DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-009 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 

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  October  21,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s 
completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  9,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct the Coast Guard’s calculation of 
his “sea time” in his rating, which is boatswain’s mate (BM).  He stated that in 
2004  he  was  deemed  eligible  to  take  the  servicewide  examination  (SWE)  for 
advancement to chief petty officer and did in fact take the SWE in 2004.  How-
ever, when he applied to take the SWE again in 2005, he was told that he was not 
eligible because he did not have sufficient sea time (one year) as a BM.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard’s  calculations  are  incorrect 
because he received the BM designator while serving on board the cutter Daunt-
less  on  April  1,  1994,  after  completing  his  Damage  Control  qualifications  while 
serving  aboard  the  cutter  Dependable.    At  the  time,  the  striker  list  for  advance-
ment  to  BM3/E-4  was  very  long,  so  many  seamen,  including  himself,  received 
the  BM  designator  while  still  an  E-3  (SNBM).    Because  of  the  long  list,  the 
applicant  alleged,  he  remained  an  SNBM  for  well  over  a  year  and  was  not 
advanced to BM3 until July 1, 1995.  The applicant attributed the problem to an 

administrative error—i.e., someone’s failure to make the correct entry in a data-
base.   

 
The applicant stated that because he could not get his record fixed before 
the SWE, he requested a waiver of the requirement, and his command supported 
him in his request.  However, his request was denied.  He alleged that the denial 
of his request was “very opinionated and based on my career path and not [on] 
the evidence.” 

 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  series  of  emails 
concerning  his  request  for  a  waiver  of  the  sea  time  requirement.    He  also  sub-
mitted the following: 

 

•  A  Marks  Sheet,  dated  November  22,  2000,  shows  that  when  he  received 
his  semi-annual  performance  evaluations  in  May  31,  1994;  November  30,  1994; 
and May 31, 1995, his rating was SNBM. 

 
In a memorandum concerning the applicant’s qualification as a Boarding 

• 

Team member dated April 24, 1995, he is referred to as an SNBM. 

 

•  A  Personal  Data  Extract  prepared  for  the  applicant’s  application  for  the 
2004 SWE shows that he was “sea duty qualified” and had 1 year and 4 months 
of “sea time for points.” 

 

•  A  Personal  Data  Extract  prepared  for  the  applicant’s  application  for  the 
2005 SWE shows that he was not “sea duty qualified” but still shows that he had 
1 year and 4 months of “sea time for points.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On October 26, 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term 
of four years.  On December 25, 1991, he was released from active duty into the 
Reserve.    A  Statement  of  Creditable  Sea  Service  shows  that  he  had  completed 
three years and two days of sea service aboard a cutter, from December 29, 1987, 
through December 31, 1990, while still a non-rated seaman (E-3).  He advanced to 
boatswain’s mate third class (BM3; E-4) on September 1, 1991.  However, upon 
his release into the Reserve, he had completed no sea service in that rating.  He 
did not drill or perform active duty while in the Reserve. 

 
On  December  13,  1993,  the  applicant  reenlisted  as  a  seaman.    Prior  to 
reenlisting,  he  signed  an  administrative  entry  (“Page  7”)  with  the  following 
statement:  “I have been advised that I will be required to compete for advance-

ment to pay grade E-4 and will not be assigned a designator based solely on my 
prior military service.”   

 
A Statement of Creditable Sea Service shows that from December 16, 1993, 
through June 15, 1995, the applicant served aboard the Dependable with the rating 
SN.  (However, for most of this period, he was serving aboard the Dauntless.)  On 
July 1, 1995, following his transfer ashore, the applicant advanced to BM3/E-4.  
Since then, he has continued to be assigned to shore units and has performed no 
sea duty.  

 
On March 15, 2005, the Coast Guard’s Personnel Service Center denied the 
applicant’s request for a waiver, citing Article 5.C.15.c., because he did not have 
12 months of sea service in a pay grade higher than E-3. 
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Sea Duty Requirements for Advancement 
 

Article  5.C.15.  of  the  current  Personnel  Manual  governs  minimum  sea 
duty requirements for advancement in the Coast Guard.  Advancement to boat-
swain’s  mate  first  class  (BM1/E-6)—the  applicant’s  current  rate—requires  a 
minimum of “6 months [sea duty] in any rating or pay grade.”  For advancement 
to  chief  boatswain’s  mate  (BMC),  the  requirement  is  now  different  depending 
upon  when  one  entered  the  designated  rating.    Article  5.C.15.c.  states  that,  for 
members  who  entered  the  BM  rating  prior  to  February  1,  1994,  eligibility  for 
advancement from BM1 to BMC requires a minimum of “12 months above pay 
grade E-3 in designated rating.”  Article 5.C.15.d. states that, for members who 
entered the BM rating on or after February 1, 1994, eligibility for advancement to 
BMC  requires  a  minimum  of  “12  months  in  the  designated  rating  in  any  pay 
grade.”  This less strict requirement took effect on February 14, 2003, when the 
Commandant  issued  ALCOAST  082/03.    Prior  to  February  14,  2003,  however, 
the sea duty requirement for advancement to BMC was the same no matter when 
one entered the rating: “12 months above pay grade E-3 in designated rating.”   

 

Waiver Regulations 
 

Article  5.C.15.a.1.  of  the  current  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  mini-
mum sea duty requirement will not be waived “except in cases where [the] can-
didate 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  advancement  eligibility  list.”  
Article  5.C.15.a.2.  states  that  “[i]f  a  member  is  transferred  from  a  sea  duty 
assignment before completing the required sea duty for advancement due to the 
needs of the Service, the sea duty requirements for advancement may be waived.  
The waiver will be documented in the orders of the member.” 

 
Designators 
 

Article 5.C.29.a. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1994 stated that the 

“assignment of designators provides a means to identify: 

 
“(1)  Personnel serving in pay grade E-3 who have received formal 
Class “A” School training; 
“(2)  Personnel serving in pay grade E-3 who place above the cutoff 
on eligibility lists resulting from Servicewide competition; and 
“(3)    Those  rated  personnel  who  have  successfully  completed  all 
requirements  for  an  approved  change  of  rating.    Personnel  who 
have been assigned a designator shall be assigned the duties of the 
rating for which designated. 
“(4)  Those previously rated personnel who were discharged from 
the Coast Guard and reenter the Service as an E-3 or E-2 after being 
out for more than 24 hours.” 

 
 
COMDTNOTE  1430,  issued  on  June  6,  1994,  states  that  the  cutoff  for 
advancement on each eligibility list is marked by an ampersand, and on the BM3 
candidate list, the ampersand appears at #534, whereas the applicant’s name is 
#599.   
 

In 1994, Article 5.C.29.b.(2)  stated that for personnel above the cutoff on 
established eligibility lists, “Commanding officers, upon receipt of eligibility lists 
resulting from Servicewide competition for advancement, shall assign appropri-
ate designators to those E-3 personnel who place above the cutoff.” This regula-
tion  remained  in  effect  until  1997.  Article  5.C.29.b.2.  of  the  current  Personnel 
Manual states that only the commanding officer of the Personnel Service Center 
“shall assign appropriate designators to those E-3 personnel who place above the cutoff 
on the striker list.”   
 

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 stated that under ALCOAST 102/93, which went into effect on 
October  25,  1993,  “members  on  the  striker  eligibility  list  would  not  have  their 
designations  assigned  until  their  names  appeared  above  an  established  cutoff 
point.    Applicant’s  name  did  not  appear  above  the  established  cutoff  point  for 
BM strikers until release of the eligibility list signed on January 27, 1995.”  The 

JAG argued that the evidence submitted by the applicant “is insufficient to over-
come the presumption of regularity afforded the Coast Guard.” 

 
The JAG also adopted the facts and analysis included in a memorandum 
on the case prepared by CGPC.  CGPC stated that when reenlisting in the Coast 
Guard in 1993, the applicant acknowledged in writing the fact that he would not 
be assigned a BM designator on the basis of his prior service.  CGPC submitted a 
copy of a Career Summary from its Direct Access database, which shows that the 
applicant received the designator SNBM on January 27, 1995.  CGPC stated that 
the applicant received the designator on January 27, 1995, because he was “above 
the cut” on the November 1994 eligibility list for advancement to BM3.  Because 
the applicant’s last day of sea duty was June 15, 1995, CGPC stated, the applicant 
never  completed  12  months  of  sea  duty  while  having  the  designator.    CGPC 
stated that the applicant has “4 months and 19 days of rated sea time.”  There-
fore, he does not have the minimum “12 months [of sea duty] in designated rat-
ing in any pay grade,” required for advancement under Article 5.C.15.d. of the 
Personnel Manual. 
 
 
CGPC alleged that the Marks Sheet dated November 22, 2000, which the 
applicant submitted, is erroneous insofar as it shows his rating to be SNBM on 
May 31, 1994, and November 30, 1994.  CGPC opined that the error was likely 
made by the applicant’s command and “corrected upon full migration of the CG 
Employee  Review  system.”    CGPC  stated  that  although  the  applicant  claimed 
that  his  unit  assigned  him  the  designator,  only  the  commanding  officer  of  the 
Personnel Service Center was authorized to do so.  CGPC submitted a copy of an 
Enlisted  Marks  Summary  printed  on  December  5,  2005,  which  shows  that  the 
applicant was still a seaman without a designator when he received his evalua-
tions on May 31, 1994, and November 30, 1994, and that his first evaluation dated 
May 31, 1995, was the first that he received as an SNBM. 
 
CGPC alleged that an administrative error led to waiver of the sea duty 
 
requirement for the applicant in 2004 and allowed him to compete for advance-
ment  in  the  2004  SWE.    CGPC  submitted  a  copy  of  the  message  by  which  the 
applicant’s request for a waiver dated March 15, 2004, was granted on March 22, 
2004.  CGPC alleged that the applicant’s request for waiver in 2004 should have 
been  denied  because  he  did  not  meet  the  parameters  for  waiver  under  Article 
5.C.15.a. of the Personnel Manual.  CGPC alleged that the applicant’s request for 
waiver in 2005 was properly denied. 
 
 
In support of its allegations, CGPC submitted copies of three emails.  On 
April 21, 2005, Mr. Rose, the Assistant Chief of the Advancements Branch at the 
Personnel Service Center, wrote to the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the applicant’s 
unit regarding the denial of the applicant’s request for waiver that he had  

 

retrieved  the  archive  file  of  the  Headquarters  Master  Eligibility  Lists,  COMDT-
NOTE  1430,  dated  06  JUN  94  (May  94  SWE)  and  27  JAN  95  (Nov.  94  SWE).  
Paragraph 5.d. of the COMDTNOTE states: 
 

“Each list also contains a designator point which is indicated by the am-
persand sign (&).  All personnel below this point are not designated, and 
shall not be assigned their designator until their names appear above the 
cutoff point or on the Enlisted Personnel Advancement Announcement.” 

 
Members  above  the  (&)  cut  on  these  older  lists  were  allowed  to  be  assigned  a 
designator as of the date the list was signed and released.  The Eligibility List for 
the May 94 SWE was signed and released on 06 JUN 94.  Promotions from the list 
began on 01 JAN 95 and expired in JUN 95.  [The applicant] is #599 and the offi-
cial cut and the (&) sign is set at #534.  [The applicant] was not promoted from 
this  list  nor  was  he  authorized  to  receive  a  designator  from  this  list  as  he  was 
below the cut. 
 
The Eligibility List for the NOV 94 SWE was signed and released on 27 JAN 95.  
Promotions from that list began on 01 JUL 95 and expired in DEC 95.  [The appli-
cant] is number 599 on that list and is above the cut which was #652.  He would 
have  been  authorized  to  be  designated  as  an  SNBM  as  of  the  date  the 
COMDTNOTE was signed which was on 27 JAN 95. … 

 
 
On April 22, 2005, the OIC replied and stated that it “is truly unfortunate 
that this member’s Commanding Officer on the DAUNTLESS  back on May 31, 
1994, and November 30, 1994, made the mistake of marking him as a SNBM … .  
It is my belief that [the applicant] planned his career with this mistaken informa-
tion.  I would have thought the same thing.  This mistake was no fault of his, and 
I feel this should be taken into consideration.” 
 
 
 

On April 25, 2005, Mr. Rose replied as follows: 

[T]he requirement from 1994 up until the release of ALCOAST 082/03 (Released 
on  14  FEB  03)  was  that  a  BMC  candidate  have  “12  months  above  grade  E-3,” 
meaning BM3 and above.  Since departing the DAUNTLESS on 15 JUN 95 [the 
applicant] new that he would need 12 months sea time above E-3 to qualify for E-
7 and had none.  In the subsequent years following departure from the DAUNT-
LESS it appears very little effort was made to go afloat or leave Texas.  It was not 
until ALCOAST 082/03, due to the [Joint Rating Review] merger program, that 
the  opportunity  opened  for  him  to  use  any  SNBM  time,  which  he  thought  he 
had.    That  does  not  remove  the  fact  that  for  the  eight  years  previous  to  the 
ALCOAST he was not qualified for E-7 and did not go afloat when it would have 
been required.  Based on this and the fact that [the applicant] only has 4 months 
and 19 days of rated sea time, a waiver of 7 months and 11 days is denied. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On March 13, 2006, the Chair forwarded a copy of the views of the Coast 

 
Guard to the applicant and invited him to respond.  No response was received. 
  

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. 

 From December 13, 1993, when the applicant voluntarily reenlisted 
in the Coast Guard as a seaman in pay grade E-3, until February 14, 2003, when 
ALCOAST  082/03  was  published,  the  applicant  knew  or  should  have  known 
that he was  not eligible for advancement to BMC because he  had served abso-
lutely no sea duty above the pay grade E-3.  For all that time, advancement from 
BM1 to BMC required a minimum of “12 months above pay grade E-3 in desig-
nated rating.”  Therefore, until February 14, 2003, the applicant could not have 
been misled about his eligibility for advancement to BMC because all of his sea 
duty had been performed in pay grade E-3 or below. 

 
3. 

Under  ALCOAST  082/03,  the  sea  duty  requirement  for  advance-
ment  to  BMC  was  changed  for  members  entering  the  rating  after  February  1, 
1994, from “12 months above pay grade E-3 in designated rating” to “12 months 
in the designated rating in any pay grade.”  The applicant argued that he meets 
the new criterion because the commanding officer of the Dauntless assigned him 
the designator sometime before May 31, 1994, when he received his performance 
evaluation marks as an SNBM.  In support of this allegation, the applicant sub-
mitted a summarized Marks Sheet, dated November 22, 2000, which shows that 
when  he  received  his  semi-annual  performance  evaluations  in  May  31,  1994; 
November 30, 1994; and May 31, 1995, his rating was SNBM.  The Marks Sheet 
dated  November  22,  2000,  therefore  somewhat  supports  the  applicant’s  allega-
tion that his commanding officer assigned him the designation prior to May 31, 
1994.  
 
 
In  1994,  Article  5.C.29.b.(2)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  stated  that 
“Commanding  officers,  upon  receipt  of  eligibility  lists  resulting  from  Service-
wide competition for advancement, shall assign appropriate designators to those 
E-3 personnel who place above the cutoff.”  The Board has reviewed the eligibil-
ity list issued on June 6, 1994, for the May 1994 SWE and the applicant’s name 
appears  at  #599,  whereas  the  cutoff  was  #534.    Therefore,  under  Article 
5.C.29.b.(2), the applicant’s command was not authorized to assign him the BM 

4. 

designator until January 27, 1995, when the results of the November 1994 SWE 
were approved and released and the applicant’s name appeared above the cutoff.  
In light of this evidence, the Board agrees with CGPC that the applicant’s “rated 
sea time” consists of the 4 months and 19 days from January 27, 1995, through 
June 15, 1995, when he left the Dauntless.  Therefore, although the Marks Sheet 
dated November 22, 2000, somewhat supports the applicant’s allegation that his 
commanding  officer  assigned  him  the  designation  prior  to  May  31,  1994,  the 
Board finds that the applicant was not actually authorized to have the designator 
until January 27, 1995.  Thus, he does not have sufficient sea time in his rating to 
be  eligible  for  advancement  to  BMC  under  Article  5.C.15.d.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  because  he  does  not  have  “12  months  [of  sea  duty]  in  the  designated 
rating in any pay grade.” 
 

5. 

As stated in Finding 2, above, before the publication of ALCOAST 
082/03 on February 14, 2003, the applicant could not have been misled about his 
lack of eligibility for advancement to BMC.  Moreover, he could not have hoped 
to acquire eligibility without performing a full year of sea duty since he had none 
in  a  pay  grade  above  E-3.    It  is  possible  that  upon  publication  of  ALCOAST 
082/03,  the  applicant  mistakenly  believed  that  he  was  eligible  under  the  new, 
less strict minimum sea duty requirement if, as he alleges, the commanding offi-
cer  of  the  Dauntless  erroneously  assigned  him  the  designator  before  he  placed 
above the cutoff on the November 1994  SWE.  However, the Marks Sheet sub-
mitted  by  the  applicant  does  not  prove  that  the  commanding  officer  assigned 
him the BM designator prior to May 31, 1994, as the applicant argued.  The eligi-
bility  list  for  the  May  1994  SWE  was  not  approved  and  released  until  June  6, 
1994.    Therefore,  even  if,  as  the  applicant  alleged,  his  commanding  officer 
assigned  him  the  designator,  there  was  no  event  that  would  have  occasioned 
such an error until June 6, 1994.  Moreover, the Board finds that the Marks Sheet 
alone  is  insufficient  to  prove  that  his  commanding  officer,  contrary  to  a  clear 
regulation, assigned him the designator even though his name appeared below 
the cutoff on the eligibility list issued on June 6, 1994. 
 

6. 

CGPC submitted a copy of a message showing that in March 2004, 
the  applicant  requested  and  was  granted  a  waiver  of  the  minimum  sea  duty 
requirement  for  advancement  to  BMC.    Although  the  applicant  may  have  har-
bored hopes of being eligible following the release of ALCOAST 082/03 on Feb-
ruary 14, 2003, his need for a waiver of the requirement in 2004 put him on notice 
that he did not in fact have sufficient sea time to be eligible. 

 
7. 

The  applicant  argued  that  he  should  have  been  granted  another 
waiver  of  the  minimum  sea  duty  requirement  in  2005.    However,  he  was  not 
serving  at  sea  or  under  orders  to  report  for  sea  duty  when  he  requested  the 
waiver,  as  required  under  Article  5.C.15.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Article 

5.C.15.a.2.  states  that “[i]f  a  member  is  transferred  from  a  sea  duty  assignment 
before completing the required sea duty for advancement due to the needs of the 
Service, the sea duty requirements for advancement may be waived.  The waiver 
will be documented in the orders of the member.”  When the applicant finished 
his tour aboard the Dauntless on June 15, 1995, he was still an E-3 and so, under 
the regulations then in effect, had not accrued even a single day of rated sea time 
in  a  pay  grade  above  E-3  toward  eligibility  for  advancement.    Under  such  cir-
cumstances, the Board does not believe that the Coast Guard erred in not grant-
ing the applicant a permanent waiver of the requirement when it transferred him 
off the Dauntless.  

 
8. 

The applicant alleged that the denial of his request for a waiver in 
2005 was unjust.  “Injustice” as used in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) is “treatment by the 
military authorities that shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.”  
Reale  v.  United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976);  Decision  of  the  Deputy 
General Counsel, BCMR Docket No. 2001-043.  “The BCMR has the authority to 
decide  on  a  case-by-case  basis  if  the  Coast  Guard  has  committed  an  error  or 
injustice.”  Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, BCMR Docket No. 2002-040.  
Although the applicant accrued more than 4 years of sea time as a seaman and 4 
months and 19 days as an SNBM, the Board finds that the Coast Guard’s refusal 
to  grant  the  applicant  a  waiver  of  the  minimum  sea  duty  requirement  for 
advancement  to  BMC  does  not  shock  its  sense  of  justice.    While  the  applicant 
may have been confused about his eligibility for a short time following the publi-
cation  of  ALCOAST  082/03,  for  most  of  his  career  he  knew  or  should  have 
known  that  he  could  not  advance  to  BMC  unless  he  performed  additional  sea 
duty.    There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  he  actively  pursued  and  was 
unfairly denied the opportunity to perform additional sea duty. 

 
9. 

 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  BM1  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is denied. 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

_______________________________ 
Stephen H. Barber 

_______________________________ 
Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

_______________________________ 
Eric J. Young