place  on  the  RSWE  eligibility  list  prior  to 
commencing EAD” and therefore should not bar his advancement. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article 7.C.2.e. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) in effect from January 
through  October  2002  stated  that  “[p]rimary responsibility for compliance with the 
requirements  for  advancement  rests  with  the  individual  concerned  as  outlined  by  the 
Personnel Manual COMDTINST M1000.6 (series).  In summary, members are required 
to bear the consequences of any error or omission they should have avoided.” 
 

RPM Article 7.C.1.e. stated that “[w]hile serving on extended active duty 
(EAD), enlisted reservists are limited in Service Wide Examination participation 
and advancement in rating as per the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 
(series), and as follows. … (2) Reservists in general ratings on EAD may partici-
pate only in the active duty Service Wide Examination and advancement system.  
Participation shall be per the Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series).” 

 
RPM  Article  7.C.1.f.  stated  that  “[e]nlisted  personnel  who  placed  above  the 
advancement cutoff on a reserve administered Service Wide Examination advancement 
eligibility list but who were not advanced before commencing a period of EAD, may be 
advanced only if authorized by CGPC-rpm. If not advanced while on EAD, the reservist 

may  be  advanced  after  RELAD.  …  The  reservist  must  request  this  advancement  upon 
RELAD.” 

 
Article 5.C.1.b.1. of the Personnel Manual (PM) in effect from January to 
October  2002  stated  that  the  regulations  regarding  advancement  in  Article  5.C. 
were applicable to “[a]ll active duty enlisted personnel and Coast Guard reserv-
ists on extended active duty.”  PM Article 5.C.4.a. stated that it is “each individ-
ual's  responsibility  to  ensure  their  eligibility  in  all  respects  for  the  SWE.”    PM 
Article  5.C.15.c.1.  provided  to  be  eligible  to  take  the  SWE  for  advancement  to 
MKC, MK1s had to have at least twelve months of sea duty in a pay grade higher 
than E-3.  PM Article 5.C.15.a.1. provided that “[w]aiver for this requirement will 
not be granted except in cases where [the] candidate is presently serving at sea or 
is under orders to sea duty and will meet the sea duty requirement by the effec-
tive date of the advancement eligibility list.” 

 
On December 27, 2001, the Commandant issued the advancement eligibil-
ity  list  pursuant  to  the  RSWE  given  in  October  2002.    The  applicant’s  name 
appeared as #14 on the list. 

 
On  May  23,  2002,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGPERSCOM  039/02, 
which provided that reservists on EAD for a period of two years or less would be 
eligible to participate in the RSWE in October 2002 if otherwise qualified. 

 
On  May  31,  2002,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGPERSCOM  045/02, 
which authorized the advancement to MKC of the members who were #11, #12, 
#13, and #15 on the RSWE advancement list as of June 1, 2002. 

 
On July 22, 2002, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 366/02, which pro-
vided that “[e]ffective for the October 2003 Reserve advancement cycle, reservists 
on EAD desiring to compete for advancement must take the [RSWE].” 

 
On  April  20,  2005,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGPERSCOM  035/02, 
which authorized the applicant’s advancement to MKC as of May 1, 2005, to fill a 
vacancy. 
 

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  over  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely.  

 

2. 

 Under RPM Article 7.C.1.f., “[e]nlisted personnel who placed above the 
advancement cutoff on a reserve administered Service Wide Examination advancement 
eligibility list but who were not advanced before commencing a period of EAD, may be 
advanced only if authorized by CGPC-rpm.”  The applicant was above the cutoff on the 
RSWE advancement list but not advanced when he began active duty on March 1, 2002.  
Therefore,  without  authorization  by  CGPC,  he  could  not  expect  to  advance  without 
competing  against regular active duty members  on the SWE, pursuant to RPM Article 
7.C.1.e.  and  PM  Article  5.C.1.b.1.    The  applicant’s  EAD  contract  shows  that  he  was 
notified of this policy before beginning EAD, as paragraph 1(e) of the contract states that 
“[o]nce an extended active duty contract is executed, the member is not eligible 
to be advanced in the Reserve component.”  

 
3. 

The applicant did not allege that when he signed the EAD contract 
he  did  not  realize  that  he  was  giving  up  his  right  to  be  advanced  off  the  2002 
RSWE advancement list.  He did not allege that he was unfairly surprised not to 
be eligible for advancement from that list.  However, after reviewing the Coast 
Guard’s  advisory  opinion,  he  argued  that  paragraph  1(e)  of  his  EAD  contract 
should  not  apply  to  him  and  should  “only  pertain[]  to  reservists  who  did  not 
place  on  the  RSWE  eligibility  list  prior  to  commencing  EAD.”    However,  this 
argument is illogical as at that time, reservists on EAD were barred from compet-
ing on the RSWE.  Therefore, the only way the name of a reservist on EAD could 
be on an RSWE advancement eligibility list is if the reservist got on the list before 
commencing EAD.  Moreover, the language in paragraph 1(e) clearly mirrors the 
regulation under RPM Article 7.C.1.f.  As a member of the Reserve, the applicant 
was charged with knowing this regulation and his contract indicates that he was 
forewarned that he was giving up his eligibility for advancement off the RSWE 
advancement list by executing an EAD contract.  Unfortunately, the contract did 
not point out that, under RPM Article 7.C.1.f., CGPC may give special authorization 
for a reservist on EAD to be advanced off a Reserve list. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  authorized  for  advancement  to 
MKC by CGPC, pursuant to RPM Article 7.C.1.f., because he received a certifi-
cate and a letter from the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard noting 
his  advancement  as  of  June  1,  2002.    However,  on  May  31,  2002, CGPC  issued 
ALCGPERSCOM  045/02,  which  authorized  the  advancement  to  MKC  of  the 
members who were #11, #12, #13, and #15 on the RSWE advancement list as of 
June 1, 2002.  The applicant, who was #14 on the list, was omitted from the bul-
letin.  Therefore, he clearly was not authorized for advancement.  The fact that 
the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard made a mistake and sent him 
the  certificate  and  welcoming  letter,  which  may  have  given  the  applicant  false 
hope  for  a  few  days,  is  unfortunate  but  does  not  bind  the  Coast  Guard  to 
advance him.   

 
4. 

 

5. 

The applicant alleged  that he should have been advised to seek a 
waiver of the sea-time requirement so that he could compete for advancement on 
the SWE.  The applicant cited no regulation that entitled him to this advice, and 
the  Board  knows  of  none.    As  a  member  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  is 
charged with knowing the regulations.  Under both RPM Article 7.C.2.e. and PM 
Article 5.C.4.a., the applicant was responsible for knowing and meeting the eligi-
bility  requirements  for  his  own  advancement.    Furthermore,  under  PM  Article 
5.C.15.a.1., waivers of  the sea-time requirements “will not be granted except in 
cases where [the] candidate is presently serving at sea or is under orders to sea 
duty and will meet the sea duty requirement by the effective date of the advance-
ment eligibility list.”  In 2002, the applicant was neither serving at sea nor under 
orders to sea duty.  Therefore, it is unlikely that he would have received a waiver 
even if he had submitted a request. 
 
 
The  applicant  complained  that  he  does  not  understand  why  the 
Coast Guard requires reservists competing for advancement to MKC on the SWE 
to have twelve months of sea time but not if they compete for advancement on 
the RSWE.  However, it is not for this Board to decide what qualifications reserv-
ists and active duty members should have for advancement. 
 

6. 

7. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  error or  injustice1  by  refusing  to  advance 
him to MKC on June 1, 2002, or by not advising him to seek a waiver of the sea-
time requirement for competition for advancement to MKC on the SWE. 

 
8. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

                                                 
1 See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 F.2d 1577 (citing 
Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 
10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is treatment by military authorities that “shocks the sense of justice”). 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his 

military record is denied. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn