DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-070 
 
XXXX XXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxx, Ensign  
   

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed the 
case  on  March  10,  2006,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  14,  2006  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  removing  his 
promotion year [PY] 2005 failure of selection for promotion to lieutenant junior (LTJG) 
and that his date of rank be adjusted retroactively if selected by the first LTJG selection 
board  to  consider  him  for  promotion  to  that  grade  based  on  a  corrected  record.  The 
applicant submitted this request during the processing of an earlier application (BCMR 
No. 2005-162), in which he requested the removal of an OER for the period October 1, 
2004 to March 31, 2005.  The request for removal of the failure of selection was treated 
as a new case because processing it as a part of BCMR No. 2005-162 would have caused 
a delay in issuing a final decision in that case possibly past the convening date for the 
2006 LTJG selection board.1     
 

                                                 
1      The  Board  was  not  informed  during  the  processing  of  BCMR  No.  2005-162  that  the  applicant's 
commission was being revoked and that he would not appear before the 2006 selection board. 

 
The  applicant  asserted  in  this  application  that  if  granted  relief  by  the  Board  in 
Docket  No.  2005-162,  which  was  the  removal  of  an  adverse  erroneous  OER,  his  2005 
failure  of  selection  to  LTJG  should  also  be  removed.    The  applicant  did  not  have  a 
second  opportunity  to  be  considered  for  promotion  to  LTJG  because  his  officer 
commission was revoked prior to the convening of the 2006 LTJG selection board.  As a 
result of the revocation, he was discharged on June 1, 2006. 
 
 
BCMR No. 2005-162  (Prior Case) 
 

In  BCMR  No.  2005-162,  the  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military 
record by removing the OER for the period October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005, which the 
Board granted on April 26, 2006.  On the removed OER, the applicant received marks of 
4 in initiative and well-being, marks of 3 in judgment and professional presence, and a 
mark of 2 in responsibility.    The comments supporting the below average marks were 
as follows: 
 

In  March  2005,  [the  applicant]  was  involved  in  an  altercation  with 
bouncers  at  a  local  nightclub  resulting  in  his  being  held  by  city  police.  
Demonstrated  poor  judgment  and  avoided  responsibility  for  his  actions 
when he did not contact the command; provided no information about the 
incident  until  approached  by  his  supervisor  two  days  after  it  had  been 
reported  to  the  unit.    This  command  determined  that  alcohol  was  not  a 
factor  in  the  incident.    However,  [the  applicant's]  negative  involvement 
with local police reflected poorly on the Coast Guard and the officer corps.  

 
 
The  reporting  officer  rated  the  applicant  as  a  qualified  officer  (the  second  of 
seven  blocks,  with  the  seventh  block  being  the  highest)  when  he  compared  him  with 
other ensigns the reporting officer has known throughout his career.   
 
 
follows: 
 

The  reporting  officer  evaluated  the  applicant's  potential  for  future  service  as 

While [the applicant's] performance of duties was satisfactory during the 
reporting  period,  his  personal  conduct  while  off-duty  was  questionable 
and  demonstrates  a  reluctance  to  acknowledge  his  responsibilities  as  an 
officer  when  he  is  not  at  work  or  on  duty.    He  has  not  earned  the 
confidence  of  this  command  to  resume  law  enforcement  duties  or  be 
granted  access  to  classified  materials  &  weapons.    His  potential  for 
assuming  positions  of  increased  authority  and  responsibility  remains 
poor.  [The applicant] is not recommended for promotion with his peers.  

 

The applicant alleged that certain of the reporting officer's marks and comments 
were erroneous and inaccurate because they were based on an incident that a command 
investigation  determined  to  be  the  result  of  racial  discrimination  and  not  from  the 
applicant's misuse of alcohol.  In this regard the applicant stated the following: 
 

there  was  no  need 

An  investigation  was  done  and  the  result  stated  that  the  incident  was 
racially motivated and alcohol was not a contributing factor.  On the night 
in  question  the  [civilian  police]  officer  assured  me  that  the  incident  was 
confidential  and 
inform  my  command.  
Understanding  that  this  was  a  confidential  situation  and  realizing  that  I 
had  done  nothing  wrong  I  felt  as  though  there  wasn't  any  significant 
information to report.  After all, I wasn't drunk.  I didn't fight with anyone 
and  I  did  the  responsible  thing  by  taking  a  taxi  out  that  night.    In 
retrospect, even though I felt I was the victim I should have informed my 
command.  By doing so my character would not be in question.  Although, 
I  did  not  inform  my  command  I  do  not  feel  this  level  of  punishment  is 
appropriate.   

to 

In  BCMR  No.  2005-162,  the  Board  agreed  with  the  Coast  Guard  and  made  the 

 
 
following findings: 
 

2.    The  Coast  Guard  recommends,  and  the  Board  agrees,  that  the 
disputed  OER  should  be  removed  from  the  applicant's  record  and 
replaced  with  a  report  for  continuity  purposes  only.    The  Board  also 
agrees with the Coast Guard that the applicant's rating chain violated the 
Personnel Manual by failing to prepare an objective and fair evaluation of 
the  applicant's  performance  during  the  period  covered  by  the  disputed 
OER.    In  this  regard,  the  reporting  officer  gave  the  applicant  below 
average  marks  and  comments  without  taking  into  consideration  the 
findings  of  the  IO  that  racial  discrimination  against  the  applicant  by  the 
bouncers  and  civilian  police  officer,  rather  than  any  misbehavior  by  the 
applicant, probably caused the incident on March 18 and 19, 2005.    

 
3.    The  Coast  Guard  also  found  that  the reviewer  probably  had  a 
prejudice  against  the  applicant  because  of  his  involvement  in  a  similar 
incident  during  an  earlier  reporting  period.   For  the reviewer  to  reach  a 
conclusion  about  the  applicant's  performance  based  on  performance 
during  another  reporting  period  violates  Article  10.A.4.c.11.g.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual,  which  states,  "the  Reviewer  shall  limit  comments  to 
performance  or  behavior  observed  during  the  reporting  period  and/or 
discussions    of  the  Reported-on  Officer's  potential."    Based  on  the 
reviewer's declaration to CGPC, the Board agrees with the Coast Guard's 
assessment on this issue.   

 

On  April  26,  2006,  the  Board  ordered  the  applicant's  record  corrected  by 
removing the OER for the period October 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005, from his record 
and replacing it with a report for continuity purposes only.   Based upon that correction 
the  applicant  is  now  asking  the  Board  to  remove  his  2005  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to LTJG.   
 
Applicant's Other Performance 
 
 
The  applicant's  military  record  still  contains  a  derogatory  OER2  for  the  period 
March  10,  2003  to  September  30,  2004.  In  the  reporting  officer's  section  of  this  OER, 
which  was  before  the  2005  LTJG  selection  board  along  with  the  removed  OER,  the 
applicant received a below average mark of 1 responsibility, a below average mark of 2 
in professional presence, below average marks of 3 in judgment and health and well-
being, and an average mark of 4 in initiative.  In the comments section, the reporting 
officer wrote the following: 
 

Self-starter.    Developed  comms  plan  for  4  LE/SAR  agencies  enforcing  a 
marine security zone during POTUS visit; used plan to ID need and secure 
extra radios for other agencies to use.  Developed computer spreadsheets 
to facilitate tracking HIV/random security boardings & closely monitored 
progress  of  unit  LE  training  &  BTM/BO  quals;  significant  time  savings 
when  completing  weekly  scorecard  &  adjusting  LE  training  curriculum.  
Demonstrated singularly poor judgment & brought discredit to CG after 
involvement  in  a  bar  brawl  in  which  alcohol  &  use  of  personal  weapon 
was a contributing factor; subsequent detainment by local authorities only 
discovered  by  supervisor  when  police  were  called  after  member  was 
absent  without  authorized  leave.    Unwilling  to  take  responsibility  for 
actions, placed blame on others to explain own situation.  Failed to meet 
sobriety standards; use of alcohol and mild intoxication led to a bar fight 
and  arrest.    Fit,  trim  appearance  in  uniform,  w/polished  brass  &  shoes.  
Polite, professional demeanor/seniors, peers & subordinates at all times.  

 
On  the  comparison  scale  in  block  9.  where  the  reporting  officer  compared  the 
 
applicant with all other ensigns he has known during his career, he rated the applicant 
as unsatisfactory, the farthest category to the left.  In support of this mark, the reporting 
officer wrote the following: 
 

                                                 
2   Article 10.A.4.h.1. of the Personnel Manual defines derogatory OERs as those that contain a numerical 
mark of one in any performance dimension, contains an unsatisfactory mark by the reporting officer in 
section 9, or documents adverse performance or conduct that results in the removal of a member form his 
or her primary duty or position.   

[The  applicant's]  initial  performance  indicated  a  promising  future  in  the 
Coast Guard.  However, his disreputable conduct made it necessary for this 
command  to  revoke  his  security  clearance,  suspend  his  BTM  qualification 
and  prohibit  his  weapons  &  armory  access.    These  constraints  make  it 
impossible  for  him  to continue  performing  any  LE  function  that  requires  a 
security clearance or an ability to use lethal force.  He has lost the confidence 
of  this  command  to  assume  any  responsibility  other  than  completing 
administrative  tasks.    His  potential  for  assuming  positions  of  increased 
authority  & responsibility is poor.  [The applicant] is not recommended for 
promotion with his peers.    

 
 
The  applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  the  OER,  wherein  he  accepted  full 
responsibility for his actions and poor judgment in the September 16, 2004, bar brawl.  
He stated that he recognized that he had brought discredit to the Coast Guard.  He also 
pointed to the following: 
 

Prior to the [September 2004] incident  . . . I behaved and performed in a 
manner  that  exhibited  great  potential  for  promotion  and  leadership.    I 
quickly became actively involved in my unit and its activities.  I feel that I 
have  demonstrated  the  ability  to  be  successful  as  an  officer  in  the  Coast 
Guard.    I  realize  this  in  no  way  minimizes  neither  the  impact  nor  the 
consequences of my actions; however, please take into consideration that 
this  was  an  isolated  incident  and  not  a  true  reflection  of  my  overall 
character.   

 
 
The  applicant's  military  record  also  contains  a  page  7  documenting  his 
involvement in the September 2004 incident described in the derogatory OER as his first 
alcohol incident.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 26, 2006, the Board received the views of the Coast Guard in which the 
Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  granted  the 
following  relief  as  recommended  by  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC): 
 

[Coast  Guard  should  offer]  to  reinstate  the  applicant  on  active  duty  at  a 
different unit than Coast Guard Sector Portland where he was first assigned.   
 
Upon  reinstatement,  allow  the  applicant  to  appear  before  the  next  LTJG 
selection Board:   

 

If  selected,  offer  the  applicant  the  opportunity  to  select  a  date  of  rank 
commensurate  with  selection  by  that  board  or  a  date  no  earlier  than  if 
selected by the PY [2005] June LTJG Selection Board. 
 
If non-selected, the applicant will be considered as having twice failed of 
selection and be discharged from active duty.   

 
 
The JAG also asked the Board to accept the comments from CGPC as a part of 
the advisory opinion.  CGPC stated that the applicant was not selected for promotion to 
LTJG  by  the  PY  2005  selection  board  that  met  on  June  6,  2005.    In  addition  to  not 
selecting  the  applicant,  the  selection  board  recommended  the  revocation  of  his 
commission  because  of  his  unsatisfactory  performance.      In  this  regard,  the  selection 
board wrote the following in its report: 
 

[The applicant's] failure to adhere to Coast Guard Core Values in that on 
two separate occasions he acted in such a manner as to bring discredit on 
the  Service.    The  first  incident  in  November  2004  was  a  documented 
alcohol incident involving a personal weapon, resulting in detainment by 
local  authorities.    The  second  incident  in  March  2005  involved  an 
altercation with bouncers at a nightclub resulting in being held by police.  
 
[The  applicant's]  failure  to  immediately  inform  his  command  of  either 
incident which is indicative of a lack of the character required by the Coast 
Guard's Core Values.  His OER reply to the first incident indicated a clear 
understanding  of  the  service  notification  expectations. 
  However, 
following the second incident, he again neglected to notify his command.  
 
[The applicant is not able] to perform his primary law enforcement duties 
as a result of these incidents.     

 

CGPC stated that approximately two months after the applicant learned that the 
 
2005  selection  board  had  not  selected  him  for  promotion,  he  filed  an  application  for 
correction of his military record asking the Board to remove an adverse OER3 that was 
the  subject  of  the  earlier  BCMR  case  Docket  No.  2005-162.    According  to  CGPC,  the 
applicant's  commission  was  revoked  pursuant  to  10  USC  §  126814,  and  he  was 
discharged on June 1, 2006.   

                                                 
3 The applicant's request for relief was granted.  His request for removal of his 2005 failure of selection 
was treated as a new case because it was a new issue that was submitted well after the initial application 
and it would not have been feasible to delay the request in the original application  to process the new 
request. 
4   This provision of title 10 states, "Subject to other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned officers 
may be discharged at the pleasure of the President.  Other Reserves may be discharged under regulations 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  concerned."    Article  5.A.5.d.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the 

 
 
In  recommending  the  relief  mentioned  above,  CGPC  stated  that  if  the  OER 
ordered removed by the BCMR in Docket No. 2005-162 had not been in the applicant's 
record,  the  selection  board  may  not  have  recommended  the  revocation  of  his 
commission  as  his  record  may  not  have  shown  a  consistent  pattern  of  unsatisfactory 
performance.   
 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 26, 2006, the Board sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard views to 
his  address  of  record.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a  reply  from  the  applicant  to  the 
advisory opinion.  On December 6, 2006, a BCMR staff member contacted the applicant 
by  telephone  and  he  indicated  that  he  had  not  received  the  advisory  opinion.    The 
applicant was informed of the Coast Guard's recommendation.  On December 7, 2006, 
he faxed his reply to the advisory opinion, stating that he agreed with the Coast Guard's 
recommendation.  He asked the Board to allow him to earn one additional OER upon 
his return to active duty before going before the LTJG selection board.  
 

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. 

 

            2.    The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  remove  his  2005  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to LTJG because when that selection board reviewed his record, it contained 
the erroneous OER ordered removed by the BCMR.  In the prior case, BCMR No. 2005-
162, the Board made the following findings with respect to the removed OER. 
 

The  Board    .  .  .  agrees  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  the  applicant's  rating 
chain violated the Personnel Manual by failing to prepare an objective and 
fair evaluation of the applicant's performance during the period covered 
by  the  disputed  OER.    In  this  regard,  the  reporting  officer  gave  the 
applicant  below  average  marks  and  comments  without  taking  into 
consideration the findings of the IO that racial discrimination against the 
applicant  by  the  bouncers  and  civilian  police  officer,  rather  than  any 

                                                                                                                                                             
Commandant  will  revoke  the  commissions  or  vacate  the  temporary  appointments  of  ensigns  who,  in 
their first three years of commissioned, fail of selection for promotion to LTJG and whom the selection 
board determines are performing unsatisfactorily in grade.   

misbehavior by the applicant, probably caused the incident on March 18 
and 19, 2005.    

 

The  Coast  Guard  also  found  that  the reviewer  probably  had  a  prejudice 
against  the  applicant  because  of  his  involvement  in  a  similar  incident 
during an earlier reporting period.  For the reviewer to reach a conclusion 
about the applicant's performance based on performance during another 
reporting  period  violates  Article  10.A.4.c.11.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual, 
which  states,  "the  Reviewer  shall  limit  comments  to  performance  or 
behavior observed during the reporting period and/or discussions  of the 
Reported-on  Officer's  potential."    Based  on  the  reviewer's  declaration  to 
CGPC the Board agrees with the Coast Guard's assessment on this issue. 

 
3.  In light of the correction to the applicant's record as ordered by the BCMR in 
 
No.    2005-162,  the  applicant  now  requests  that  his  2005  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to LTJG be removed from his record.  The Board must decide in the current 
case  whether  a  nexus  existed  between  the  erroneous  OER  and  the  applicant's  2005 
failure  of  selection  for  promotion  to  LTJG.  In  determining  whether  a  nexus  existed 
between  the  error  and  the  applicant’s  failure  of  selection  for  promotion,  the  Board 
applies the standards set out in Engels v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 465 (1982).  In Engels, 
the United States Court of Claims established two "separate but interrelated standards" 
to determine the issue of nexus.  The standards are as follows:  "First, was the claimant's 
record prejudiced by the errors in the sense that the record appears worse than it would 
in  the  absence  of  the  errors?    Second,  even  if  there  was  some  such  prejudice,  is  it 
unlikely that he would have been promoted in any event?”  Id. at 470. 
 
 
4.  With respect to the first prong of the Engels test, the applicant's performance 
record  would  look  somewhat  better  with  the  erroneous  OER  removed  and  replaced 
with  a  report  for  continuity  purposes  only.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  the 
removed  OER  contained  below  average  marks  of  3  in  judgment  and  professional 
presence,  and  a  below  average  mark  of  2  in  responsibility.    In  addition  it  contained 
unflattering comments about the applicant's lack of good judgment in not reporting his 
involvement  in  an  altercation  at  a  local  nightclub  that  ended  with  his  spending  the 
night  in  a  detoxification  center.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  removal  of  that 
OER, with its below average grades and unflattering comments and recommendation 
against promotion would cause the applicant's record to appear somewhat better.   
 
 
5.    However,  despite  the  prejudice  caused  to  the  applicant's  record  by  the 
inclusion of the removed OER, the Board finds that it was unlikely that he would have 
been  promoted  in  any  event.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant's 
performance record contained a derogatory OER, with grades lower than those on the 
removed OER.  The derogatory OER, which is still in the applicant's record, contains a 
below  average  mark  of  1  in  responsibility,  a  below  average  mark of  2  in  professional 

presence, and below average marks of 3 in judgment and health and well-being.  The 
applicant was given a below average mark of 1 (unsatisfactory performer) in block 9. of 
the derogatory OER.  The reporting officer commented that the applicant's use of poor 
judgment  and  behavior  in  the  September  2004  incident  brought  discredit  upon  the 
Coast Guard.  He further stated that as a result of the applicant's conduct, he revoked 
his  security clearance  and prohibited the applicant from  weapons and armory access, 
which  prevented  the  applicant  from  performing  his  law  enforcement  duties.    The 
reporting  officer  did  not  recommend  the  applicant  for  promotion  on  the  derogatory 
OER  and  stated  that  the  applicant's  potential  for  assuming  positions  of  increased 
authority  and  responsibility  was  poor.      In  addition,  the  applicant's  military  record 
contains  a  page  7  documenting  the  September  2004  incident  as  the  applicant's  first 
alcohol-related  incident.  Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  although  the  applicant 
performed  some  of  his  assigned  duties  satisfactorily,  his  documented  poor  judgment 
and  behavior  that  brought  discredit  upon  the  Coast  Guard,  his  loss  of  his  security 
clearance  and  access  to  weapons,  his  lack  of  a  recommendation  for  promotion  and 
increased responsibility, and his documented alcohol-related incident make it unlikely 
that  he  would  have  been  selected  for  promotion  in  any  event  in  2005,  even  if  the 
removed  erroneous  OER  had  not  been  in  his  record  when  it  was  considered  by  the 
selection in 2005.    

 
 
6.    Although  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  directly  address  the  removal  of  the 
applicant's  2005  failure  of  selection  for  promotion,  the  Board  interprets  the  following 
Coast  Guard  comment  as  a  recommendation  not  to  remove  the  applicant's  failure  of 
selection: if the applicant is reinstated and if he is not selected for promotion to LTJG by 
the first selection to consider him based on a corrected record, he will be considered to 
have twice failed of selection and discharged from active duty.   Since the Board will not 
remove the applicant's 2005 failure, the Board agrees that his failure to be selected by 
the  next  LTJG  selection  board  to  properly  consider  his  record  will  constitute  the 
applicant's second failure of selection for promotion to LTJG.     
 
7.    Although,  the  JAG  did  not  recommend  removing  the  applicant's  failure  of 
 
selection  for  promotion,  he  did  recommend  reinstating  the  applicant  to  active  duty 
because it was likely that had the removed OER not been in the applicant's record, the 
selection  board  may  not  have  found  that  he  had  exhibited  a  pattern  of  unsatisfactory 
performance  and  therefore  may  not  have  recommended  the  revocation  of  his 
commission.   The Board agrees with the JAG and is persuaded  in this  finding by the 
wording  in  the  selection  board  report  itself,  which  states  that  in  two  instances  the 
applicant acted to bring discredit upon the Coast Guard.  One incident was reported in 
the  derogatory  OER  and  the  other  was  reported  in  the  removed  OER.  The  Board 
concludes that the applicant's involvement in the incident mentioned in the erroneous 
OER  played  a  significant  role  in  the  selection  board's  finding  that  the  applicant  had 
performed unsatisfactorily as an ensign.  To cure this error, the Board agrees with the 
Coast Guard that the applicant should be reinstated to active duty and allowed another 

opportunity  to  be  considered  for  promotion  to  LTJG.    If  the  applicant  is  selected  for 
promotion by the next board to consider him with a corrected record, he shall receive a 
date of rank commensurate with that Board or the date of rank no earlier than that he 
would have received if selected by the 2006 board.  (Since the Board is not removing the 
2005  failure  of  selection,  the  applicant  would  not  be  entitled  to  a  date  of  rank  as  if 
selected by the 2005 board.) 
 
 
8.  It is not a contradiction for the Coast Guard to not recommend removal of the 
applicant's 2005 failure while recommending his reinstatement to active duty, thereby 
undoing  the  revocation  of  his  commission.    An  ensign  who  fails  to  be  selected  for 
promotion  is  not  necessarily  synonymous  with  an  ensign  who  has  performed 
unsatisfactorily in grade such that his commission should be revoked.  In this regard, 
Article  5.A.5.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  ensigns  whom  a  board  does  not 
recommend  and  whose  commissions  are  not  revoked  shall  be  placed  out  of  line  for 
promotion for at least nine months, beginning on the date the board report which did 
not recommend them for promotion is approved.    An ensign who fails of selection but 
whose commission is not revoked gets a second opportunity before the LTJG selection 
board, which is essentially what the Coast Guard is recommending for the applicant.   
 
 
9.    The  applicant  has  asked  the  Board  to  direct  that  he  be  allowed  to  earn  one 
additional  OER  before  his  record  is  placed  before  the  next  selection  board.    This  is  a 
reasonable  request  since  he  has  no  observed  OER  for  the  period  October  1,  2004  to 
March 31, 2005, due to Coast Guard error.  The Board will direct that he be allowed the 
opportunity to earn one additional OER before being considered by a selection board.   
 
 
recommended by the Coast Guard.   
 

10.    Accordingly,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  the  relief 

ORDER 

The  application  of  Ensign  XXXXXXXX.,  xxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 
military record is granted as follows: 
 
 
Within  a  reasonable  time,  but  not  to  exceed  sixty  days  from  the  date  of  this 
decision, the Coast Guard shall offer the applicant the opportunity to be reinstated on 
active duty at a unit other than Coast Guard Sector Portland.  Such reinstatement shall 
be at a time convenient to the applicant and Coast Guard, but must be completed within 
six  months  from  the  date  of  this  decision.  The  applicant's  record  shall  be  further 
corrected  to  show  that  he  was  never  discharged  from  active  duty  and  that  his 
commission was never revoked.  He shall receive back pay and allowances, subject to 
appropriate off-sets. 
 
 
 
If the applicant returns to active duty, he shall be given the opportunity to earn 
one additional OER before his record is placed before a selection board for promotion to 
LTJG.   
 
 
Once  the  applicant  has  earned  one  additional  OER  after  his  reinstatement  to 
active  duty,  his  record  shall  be  placed  before  the  next  LTJG  selection  board.    If  the 
applicant is selected for promotion to LTJG by that board, he shall receive the date of 
rank commensurate with that board or a date of rank no earlier than if selected by the 
2006 selection board at his discretion.  If the applicant is not selected for promotion by 
that  board,  he  shall  be  considered  to  have  twice  failed  of  selection  for  promotion  to 
LTJG. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

No other relief is granted.