DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2006-116 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 

DECISION OF THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL 

AS THE OFFICIAL WITH DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO TAKE FINAL 

ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

 
The recommended final decision of the Board for Correction of Military Records (the Board) 
accurately summarizes the applicant's request and allegations, the views of the Coast Guard, 
the applicant's response to the same, and the applicable regulations.  I concur with the findings 
and conclusions of the Board except as noted below: 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
1.  From the documentation in the file it is apparent that the applicant was eligible for the 
service wide examination (SWE) in May, 2006, and was promoted before the end of 
October, 2006.  Therefore, the relief in issue is the backdating of a promotion, with its 
accompanying pay and allowances, for a period between 6 months and a year. 
 
2.  The Coast Guard has not expressly admitted that the applicant would have been advanced 
earlier had his name been on the Supplemental Advancement List (List).  While an implied 
argument for the same may be made, for reasons that will be apparent, this argument need not 
be addressed in more detail. 
 
3.  The applicant’s command readily concedes “clerical error” and/or “mistake”; however, the 
command alone does not speak for the Coast Guard.  The Board, relying heavily on the 
command’s submissions, characterizes the delay in promotion as an “injustice” that “shocks 
their sense of justice”. 
 
4.  The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence, a perceived mistake on the 
part of his command, but not an “error” on the part of the Coast Guard, as such term is defined 
in Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976). 
 
5.  BCMR Docket number 2002-040, is distinguishable based on its facts and the conduct of 
the Coast Guard underlying the injustice. 
 

 

ORDER 

6.  The applicant’s command has characterized the delay as attributable to clerical error. 
However, it could, as justifiably, be characterized in terms of competing mission 
requirements.  Both the applicant and the command describe a significant period of the time in 
question as being devoted to machinery and overhauls involving long and irregular hours. 
 
7.  Except when otherwise limited, it is within the discretion of a Commanding Officer to 
determine priorities for his or her command, and to balance the importance of operational and 
administrative needs, considering their respective immediacy. 
 
8.  The current promotion system based on the List is not without checks.  There is a provision 
within USCG regulations for waiver of eligibility and deadlines for advancement.  The 
applicant’s command candidly admitted its perceived mistakes and applied for a waiver on 
behalf of the applicant.  This request was denied. 
 
9.  The USCG regulations specifically contemplated administrative delay, placing the burden 
to avoid the same on the applicant and his command.  The regulations are written to promote 
appropriate sequencing, fairness, and uniformity.  Deviations from policy have the potential to 
create disruptions. 
 
10.  That the applicant was not able to obtain an early promotion under the facts of this 
petition, and instead, was only able to receive a promotion through the SWE within a year 
does not “shock my sense of justice” and I do not find it an “injustice”. 
 

 
For the reasons above, I disapprove the recommended final decision of the Board and deny the 
relief recommended in the order therein and deny the relief requested by the applicant. 
 
 
 
Date: 5/27/07   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  /s/ 
Gus P. Coldebella 
Acting General Counsel 
U.S. Department or Homeland Security 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2006-116 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
   

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

 
 

 

RECOMMENDED 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 May 19, 2006, upon receipt of 
the completed application for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  recommended  final  decision,  dated  March  30,  2007,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he advanced to second 
class petty officer (MK2/E-5) on November 1, 2005, and to award him back pay and allowances 
(see Tab A, the DD 149).  
 

The applicant alleged that as a result of an administrative mistake by his command, his 
name was not promptly placed on the MK2 Supplemental Advancement List and so he was not 
advanced off that list before it expired.  The applicant alleged that on July 30, 2005, he submitted 
a chit to have his name put on the list, but his command forgot to do so and did not process his 
request until November 8, 2005.  Because members were advanced off the supplemental list in 
the order in which their names were placed on the list, his command’s three-month delay caused 
his name to appear very low on the list and he was not advanced before the list expired.  The 
applicant alleged that if his command had promptly processed his request, he would have been 
advanced on November 1, 2005. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted three letters.  In the first (Tab B), 
dated  November  22,  2005,  Captain  T,  who  was  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  and  the 
captain of an ice breaker, made the following request to the Personnel Service Center (PSC): 

 
1.  I request that you revise the date [the applicant] was placed on the MK2 supplemental list from 
08 NOV 05 to 08 AUG 05. 

 

 
2.    [The  applicant]  originally  submitted  his  supplemental  request  chit  on  30  JUL  05.    Unfortu-
nately, this command failed to properly process the request.  Factoring in appropriate processing 
time, [his] name should have been added to the MK2 supplemental list approximately 08 AUG 05.  
Due to this command’s failure to properly process [the applicant’s] supplemental request chit, he 
was not placed on the MK2 supplemental list until 08 NOV 05. 
 
3.  If you do not revise the date he was placed on the MK2 supplemental list it is highly likely he 
will not advance off the supplemental list.  That is a high price for a member to pay for a clerical 
error made by his command. 
 
4.  In keeping with fundamental fairness, I request that you correct this mistake. … 
 
The second letter (Tab C) is the PSC’s letter denying Captain T’s request: 
 
1.  I am writing in response to your memorandum of 22 Nov 2005.  I appreciate your concern for 
the impact of the delay on [the applicant], but we do not grant the type of exception you seek.  To 
backdate his placement on the supplemental list, we would have to move [him] ahead of 38 other 
sailors and that would not be fair to those members when we have to assume they and their units 
did everything right. 
 
2.  I do not doubt that other members on the list could also claim their message would have been 
earlier  had  everything  worked  perfectly  for  them.    Unit  processing  time  and  unit  errors  impact 
many DTGs [date-time-group stamp] and it would be unfair to waive the rules for some and not for 
others.  Since the DTG is the only tool we have for sequencing the members on the list, we have to 
hold a hard line to be fair to everyone. 
 
The third letter (Tab D), dated March 12, 2006, is signed by CWO S, the Main Propulsion 

Assistant aboard the ice breaker, who stated the following: 

 
I  request  favorable  consideration  of  [the applicant’s] application to change his date of advance-
ment and compensation for lost pay and benefits. 
 
[The applicant] submitted a request to be place on the MK2 Supplemental Advancement List on 30 
JUL  05.    His  request  was  not  processed  in  due  time  and  subsequently,  severely  delayed  his 
advancement.  [He] should have been added to the supplemental list by 08 AUG 05. 
 
I take full responsibility for the delay in processing [the applicant’s] request to be placed on the 
MK2 supplemental list.  His request was submitted during a time of elevated work responsibilities 
for  all  personnel  onboard  the  vessel.    Additionally,  his  efforts  to  pursue  following  up  on  the 
request were hindered by the transition period of all of his direct superiors.  The request was in my 
possession and I personally failed to ensure the request chit was handled properly. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 27, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submit-
ted an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request (Tab E).  In 
doing so, he adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case (Tab F) by 
the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 

CGPC stated that the applicant submitted his request chit for placement on the MK2 Sup-
plemental Advancement List on July 30, 2005, but his command did not send the required mes-
sage to the PSC until November 8, 2005.  CGPC noted that ALCOAST 359/05 (Tab G), the bul-

 

letin announcing the supplemental list and procedures for getting on the list, was issued on July 
7, 2005, and stated the following: 
 

The  member’s  standing  on  the  supplemental  advancement  list  is  based  solely  on  the  date-time-
group  (DTG)  of  the  notification  MSG  [message].    Commands  may  send  a  MSG  as  soon as the 
MBR [member] has met all advancement eligibility requirements and should contact PSC (ADV) 
if acknowledgement MSG is not received within 5 working days.  PSC (ADV) will use only DTG 
reflecting the actual time of release of the MSG.  Backdating the DTG is not permitted. 

 
 
CGPC  also  noted  that  under  Article  5.C.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (Tab  H),  it  is  a 
member’s  responsibility  to  ensure  his  own  eligibility  to  take  the  servicewide  examination  for 
advancement and that, under Article 5.C.4.g., only PSC has the authority to waive eligibility and 
deadlines for advancement and that “failure by member, supervisor, or supporting command to 
fulfill their responsibilities is not justification for a waiver and may result in a member not quali-
fying … .”  CGPC stated that these regulations apply to supplemental advancements lists because 
such lists are created in lieu of participation in servicewide examinations. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the “dynamics of the enlisted advancement process require appropriate 
sequencing mechanisms for advancement list placement both for the Service Wide Examination 
and  Supplemental  Advancement  lists.”    The  policy  applied  in  ALCOAST  359/05  (Tab  G)  of 
using  only  DTGs  to  sequence  members  on  the  supplemental  advancement  list  is  intended  to 
ensure  that  names  are  sequenced  on  the  list  by  a  standard  procedure.    CGPC  stated  the 
applicant’s command’s request for a waiver of that policy was “appropriately denied … since the 
strict adherence to the date-time-group criteria is essential to the overall fairness of the process.”  
CGPC further argued the following: 
 

If the Coast Guard were to deviate from policy in this case, the 38 personnel who would be dis-
placed on list would be unfairly disadvantaged.  Additionally, it is very likely that any of those dis-
placed  personnel  could  claim  that  their  message  submission  was  delayed  by  their  command  by 
matters of days, weeks or even months as in the case of this Applicant.  Therefore, any digression 
from  policy  would  create  significant  disruptions  within  the  advancement  system  and  undermine 
fairness.  The supplemental advancement lists are published on the CG Personnel Command Web-
site  and  [ALCOAST  359/05]  provides  a  mechanism  for  units  and  members  to  ensure  that  their 
Supplemental Advancement List placement was properly executed. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 3, 2006, the Chair sent a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The applicant requested and was granted 
several extensions and responded on January 18, 2007 (Tab I). 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  on  July  30,  2005,  he  gave  his  request  chit  to  his  supervisor, 
MK1 M, who signed and dated it and promptly forwarded it to the division chief, MKC M, who 
signed and dated it July 30, 2005.  One week later, the applicant alleged, he checked to see where 
he was on the supplemental advancement list but did not see his name.  He immediately asked 
his supervisor, MK1 M, why his name was not on the list and MK1 M said he would look into it.  
Three or four days later, the applicant again asked MK1 M about the status of his request, and 
MK1 M said he was looking into it and had not heard back from the command.  “After numerous 

 

inquiries over the next two weeks,” the applicant stated, “I received word from MK1 M that my 
paperwork was with the command, and I should see my name on the advancement list shortly.” 

 
The applicant stated that during the next several weeks, the ice breaker was in dry dock 
and his department was very busy working long and irregular hours to complete extensive main-
tenance.  When the maintenance was complete, he took 30 days of leave and returned to duty on 
October 24, 2005.  The applicant stated that “[u]pon returning from leave I was fully expecting to 
see my name on the advancement list,” but it was not there.  Upon inquiry, his supervisor discov-
ered  that  the  applicant’s  request  had  remained  on  the  desk  of  the  Main  Propulsion  Assistant, 
CWO S, for three months.  Thereafter, it was quickly forwarded up the chain of command until 
signed by the Executive Officer of the cutter on October 31, 2005.  However, it then experienced 
further undue delay and was not received by the ship’s office until November 8, 2005. 

 
The applicant stated that following this debacle, the Engineering Officer held a meeting 
with the Command Master Chief, MK1 M, MKC M, CWO S, and others.  During the meeting, 
the applicant “was told several times that it was completely my fault for not being more aggres-
sive in following up with my advancement.”  He was told that he should have jumped the chain 
of command and sought a Request and Complaint Mast with the Executive Officer.  However, he 
had always been told before that issues should be handled at the lowest possible level, and he 
“honestly believed in my command to handle my paperwork properly, and did not expect to have 
to keep track of their progress.”  When he later discovered that no one had informed Captain T of 
what had occurred, he requested a meeting with Captain T, who was stunned and tried to help 
him get his DTG on the supplemental advancement list backdated to no avail. 

 
The applicant alleged that from September 2005 to August 2006, about 226 MK3s were 
advanced to MK2 off the supplemental advancement list.  He stated that he is not asking to jump 
ahead of anyone on the list but merely to be advanced with them.  He stated that the undue delay 
in his placement on the list has not only delayed his advancement but cost him “valuable points 
for time in grade for future service wide examinations.”  He noted that he has been awarded an 
Achievement Medal for his work aboard the ice breaker. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement (Tab J) signed by his 
supervisor,  MK1  M,  who  stated  that  the  applicant  had  properly  used  the  chain  of  command 
pursuant to his request chit and had asked MK1 M on several occasions about the status of his 
chit.  MK1 M stated that on each occasion, he verified with his own supervisor, MKC M, that the 
chit was being processed but later learned that CWO S had never forwarded it. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Under Article 5.C.3.b. of the Personnel Manual (Tab H), enlisted members in paygrade E-
4 normally advance to E-5 when there is a vacancy in their rating in paygrade E-5 and they are at 
the top of an SWE advancement list.  The list is compiled after the members take a servicewide 
examination (SWE).  Their placement on the list depends upon how many points they have out of 
a total of 200 possible points.  They can earn up to 80 points on the SWE; up to 50 for their per-
formance marks on their most recent evaluation; up to 30 for sea duty; up to 20 for time in ser-
vice; up to 10 for time in paygrade; and up to 10 for medals and awards received.   
 

 

 
Under Article 5.C.3.d. (Tab H), however, “[p]ersonnel may be advanced to E-5 through 
E-9  without  participation  in  SWE  competition  by  special  authority  of  the  Commandant.”  
ALCOAST 359/05 (Tab G), issued on July 7, 2005, states the following: 
 

1.    This  ALCOAST  announces  early  advancement  authorization  off  the  May  2005  SWE 
Advancement Eligibility List and waivers of the NOV 2005 SWE.  All concerned are advised to 
carefully review this message since it contains several new requirements for placement on a sup-
plemental advancement list. … 
 
3.  The BM1, GM2, IT2, MK2, and MST2 Supplemental Advancement Lists will remain in effect 
until advancements are authorized from the NOV 2005 SWE Advancement Eligibility List.  Per-
sonnel may continue to be placed on these supplemental lists using the procedures outlined in this 
ALCOAST  until  31  DEC  2005.    Since  placement  on  a  supplemental  list  does  not  guarantee 
advancement,  all  eligible  personnel  desiring  to  advance  to  BM1,  GM2,  IT2,  MK2,  and  MST2 
should take the NOV 2005 SWE.  Once advancements have been authorized from the NOV 2005 
SWE Advancement Eligibility List, the supplemental lists for these ratings will be terminated. …  
[Specification  of  enlisted  professional  qualifications  and  correspondence  courses  required  for 
advancement, etc., omitted.] 
 
9.  Effective immediately through … 31 DEC 2005 for BM1, GM2, MK2, and MST2, a command-
ing officer or OINC may submit requests recommending eligible mbrs for placement on the sup-
plemental  advancement  list  when  the  mbr  meets  all  applicable  requirements  identified  in  Art. 
5.C.4.b.1. of [the Personnel Manual].  The mbrs standing on the supplemental advancement list is 
based solely on the date-time-group (DTG) of the notification msg.  Commands may send a msg as 
soon as the mbr has met all advancement eligibility requirements and should contact PSC(adv) if 
acknowledgement  msg  is  not  received  within  5  working  days.    PSC(adv)  will  use  only  DTG 
reflecting  the  actual  time  of  release  of  the  msg.    Backdating  the  DTG  is  not  permitted.    Upon 
receipt of a notification msg, PSC(adv) will place the mbrs name in the next position on the sup-
plemental advancement list for that rating providing all prerequisites have been met. … 

 
 
Article  5.C.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (Tab  H)  states  that  it  “is  each  individual's 
responsibility to ensure their eligibility in all respects for the SWE. The key to doing so is by 
verifying and signing the Personnel Data Extract, CG-4902, received prior to the SWE date. By 
signing the CG-4902, members state all changes noted or information on the form are current and 
correct and no further corrections are necessary.”  

 
Article 5.C.4.e. (Tab H) states that “Coast Guard commanding officers are responsible for 
execution of the advancement program. Failure to properly discharge this responsibility reflects 
adversely on command performance. Commanding officers are responsible for the timely evalua-
tion  of  assigned  personnel,  submitting  recommendations,  and  coordinating  with  examining 
boards as necessary to ensure that every eligible and recommended candidate for advancement 
has an opportunity to compete.” 

 
Article 5.C.4.g. (Tab H)  states that the “PSC(adv) is the single point of contact for all 
request for waivers of advancement requirements and deadlines. The SWE cycle process requires 
all responsible parties to do their part to ensure success.  Failure by a member, supervisor or sup-
porting command to fulfill their responsibilities is not justification for a waiver and may result in 
the member not qualifying to test.  Waivers should be requested only if unusual circumstances, 
last minute operational schedule changes, etc., result in the member being ineligible through no 
fault of the member.  Prior to submitting a waiver, the command must ensure that the member, 

 

unit and/or PERSRU did everything that can be reasonably expected to ensure eligibility prior to 
the deadline for eligibility.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

(Analysis) 

2. 

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 applicable law: 
 
 
10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

1. 

Captain  T,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer,  has  admitted  (Tab  B)  that  the 
applicant originally submitted his request for placement on the supplemental advancement list on 
July 30, 2005.  The applicant and his supervisor, MK1 M, stated that after submitting his chit, he 
checked the list, saw that his name did not appear on it, and inquired into the status of his request 
several times in August 2005 (Tabs I & J).  His supervisor responded to his inquiries by saying 
that the “paperwork was with the command, and I should see my name on the advancement list 
shortly.”    (Tab  I)    Thereafter,  the  applicant  admits,  he did not check on the processing of his 
request until October 26, 2005, because he was busy with work and went on leave for 30 days.  
The Captain T and CWO S have admitted that from late July or early August until late October 
2005, the applicant’s request remained unprocessed on CWO S’s desk (Tabs B & D).  Therefore, 
it appears that because of CWO S’s error, the command’s message requesting placement of the 
applicant’s  name  on  the  2005  MK2  Supplemental  Advancement  List  was  delayed  by 
approximately three months.  Captain T has stated that he believes the DTG of the command’s 
message should have been August 8 rather than November 8, 2005.  As a result of this delay, the 
applicant’s name appeared very low on the list, and he did not advance before the list expired.  
The Coast Guard has admitted that the applicant would have been advanced had his command 
sent the message on August 8, 2005 (Tab F). 
 
 
The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  not 
advanced  off  the  2005  MK2  Supplemental  Advancement  List  as  a  result  of  an  administrative 
error by the Coast Guard.  Specifically, CWO S, who was at least three steps up in the applicant’s 
chain of command, received the applicant’s chit in late July or early August 2005 and did not 
forward it until the last week of October 2005.   
 
The  Coast  Guard  argued  (Tab  F)  that,  despite  his  command’s  undue  delay,  the 
 
applicant’s request should not be granted because, in the absence of SWE scoring, the DTG is the 
only administrable means of ranking members on a supplemental advancement list and because, 
under Article 5.C.4.a. of the Personnel Manual (Tab H), members are responsible for ensuring 
their  own  eligibility  for  advancement  even  though  the  administrative  efficiency  of  their 
commands may strongly affect their eligibility.  The Coast Guard noted that many other MK3s’ 
chits may also have been delayed days, weeks, or months by their own chains of command. 
 

The  fact  that  the  DTG  may  be  the  most  easily  administrable  means  of  ranking 
members  on  a  supplemental  advancement  list,  however,  does  not  mean  that  clear  injustices 
should not be corrected by this Board when a member applies for relief.  Nor does the fact that 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Article  5.C.4.g.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (Tab  H)  grants  the  PSC  the  authority  to  waive 
advancement  eligibility  criteria  undermine  this  Board’s  authority  to  correct  errors  and  remove 
injustices under 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  In BCMR Docket No. 2002-040 (Tab K), the delegate of the 
Secretary held that “[t]he Coast Guard has committed an injustice against one of its members 
when the Coast Guard’s action, or lack thereof, shocks one’s sense of justice.  Reale v. United 
States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976).  The BCMR has the authority to decide on a case-by-case 
basis if the Coast Guard has committed an error or injustice.”  Under the circumstances of this 
case,  the  Board  is  persuaded  that  the  command’s  undue,  three-month  delay  in  processing  the 
applicant’s chit was unreasonable and greatly unfair to the applicant.  The applicant asked his 
supervisor about the status of his chit several times in August 2005 (Tabs I & J).  Although he 
did not jump the chain of command, as his superiors later suggested he should have done, the 
Board  believes  that  in  repeatedly  asking  his  supervisor  about  the  status  of  his  request  chit  in 
August 2005, the applicant exercised due diligence as an E-4 in following up on his chit.  His 
supervisor apparently assured him that the chit was being processed and might well have been 
annoyed had the applicant persisted in questioning him.  The applicant admitted that he did not 
pursue the matter in September or early October, when he was on extended leave, but according 
to CWO S (Tab D), the applicant’s ability to continue following up on his request during those 
weeks would have been “hindered by the transition period of all of his direct superiors.” 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Captain T, the applicant’s commanding officer, suggested that, but for CWO S’s 
delay, the command might have sent the message to the PSC as early as August 8, instead of 
November 8, 2005.  However, the Coast Guard has admitted only that, but for the long delay, the 
applicant would have been advanced off the 2005 MK2 Supplemental Advancement List.  

Accordingly, relief should be granted because, under the particular circumstances 
of this case, the applicant’s failure to be advanced from the 2005 MK2 Supplemental Advance-
ment List shocks the Board’s sense of justice. See Reale, at 1011 (Tab L).  The Board finds that 
the  most  appropriate  relief  would  be  to  correct  the  applicant’s  record  to  show  that  he  was 
advanced  to  MK2  on  the  same  day  that  the  last  person  to  be  advanced  off  the  2005  MK2 
Supplemental Advancement List before it expired was advanced to MK2. 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

The  application  of  MK3  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 
military record is granted as follows: 
 
 
His record shall be corrected to show that he was advanced to MK2/E-5 on the same date 
that  the  last  person  to  be  advanced  off  the  2005  MK2  Supplemental  Advancement  List  was 
advanced to MK2.  The Coast Guard shall pay him all back pay and allowances he may be due as 
a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Steven J. Pecinovsky 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER