DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2006-086 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 Chair docketed the case on April 7, 2006, 
upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
ed 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 appoint-

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  to  show  that  she  was  not 
reduced in rate from E-3 to E-2 following her graduation from “A” School on April 8, 
2005.  She alleged that her rate was reduced without notification to her or due process.  
She stated that she did not discover the reduction in rate until she had left the training 
center and reported to her new unit on April 22, 2005, when she learned that the train-
ing center had amended her transfer orders to show that she was an E-2, instead of an 
E-3.  
 

The applicant alleged that on April 7, 2005, she was informed by her command 
that  something  that  happened  on  February  10,  2005,  would  be  documented  in  her 
record  as  an  “alcohol  incident,”  rather  than  an  “alcohol-related  situation.”    She  had 
previously been led to believe that the matter would likely be documented as an alco-
hol-related  situation.    On  April  8,  2005,  she  stated,  she  was  presented  with  a  page  7 
(form CG-3307) documenting the alcohol incident and advised to sign it.  She alleged 
that  she  was  told  that  she  would  be  allowed  to  graduate  that  day  “with  [her]  bonus, 
rate  and  billet,”  but  that  if  she  challenged  the  page  7,  she  might  “lose  one  or  all  of 
them.”  She alleged that she was told that “no further disciplinary action was going to 
follow.”  She alleged that she was allowed to graduate and advanced to E-3 the same 
day.   

 
The applicant alleged that on April 11, 2005, the command at the training center 
prepared her performance evaluation with an unsatisfactory conduct mark and a mark 
of “not recommended for advancement” without counseling or informing her.  In addi-
tion, the command amended her transfer orders to show that she was an E-2 instead of 
an E-3.  She did not receive a copy of the amended orders until April 22, 2005, when she 
reported to her new unit.  Moreover, she did not learn about the performance evalua-
tion until April 27, 2005.   

 
In support of her application, the applicant submitted a letter from her current 

commanding officer, a lieutenant commander, who wrote that the applicant 

On  September  7,  2004,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  as  a  seaman 
 
recruit  (E-1).    On  the  same  day,  she  was  advised  about  the  Coast  Guard’s  drug  and 
alcohol policies.  After completing boot camp, she advanced to seaman apprentice (E-2) 
and sent to “A” School at a training center to join the XX rating. 

 
Graduated from xx “A” School on 08 April 2005 and was presented a certificate indicat-
ing advancement to xxxx/E3.  Three days later on 11 April 2005, after xxx had departed 
TRACEN … to execute her PCS transfer, the admin staff at TRACEN … created an Enlist-
ed  Performance  Evaluation  in  Direct  Access  to  deny  her  recommendation  for  advance-
ment  based  on  an  alcohol  incident  on  11  February  2005.    An  amendment  to  her  PCS 
orders was also created on 11 April 2005, indicating that the member was not advanced.  
[She]  was  not  made  aware  of  either  of  these  actions  until  she  reported  to  [her  current 
unit]. 
 
[The  applicant’s]  alcohol  incident  dated  10  February  2005  being  defined  as  an  alcohol 
incident was reason she was not recommended for advancement.  At the time, [she] was 
counseled by the TRACEN CDAR that it would probably be treated as an alcohol situa-
tion rather than an alcohol incident.  On the morning of her graduation, [she] was pre-
sented with a CG-3307 documenting an alcohol incident and was advised to sign it rather 
than risk further disciplinary action.  She was not informed that her advancement would 
be denied. 
 
The principal area of contention is that [the applicant] was advanced to xxxx on 08 April 
2005 and was then reduced in rate to xxxx three days later without being informed of the 
action being taken or the reason.  I believe that taking administrative action after gradua-
tion, after she was advanced and after she physically departed the unit for a PCS move 
was inappropriate. 
 
[The  applicant’s]  performance  and  conduct  since  reporting  to  [her  current  unit]  as  an 
xxxx have been exceptional. … I have little doubt that if [she] would have arrived at [her 
current unit] as an xxxx/E3 rather than as an xxxx/E2 that she would now be a second 
class petty officer [E-5] 
 
There is no simple formula to calculate the consequences to [the applicant’s] career pro-
gression that were caused by this reduction in rate.  At a minimum, I propose restoration 
of pay to the difference between E3 and E2 for the period from 08 April 2005 through 31 
August 2005 when [she] was restored from xxxx to xxxx. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORDS 

 

 

 

On March 24, 2005, the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) issued trans-
fer orders stating that between April 8 and May 8, 2005, the applicant was to transfer 
from the training center to a new unit on the East Coast.  The orders also state that the 
applicant would be advanced to xxxx (E-3) on April 8, 2005. 

 
The  Coast  Guard’s  PeopleSoft  database  shows  that  Coast  Guard  Headquarters 
received a performance evaluation for the applicant from the training center on April 5, 
2005.  A print-out shows that as a result of her alcohol incident on February 11, 2005, the 
applicant was not recommended for advancement, received an unsatisfactory conduct 
mark, and lost her eligibility for a good conduct medal. 
 
 
following text in the applicant’s record with her signature in acknowledgement: 
 

On April 7, 2005, the command at the training center prepared a page 7 with the 

On 11 February 2005 you received an alcohol incident after being taken to the local hospi-
tal and were unresponsive to medical personnel.  Your use of alcohol was determined to 
be a significant and/or causative factor in this situation. 
 
You were screened by PO1 … of the PACAREA Substance Abuse Prevention Team on 01 
March 2005.  You were then evaluated by CDR … at Ralph R. Nix Medical Center, Peta-
luma, CA on 05 April 2005.  It was determined that you did not meet the criteria for Sub-
stance Abuse or Dependence, due to no diagnosis. 
 
This is considered your first alcohol incident for documentation purposes.  Per Chapter 
20 of the Personnel Manual, … any future incidents may result in your separation from 
the U.S. Coast Guard. 
 
Also  on  April  7,  the  command  prepared  a  page  7  for  the  applicant’s  record  in 
recognition of her “outstanding performance.”  The page 7 states that she had ”aced” 
one of “the most challenging modules of xxxxxxxxxx ‘A’ School.”  

 
On  April  8,  2005,  the  applicant  graduated  with  her  class  from  “A”  School  and 
was  given  a  certificate  stating  that  she  had  advanced  to  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (xxxx;  pay 
grade E-3). 

 
On April 11, 2005, the applicant’s transfer orders were amended to show she was 
an xxxx (E-2) instead of an xxxx (E-3) because she had not been advanced due to her 
alcohol incident. 

 
Upon  arrival  at  her  new  unit  on  April  27,  2005,  the  applicant  was  counseled 

about the performance evaluation prepared by the training center. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On August 22, 2006, 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  Coast  Guard’s  records  show  that  the  performance 
evaluation that resulted from the applicant’s alcohol incident was prepared on April 5, 
2005, while she was still assigned to the training center.  The JAG stated that the appli-
cant  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  that  evaluation  pursuant  to  Article 
5.C.4.b.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  further  stated  that  “[a]lthough  unfortunate, 
Training Center Petaluma’s issuance of an advancement certificate on April 8, 2005 was 
an  administrative  error  and  treated  as  an  erroneous  advancement,”  under  Article 
5.C.38.e. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
The JAG adopted the facts and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum 
prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that the per-
formance evaluation documenting the applicant’s alcohol incident was required under 
Article  10.B.5.b.8.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Because  the  applicant  was  not  recom-
mended for advancement and received an unsatisfactory conduct mark on that evalua-
tion, she was not eligible for advancement under Articles 5.C.6.a. and 5.C.25.d. 
 
 
CGPC stated that because of the close timing of the applicant’s alcohol screening, 
the preparation of the performance evaluation, the documentation of her alcohol inci-
dent,  and  the  graduation  ceremony,  she  “may  not  have  been  aware  that  she  was  not 
being  advanced”  until  after  she  left  the  training  center.    CGPC  stated  that  the  appli-
cant’s original transfer orders and graduation certificate were prepared in advance and 
should  have  been  amended  prior  to  her  graduation  and  departure  on  April  8,  2005.  
However,  CGPC  argued,  “this  administrative  oversight  does  not  negate  the  fact  that  
CG Training Center Petaluma did not recommend the Applicant for advancement and 
cancelled  the  advancement  with  the  Enlisted  Employee  Review  entered  on  April  5, 
2005.” 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant was not reduced in rate without due process, as 
she alleged, because on the day she graduated and would have advanced, the command 
at the training center had already canceled her advancement by not recommending her 
for  advancement  on  her  performance  evaluation.    CGPC  stated  that  although  the 
command  should  have  informed  her  of  the  non-recommendation  prior  to  the 
graduation  ceremony,  under  Article  10.B.7.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  a  non-recom-
mendation for advancement is not subject to appeal by an enlisted member.  Therefore, 
CGPC  argued,  the  applicant  “was  not  denied  any  rights.”    Moreover,  CGPC  pointed 
out,  even  if  the  applicant  had  been  erroneously  advanced,  her  commanding  officer 
could have corrected the matter administratively under Article 5.C.38.e. 
 
 
CGPC  concluded  that  the  delays  in  documentation  and  counseling  in  this  case 
and  the  fact  that  the  applicant  was  given  an  erroneous  graduation  certificate  “do  not 
negate the fact that her advancement was cancelled due to her misconduct.  The Appli-
cant was not treated unjustly or unfairly by the command.  The command could have 
dissenrolled the Applicant from Class “A” School and/or pursued UCMJ proceedings.  

Instead, the command elected to graduate the Applicant, but withheld her advancement 
to E-3 in accordance with Coast Guard policy.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 24, 2006, the Chair sent copies of the Judge Advocate General’s advi-
sory  opinion  and  CGPC’s  memorandum  to  the  applicant  and  invited  her  to  respond 
within 30 days.  No response was received. 

 

RELEVANT REGULATIONS 

 

 
Article  20.A.2.d.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  defines  an  “alcohol  incident”  as 
“[a]ny  behavior,  in  which  alcohol  is  determined,  by  the  commanding  officer,  to  be  a 
significant  or  causative  factor,  that  results  in  the  member's  loss  of  ability  to  perform 
assigned duties, brings discredit upon the Uniformed Services, or is a violation of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Federal, State, or local laws.  The member need not be 
found guilty at court-martial, in a civilian court, or be awarded non-judicial punishment 
for the behavior to be considered an alcohol incident.”  Article 20.B.2.g. requires docu-
mentation  of  counseling  about  the  Coast  Guard’s  alcohol  policy  on  a  page  7  in  the 
member’s record following an alcohol incident. 
 
Article 20.B.2.e.1. states that “[a]ny member who has been involved in an alcohol 
 
incident or otherwise shown signs of alcohol abuse shall be screened in accordance with 
the procedures outlined in the Health Promotions Manual … . The results of this alcohol 
screening shall be recorded and acknowledged on a CG-3307 entry or letter, as appro-
priate, in the member's PDR … .  The entry shall describe the facts of the incident or risk 
factors, the results of alcohol screening, the position and organization of the individual 
conducting the screening, and a statement of the treatment recommended, if any.” 
 

Article 20.B.2.d. states that an “alcohol-related situation is defined as any situa-
tion in which alcohol was involved or present but was not considered a causative factor 
for a member's undesirable behavior or performance.  … Commands shall not use the 
term ‘alcohol-related situation’ when a member's behavior clearly meets the criteria of 
an ‘alcohol incident.’”  Alcohol-related situations are also documented on page 7s. 

 
Article 20.B.2.h.2. provides that “[e]nlisted members involved in a second alcohol 
incident  will  normally  be  processed  for  separation.”    No  similar  article  requires  the 
separation of members involved in a second or third alcohol-related situation.   
 

Article 10.B.5.b.8. states that a command is required to prepare a special perform-

ance evaluation “for a member who has an alcohol incident.” 
 

Under  Articles  5.C.2.a.2.,  5.C.26.b.3.,  and  5.C.14.2.,  commanding  officers  may 
advance  members  from  pay  grade  E-2  to  E-3  upon  completion  of  six  months  in  pay 
grade E-2 or upon satisfactory completion of Class ‘A’ School.  Article 5.C.25.b. author-

izes a commanding officer to withhold advancement if a member does not remain eligi-
ble.  Article 5.C.4.e.4. states that a “commanding officer's recommendation for advance-
ment  is  the  most  important  eligibility  requirement  in  the  Coast  Guard  advancement 
system.  A recommendation for advancement shall be based on the individual's quali-
ties of leadership, personal integrity, adherence to core values, and his or her potential 
to perform in the next higher pay grade. Although minimum performance factors have 
been prescribed to maintain overall consistency for participation in SWE, the command-
ing officer shall be personally satisfied that the member's overall performance in each 
factor has been sufficiently strong to earn the recommendation.” 
 
 
Article  5.C.6.a.  states  that  “[p]ersonnel  who  received  an  unsatisfactory  conduct 
mark or a dimension average of less than 3 for the given factor on their last evaluation 
are ineligible to advance or compete in the SWE [service-wide examination].” 
 
Article 5.C.38.e. states that “[i]f an enlisted member is advanced in error due to 
 
no  fault  of  his  or  her  own  and  solely  as  a  result  of  administrative  error,  the  member 
shall be reduced to the correct rate as of the date the erroneous advancement is noted.  
In such cases, time in grade in present rating will be computed from the date originally 
advanced to the correct rate.” 
 
 
Article  5.C.38.b.2.  states  that  “commanding  officers  who  have  authority  to 
impose NJPs [non-judicial punishment, or ‘mast’] under the provisions of Article 15 [of 
the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice],  may  reduce  an  enlisted  person,  except  a  chief 
petty officer under their command, to the next inferior pay grade for disciplinary pur-
poses” by taking the member to mast. 
 
 
Article 10.B.7.3. states that if a member is not recommended for advancement on 
a  performance  evaluation,  the  command  “must  ensure  the  member  is  properly  coun-
seled  on  the  steps  necessary  to  earn  a  recommendation  and  prepare  supporting 
remarks.”  
 

 

Article 10.B.7.4. states that a non-recommendation for advancement “is final and 
may not be appealed.  However, if the Approving Official learns new information and 
decides  to  change  the  recommendation,  they  should  follow  the  procedures  in  Article 
10.B.11.b.” 
 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The applicant stated that on April 8, 2005, she was unfairly presented with 
 
a page 7 documenting her behavior on February 11, 2005, as an alcohol incident even 
though she had been led to believe that it would likely be documented as an alcohol-
related situation.  She alleged that she objected to the page 7 but signed it only because 
she  was  told  that  “no  further  disciplinary  action  was  going  to  follow.”    The  page  7 
states that on February 11, 2005, the applicant was “taken to the local hospital and [was] 
unresponsive to medical personnel” and that her “use of alcohol was determined to be a 
significant and/or causative factor in this situation.”  There is no evidence in the record 
that the applicant was not responsible for her inebriation.  Therefore, the Board finds 
that  the  applicant’s  behavior  on  February  11,  2005,  clearly  meets  the  definition  of  an 
alcohol incident under Article 20.A.2.d.1. of the Personnel Manual because such drunk-
enness  on  the  part  of  a  member  brings  discredit  to  the  Service.    While  someone  may 
have  told  the  applicant  that  her  behavior  might  be  documented  as  only  an  alcohol-
related  situation,  Article  20.B.2.d.  specifically  prohibits  commands  from  documenting 
behavior as an alcohol-related situation when it meets the definition of an alcohol inci-
dent.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant’s command committed no error or 
injustice in documenting her inebriation to the point of unresponsiveness as an alcohol 
incident.   
 
 
Although the applicant feels that she was tricked into signing the page 7 
documenting her alcohol incident, her signature was not an authorization, approval, or 
indication of agreement with the text; her signature was merely an acknowledgement 
that she had seen the page 7.  When a member refuses to sign a page 7, the command 
notes  the  refusal  on  the  page  7  and  enters  it  into  the  member’s  record  anyway.    The 
applicant did not waive any rights by signing the page 7. 
 
 
Article 10.B.5.b.8. of the Personnel Manual requires that the command of 
any enlisted member who has had an alcohol incident evaluate the member’s conduct in 
a special performance evaluation.  Although the applicant alleged that the performance 
evaluation  was  not  prepared  until  after  she  had  been  transferred  from  the  training 
center,  the  Coast  Guard’s  database  indicates  that  the  training  center  command 
submitted the evaluation to Headquarters on April 5, 2005, while she was still assigned 
to the command.  On the evaluation, the applicant received an unsatisfactory conduct 
mark and a mark of not recommended for advancement.  The applicant was therefore 
ineligible to advance upon her graduation from “A” School on April 8, 2005, under both 
Article 5.C.6.a. and Article 5.C.4.e.4. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
The  applicant  submitted  her  graduation  certificate  and  alleged  that  she 
was actually advanced to E-3 on April 8, 2005, and later reduced in rate without being 
afforded the due process of appearing at mast in accordance with Article 5.C.38.b.2. of 
the Personnel Manual.  The Board finds that the applicant’s receipt of a certificate stat-
ing that she had advanced to xxxx/E-3 on April 8, 2005, was an administrative error, 
given her ineligibility for advancement, and does not prove that her commanding offi-
cer  had  reversed  his  recommendation  and actually intended to advance her that day.  
Although the applicant would normally have advanced upon graduation in accordance 

4. 

5. 

with  Article  5.C.26.b.3.,  she  clearly  lost  the  most  important  eligibility  criterion—her 
commanding  officer’s  recommendation—prior  to  April  8,  2005,  and  her  advancement 
was  properly  withheld  in  accordance  with  Article  5.C.25.b.    Therefore,  the  command 
was authorized to correct any records, such as the applicant’s travel orders and gradua-
tion certificate, that had been prepared in advance with the wrong pay grade. 
 
 
 The applicant’s receipt of the certificate stating that she had advanced to 
xxxx  was  an  administrative  error;  she  was  not  advanced  to  E-3  on  April  8,  2005,  or 
subsequently reduced in rate.  Therefore, she was not entitled to the due process avail-
able to a member reduced in rate at mast under Article 15 of the UCMJ.  However, she 
was entitled to be timely informed of the actions taken against her.  After her alcohol 
incident on February 11, 2005, the applicant was screened by the PACAREA Substance 
Abuse Prevention Team on March 1, 2005, and then referred for a medical assessment 
on April 5, 2005.  On the same day as her medical assessment, the command prepared 
the applicant’s performance evaluation.  Three days later, the command presented her 
with the page 7 documenting her alcohol incident and the results of the screening and 
assessment.  Therefore, it appears that, for reasons not stated in the record, the appli-
cant’s commanding officer waited until after her medical assessment to document her 
conduct on February 11, 2005, as an alcohol incident and prepare the required perform-
ance evaluation.  Although the seven weeks that passed between her alcohol incident 
and her receipt of the page 7 may have led the applicant to hope and believe that she 
would  suffer  no  significant  consequences  as  a  result  of  her  behavior,  the  Board  finds 
that she has not proved that her command unreasonably delayed documentation of her 
alcohol incident or that she suffered any harm as a result of the delay.   
 
 
The  command  apparently  failed  to  inform  the  applicant  about  the  per-
formance evaluation submitted on April 5, 2005, before she graduated and left the com-
mand on April 8, 2005.  Therefore, she graduated believing that she had advanced and 
did not learn about the performance evaluation and consequent failure to advance until 
she arrived at her new unit.  However, the point of counseling is not to allow the mem-
ber to appeal a non-recommendation for advancement, which under Article 10.B.7.4. of 
the Personnel Manual is not subject to appeal; instead, Article 10.B.7.3. states that the 
member  is  to  be  “counseled  on  the  steps  necessary  to  earn  a  recommendation.”    The 
failure of the training center’s command to counsel the applicant about her non-recom-
mendation for advancement between April 5, 2005, and her departure following grad-
uation temporarily misled her about her rate and pay grade for a few days, but it did 
not cause her to lose any substantial rights since she could not appeal the non-recom-
mendation.    Moreover,  because  the  applicant  was  transferring  to  a  new  unit and any 
advancement would depend upon her new commanding officer’s recommendation, any 
counseling about how she could earn her new commanding officer’s recommendation 
for advancement would be more accurate if provided by the new command. 
 
 
Although the applicant was unfortunately misled about her advancement 
for a few days, the Board finds that her command did not err in determining that her 
behavior  on  February  11,  2005,  constituted  an  alcohol  incident;  in  preparing  the  per-

7. 

6. 

8. 

formance evaluation with an unsatisfactory conduct mark and non-recommendation for 
advancement; or in withholding her advancement.  The two-month delay between the 
applicant’s alcohol incident and its documentation is also unfortunate, but the applicant 
has not proved that she was harmed as a result of the delays in counseling.  She would 
presumably  have  been  disappointed no matter when she learned of her commanding 
officer’s decisions.  The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponder-
ance  of  the  evidence  that  her  failure  to  advance  on  April  8,  2005,  was  erroneous  or 
unjust.    Likewise,  although  her  command’s  failure  to  forewarn  her  about  her  non-
advancement was unfortunate, it did not constitute “treatment by military authorities 
that shocks the sense of justice.”1   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

9. 

 

 

                                                 
1 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that 
shocks the sense of justice.” 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)). 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier