DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-023 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx LT 
   

 

 
 

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 November 18, 2005, 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 August 9, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant, a member of the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct 
his  record  to  show  November  22,  2000  as  his  Reserve  lieutenant  (LT)  date  of  rank 
instead of November 22, 2002.  He alleged that his date of rank is incorrectly listed on 
his Oath of Office and in the Coast Guard Reserve Register of Officers.  The applicant 
stated that because of the alleged error, his record was not placed before the calendar 
year 2005 inactive duty promotion list (IDPL) lieutenant commander (LCDR) selection 
board.   
 
The applicant was an officer in the regular Coast Guard and was promoted to the 
rank  of  LT  on  November  22,  2000.    On  August  23,  2003,  he  resigned  his  regular 
commission and sought a commission in the Reserve.  On November 18, 2003, upon the 
approval of the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), the Secretary 
of Homeland Security appointed the applicant a LT in the Coast Guard Reserve, with a 
November  22,  2002  date  of  rank.    The  applicant  accepted  his  appointment  in  the 

Reserve by executing his oath of office on January 10, 2004, which listed November 22, 
2002, as his date of rank.   

 
The  applicant  stated  that  his  Reserve  LT  date  of rank  should  be November  22, 
2000, which is the date he was promoted to that grade on active duty.   He presented 
several documents that show that he served in the grade of LT prior to his resignation 
from the regular Coast Guard.  He stated that the matter of his incorrect date of rank 
was brought to light by the absence of his name from the list of candidates that were to 
be considered by the calendar year 2005 IDPL LCDR selection board.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  April  11,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  submitted  an  advisory 

 
opinion recommending that the Board grant alternative relief.  
 

 The  JAG  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  assigning  the 
applicant  a  November  22,  2002  date  of  rank.    In  this  regard,  the  JAG  noted  that  the 
applicant had served on active duty and held the rank of LT from November 22, 2000, 
until he resigned his active duty commission on August 23, 2003.   The JAG stated that 
under Article 1.H.2.d.of the Personnel Manual, the applicant's Reserve LT date of rank 
should have remained November 22, 2000.  Article 1.H.2.d.1. states, "If [an] applicant is 
approved [for a Reserve Commission] with an appointment to the same grade, the date 
of  rank  shall  remain  the  same  if  the  applicant  resigned  their  commission  from  active 
duty." 
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  only  requested  to  have  his  date  of  rank 
corrected, but the Reserve Policy Manual provides for other relief when an officer is not 
considered  by  a  selection  board  due  to  administrative  error.  The  JAG  stated  Article 
7.A.7.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual, reads in pertinent part:  
 

A  Reserve  officer  is  not  considered  to  have  failed  selection  if  the  officer 
was not considered by a selection board due to administrative error. 
 
(1)  If  the  officer  is  selected  by  the  next  appropriate  selection  board  after 
the  error  is  discovered,  and  is  promoted,  then  the  date  of  rank  and 
precedence on the IDPL shall be assigned that would have been assigned 
if the officer had been recommended for promotion by the selection board 
that  originally  would  have  considered  the  officer  but  for  the  error  (14 
U.S.C. 739(b)).   
 
(2) However, such officer's date of appointment, which is the effective date that 
pay and allowances in the higher grade begins, cannot be backdated.  The date of 

appointment  is  that  date  the  Secretary  exercises  promotion  authority 
regardless of how much later that date maybe than the date of rank.  

 

The  JAG  recommended  that  the  applicant's  record  be  corrected  to  show 
November  22,  2000,  as  his  LT  date  of  rank.    Further  the  JAG  recommended  that  the 
applicant's record be placed before the calendar year 2006 IDPL LCDR selection board, 
and if he is selected for promotion by that board, he be given the same date of rank that 
he  would  have  had  if  he  had  been  selected  for  promotion  for  LCDR  by  the  calendar 
year 2005 selection board.  The JAG also stated that although the Coast Guard could not 
back  date  the  applicant's  appointment  to  award  back  pay,  the  Board  or  the  Secretary 
could  provide  the  applicant  with  back  pay  if  he  is  entitled  to  it,  under  10  U.S.C.  § 
1552(c).  This provision of the law authorizes the Secretary to pay a claim for loss of pay 
or  allowances  if  it  is  found  to  be  due  the  claimant  as  a  result  of correcting  a  military 
record.    In  addition,  the  JAG  stated  that  under  14  U.S.C.  §  736(c)  the  Secretary  may 
adjust a date of appointment, which is the effective date of pay and allowances in the 
higher grade, as a matter of equity.   
 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 11, 2006, the advisory opinion was sent to the applicant for a response.   

 
 
The BCMR did not receive a reply to the advisory opinion from the applicant.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely.  
 

1.    The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

2.  The Coast Guard admitted, and the Board finds, that it committed an error by 
assigning  the  applicant  a  November  22,  2002,  LT  date  of  rank  in  the  Coast  Guard 
Reserve.  The applicant's Reserve LT date of rank should have been November 22, 2000, 
the same as his LT date of rank while in the regular Coast Guard.  Since the applicant 
resigned his active duty commission and was approved for a Reserve appointment in 
the same grade held while on active duty, his LT date of rank should have remained 
November 22, 2000.  See Article 1.H.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual. 
 

3.  The Coast Guard also found, and the Board agrees, that the date of rank error 
was prejudicial to the applicant because it prevented the calendar year 2005 IDPL LCDR 
selection  board  from  reviewing  his  record.  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  Article 
7.A.7.b.(1)  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual,  the  JAG  recommended  not  only  that  the 
applicant's date of rank be corrected, but that the applicant's record be placed before the 

calendar year 2006 LCDR promotion board, and if selected for promotion by that board 
that  the  applicant's  LCDR  date  of  rank,  once  promoted,  be  adjusted  to  the  date  he 
would have received if he had been selected by the 2005 LCDR IDPL selection board.   
In  the  absence  of  an  objection  from  the  applicant,  the  Board  agrees  with  this 
recommendation for relief, and as  discussed below, further finds that the applicant is 
entitled  to  back  pay  and  allowances,  if  he  is  selected  by  the  calendar  year  2006  IDPL 
LCDR board.   The applicant did not object to this relief. 

 
4.    The  Coast  Guard  stated  that  it  could  not  award  back  pay  and  allowances 
because  under  Article  7.A.7.b.(2)  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual,  the  applicant's  LCDR 
appointment that would authorize pay in the higher grade, if he is selected by the 2006 
IDPL  LCDR  selection  board,  could  not  be  back  dated.      However,  the  Coast  Guard 
conceded that 10 U.S.C. § 1552 empowers the Board or the Secretary to award back pay 
and allowances, if the applicant is entitled to it.1  The Board finds that if selected by the 
calendar  year  2006  IDPL  LCDR  selection  board,  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  back  pay, 
once he is promoted and his date of rank is adjusted retroactively.  The failure to award 
back pay under the circumstance of this case would constitute an injustice that would 
shock our sense of justice.2  In this regard, the Coast Guard's error has already delayed 
the  applicant's  consideration  for  promotion  to  LCDR  by  one  year  and  the  failure  to 
award  back  pay,  if  the  applicant  is  selected  for  and  promoted  to  LCDR  by  the  2006 
selection board, would result in the applicant losing significant pay over the course of 
his career through no fault of his own. The Board has a duty to award thorough and 
fitting relief,3 which includes granting back pay and allowances in this case.      
 

5. By way of information, the relief being awarded in this case is that which the 
Board  normally  grants  in  these  circumstances.    The  Board  has  directed  back  pay  and 
allowances  in  similar  cases,  with  the  agreement  of  the  Coast  Guard.    For  instance  in 
BCMR No. 2001-040, the applicant's record was not considered by the 1999 lieutenant 
selection board due to administrative error.  He was selected the next year.  The Coast 
Guard itself adjusted that applicant's date of rank retroactive to the date he would have 
had if he had been selected by the earlier board and directed the applicant to apply to 
the BCMR for back pay and allowances with a favorable recommendation for relief.    
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to relief directed below.   

 
 
                                                 
1   See also 14 U.S.C. § 736 (empowering the Secretary of the Department to back date appointments).   
2      In  Reale  v.  United  States,  208  Ct.  Cl.  1010,  1011  (1976),  injustice  is  defined  as  treatment  (or  the  lack 
thereof) by military authorities that shocks one’s sense of justice.   
3  In Yee v. United states, 512 F. 2d 1383, 1387, the Claims Court stated that military corrections boards 
"have an abiding moral sanction to determine . . . the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps 
to  grant  thorough  and  fitting  relief."      Citing  Duhon  v.  United  States,  471  F.  2d  1278,  1281,  quoting 
Caddington v. United States, 178 F. Supp. 604, 607, (1959).   

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

The  application  of  LT  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCGR,  for  correction of  his 

 
 
military record is granted, as follows:   
  
 
(1)  The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  the  applicant's  record  (including  the  letter 
appointing him a LT in the Reserve, the IDPL Registry of Officers, and the Reserve LT 
Oath of Office) to show November 22, 2000, as his LT date of rank in the Coast Guard 
Reserve.   
 
 
(2)  The  applicant's  record  shall  be  placed  before  the  calendar  year  2006  IDPL 
LCDR  promotion  board.    If  he  is  selected  for  promotion  by  that  selection  board,  his 
LCDR date of rank, once promoted, shall be adjusted retroactively to the date he would 
have been assigned if he had been selected by the calendar year 2005 selection board, 
with back pay and allowances.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 
 
 Eric J. Young 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber