DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-156 
 
XXXXXXXXXX. 
Xxx xx xxxx, BM1   
   

 

 
 

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 August 4, 2006, 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 April xx, 2207, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by promoting him 
retroactively to chief boatswain’s mate (BMC; pay grade E-7) effective January 1, 2003.  
The  applicant  stated  that  his  request  for  reinstatement  on  the  Reserve  Advancement 
Eligibility List was denied by USCG Headquarters personnel on July 29, 2003. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The  applicant  who  has  served  in  the  boatswain’s  mate  rating  for  over  twenty 
years alleged that he was erroneously denied advancement to BMC because the Coast 
Guard  circumvented  regulations  regarding  his  request  for  a  lateral  change  to  the 

In October 2002, the applicant participated in the servicewide examination (SWE) 

investigator  (IV)  rating.1      On  September  15,  2002,  the  applicant,  a  BM1,  requested  a 
lateral  change  from  the  BM  rating  to  the  IV  rating.    He  addressed  his  request  to 
Commandant (G-O-CGIS), through CGIS special agent in charge, northwest region and 
commanding  officer,  USCG  MSO,  St.  Louis,  with  a  copy  to  USCG  ISC  (Integrated 
Support Command) St. Louis. 
 
 
for promotion to BMC.   
 
 
On  November  11,  2002,  Commandant  (G-O-CGIS)  issued  a  letter  to  ISC 
Ketchikan and ISC St. Louis authorizing the applicant to pursue a lateral to the IV rate 
and assigned him to an RPAL investigator billet.  The letter also requested that the ISC 
ensure  that  the  applicant’s  personnel  reporting  unit  assign  the  appropriate  training 
rating indicator and to ensure that the applicant is advised that he is no longer eligible 
for  advancement  within  the  BM  rating.    The  letter  further  advised  that  the  applicant 
was recalled under title 10 of the United States Code and that he was assigned to serve 
on the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force until September 30, 2003.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  under  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  before  prospective 
CGIS  agents  could  be  considered  for  a  lateral  to  the  IV  rating,  the  member  must  be 
approved  by  CGIS  Headquarters  and  then  receives  approval  from  his  ISC.  The 
applicant  argued  that  had  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  procedures  been  followed,  he 
would  have  been  required  to  wait  until  the  appropriate  ISC  personnel  had  approved 
the lateral, which would have taken several months, at a minimum.  According to the 
applicant, once he had been approved for the lateral by the ISC,  he then would have 
been ineligible for further training or advancement in the BM rate.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  on  December  31,  2002,  the  Reserve  advancement 
eligibility list was published and he was listed as number 1 for advancement to BMC.  
The applicant further stated that on January 15, 2003, a master chief petty officer from 
the  Human  Resources  Services  and  Information  Center  (HRSIC)  called  and  informed 
the applicant that his request for a lateral to the IV rating had been approved and that 
the  applicant  would  not  be  advancing  to  BMC.    The  applicant  submitted  an  email, 
which according to the applicant shows that someone at his previous command (MSO 
Valdez) had advanced him to IV1.  The applicant argued that the advancement to IV1 
was erroneous because his previous command was not an ISC, and therefore could not 
advance him.  He argued that the master chief petty officer improperly removed him 
from the BMC advancement list and his name was not included on the January 16, 2003 
message  authorizing  advancements.    The  applicant  alleged  that  an  unauthorized 
computer entry was made into his Coast Guard Personnel file showing that he had been 

                                                 
1    Lateral change is when a member changes his or her ratings without changing his or her pay grade.  
Article 7.C.9b. of the Reserve Policy Manual.   

assigned  a  training  rating  indicator,  which  is  used  for  personnel  who  have  been 
approved  to  pursue  lateral  transfers.    The  applicant  alleged  that  this  entry  was 
improper because it was made by someone other than ISC Ketchikan and that the entry 
had  been  back  dated  to  have  an  effective  date  of  November  11,  2002.    The  applicant 
submitted a computer print out for this entry showing the date entered as January 17, 
2003, the day after his name was removed from the advancement list.   
 
 
The applicant stated that in April 2003 he received a personal data extract stating 
that he was eligible to compete in the BMC SWE (even though he had supposedly been 
approved for a lateral to the IV rating).  He stated that at that time he checked and his 
lateral had not been approved.   
 
 
On  May  6,  2003,  the  applicant  requested  to  be  reinstated  on  the  BMC 
advancement list retroactive to January 1, 2003, because his request for a lateral had not 
been approved at the time the eligibility list was released.  He stated that as of May 6, 
2003, he had not received any correspondence written or electronic indicating that his 
request for a lateral to the IV rating had been approved.   
 
 
The applicant submitted a June 3, 2003, unsigned letter from the Director of CGIS 
recommending that the applicant be reinstated to the eligibility advancement list.   The 
Director  stated  that  the  authority  for  approving  laterals  rested  with  the  ISC  (pf)  in 
accordance with Article 7.C.13.c.(1) of the Reserve Policy Manual.2  The Director noted 
that  the  applicant  stated  that  he  had  not  been  formally  notified  from  either  ISC 
Ketchikan  or  ISC  St.  Louis  that  his  lateral  had  been  approved.    “I  believe  that  [the 
applicant]  should  have  been  formally  notified  from  either  ISC  Ketchikan  or  ISC  St. 
Louis that his lateral was approved . . . and of his inability to advance within the BM 
rating.”    The  Director  noted  that  written  notification  of  his  lateral  approval  in 
November  2002  would  have  enabled  the  applicant  to  weigh  his  options  and  to 
determine whether continued pursuit of a lateral was in his best interest. 
 
In a June 23, 2003 letter, ISC Ketchikan also favorably endorsed the applicant’s 
 
request for reinstatement to the advancement eligibility list.  The ISC Ketchikan letter 
stated the following in pertinent part: 
 

[The applicant’s] initial request for [a] lateral was not made in accordance 
with  Article  7.C.13.b.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  .  .  .  which  states 
requests to pursue change in rating must be sent either to CGPC-rpm or 
the servicing  (ISC(pf).  The servicing ISC(pf) for initial request  was only 
copied.  Proper endorsements . . . were also not provided. 
 

                                                 
2  Article 7.C.13.c.(1) of the Reserve Policy Manual states that servicing ISCs shall approve requests for 
changes in general rate an lateral changes in rating for personnel in pay grades E-4 through E-6.   

Recommend  [the  applicant]  be  advanced  retroactively  to  BMC.    Should 
[the  applicant]  wish  to  pursue  lateral  to  IV,  recommend  following  [the] 
latest revision of the RPM, promulgated on 18 May 2003.  

 
 
  The applicant stated that in August 2003, his request for reinstatement on the 
advancement eligibility list was disapproved because he had an approved request for a 
lateral to the IV rating.  The applicant noted however that upon his release from active 
duty in March 2004 and he was returned to his original unit as a BM1.  He further stated 
that  on  May  25,  2004  he  reapplied  for  a  lateral  change  to  the  IV  rating  and  that  in 
September 2004, he received orders assigning him to CGIS, almost two years after he 
had  been  removed  from  the  BMC  advancement  list.    The  applicant  also  stated  the 
following: 
 

I  imagine  that  it  may be  hard  to  understand  how  I  was  allowed  to  be  a 
Special  Agent  when  my  lateral  had  not  been  approved.    This  is  the 
explanation  I  was  given.    Since  the  attacks  of  September  11,  2001,  the 
Coast  Guard  17th  District  Office  of  Homeland  Security  had  been 
desperately trying to find a Special Agent to work on the joint terrorism 
task  force  in  Anchorage  full  time.    The  Captain  in  charge  of  the  District 
Homeland  Security  Department  found  out  that  I  was  a  Deputy  U.S. 
Marshal  and  wanted  me  to  start  right  away.    The  entire  time  I  spent  in 
Anchorage  I  was  assigned  to  MSO  Anchorage,  not  CGIS.    The  expenses 
associated with my recall to active duty were paid from the 17th District 
Homeland Security Budget, not the CGIS budget.  I carried a CGIS badge 
and worked for the FBI.  It was far from the normal course of events, but 
so shortly after 9/11, many things were done that were not normal.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  December  14,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant 
alternative  relief  recommended  by  Commander  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) by correcting his record to show that his request to lateral to the IV rating was 
approved retroactively on November 21, 2002, the date on which he received his CGIS 
credentials.    CGPC  stated  the  following  conclusion  with  respect  to  the  applicant’s 
application: 
 

The applicant, a reserve member who was serving on Title 10 active duty 
at the time requested to pursue a lateral change in rating from BM1 to IV1 
. . .  The applicant’s request was incorrectly addressed to Commandant (G-
O-CGIS).  Commandant (G-O-CGIS) authorized the applicant to pursue a 
lateral  to  IV1.    In  their  approval,  Commandant  (G-O-CGIS)  directed  the 
assignment  of  the  HA  (special  agent)  qualification  code  and  that  the 

ISC 

Ketchikan 

Applicant be ‘advised he is no longer eligible for advancement within the 
advancement  rating.”    As  a  result  .  .  .  the  applicant  was  issued  a  CGIS 
badge/credentials on November 21, 2002.   
 
The Applicant’s record shows that the authorization to pursue the lateral 
issued by Commandant (C-O-CGIS) . . . was the basis for establishing the 
approval of the applicant’s lateral request.  There is no record of either the 
servicing  ISC  or  CGPC-rpm  approving  the  Applicant’s  lateral  request.  
Additionally, on June 27, 2003, ISC Ketchikan (pf) states that the applicant 
did not have an approved lateral request.   
(pf) 
acknowledges  receipt  of  the  Applicant’s  request  and  indicates  that  no 
action was taken since they were not listed as an addressee but rather a 
copy recipient.  There is no indication that  ISC Ketchikan (pf) or ISC St. 
Louis  acted  upon  Commandant  (C-O-CGIS)  authorization  .  .  .  to  effect 
change.  However, database entries were made by the servicing personnel 
office  effecting  the  lateral  change  in  rating  with  a  date  of  November  11, 
2002.    The applicant was aware that if the lateral change was approved 
that  he  would  be  ineligible  for  further  advancement  in  his  rating,  as 
outlined  in  [the  Reserve  Policy  Manual]  to  which  the  applicant  made 
reference  in  his  original  request  for  a  lateral  change.    Additionally, 
subsequent to November 11, 2002, the applicant received his CGIS badge 
and credentials and commenced GGIS duties. The applicant argues that he 
was  unaware  that  his  request  was  approved,  however,  the  issuance  of 
these credentials and duties would indicate otherwise. 
 
The  applicant  was  above  the  advancement  cut  for  BMC  based  on  the 
October  2002  Reserve  [SWE]  and  his  name  was  subsequently  removed 
from the advancement list due to the Coast Guard database reflecting that 
he  was  approved  for  a  lateral  change  in  rating  to  IV1.    The  applicant 
appealed the decision to remove his name from the advancement list and 
CGPC-rpm denied his request basing the denial on the November 11, 2002 
authorization  . . .  for the applicant to pursue a lateral change in rating.    
 
The Coast Guard erred in the fact that neither ISC Ketchikan nor ISC St. 
Louis  approved  the  applicant’s  lateral  request  .  .  .    Additionally,  since 
CGIS credentials for reserve personnel are only issued to coincide with an 
approved  lateral  to  IV,  the  Coast  Guard  further  erred  in  issuing  the 
applicant  credentials  without  final  authorization  for  the  lateral  from  ISC 
or  CGPC-rpm.    Regardless,  the  applicant’s  acceptance  of  the  credentials 
and  previous  acknowledgement  of  the  limitations  on  a  lateral  transfer 
indicate  that  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  applicant  acted  as  though  his 
request had been properly approved.    
  

 

Once  the  applicant  accepted  his  CGIS  credentials,  he  actively  began  his 
lateral  to  IV1  and  made  career  decision  to  forgo  his  pursuit  for 
advancement  to  BMC.    Director,  CGIS  and  CGIS  Northwest  recognized 
that the applicant was in the IV1 path of advancement through issuance of 
the credentials  . . . 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 9, 2007, the BCMR received the applicant's response to the views of 
the Coast Guard.  The applicant disagreed with the advisory opinion and stated that the 
alternative relief recommended by the Coast Guard would be an erroneous entry into 
his service record.  He stated that “[a]n inaccurate service record entry is not relief.   If it 
had not been for the inaccurate database entry into his service file, none of this would 
be necessary.  The applicant argued that it was a false assertion on the part of the Coast 
Guard to say that his name was removed from the advancement list based on the data 
base entry.  According to the applicant, the data base entry was not made until after his 
name  was  removed  from  the  list  and  after  the  promotion  authorization  message  was 
released.    The  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  a  computer  print  out  showing  the  data 
entry date to be January 17, 2003.   
 
 
The  applicant  disagreed  with  the  advisory  opinion  statement  that  he  had  been 
serving as an IV since November 2002.  In this regard, the applicant stated that when he 
was released from active duty in March 2004, he went back to his old reserve unit as a 
boatswain’s  mate  and  had  to  reapply  for  a  lateral  transfer  because  his  earlier  request 
was not approved in November 2002.     
 
The applicant further stated the following: 
 

The advisory opinion does not provide any evidence to suggest that the 
Coast Guard was not in error and contains several admissions that it was.  
There is nothing in the opinion that refutes my claim that, had the Coast 
Guard  followed  its  own  rules  and  regulations,  I  would  have  been 
advanced to BMC effective January 1, 2003.   
 
When I first joined the Coast Guard, those senior to me made it clear, in 
no uncertain terms, that good enough isn’t[;] that there is no substitute for 
following the rules and regulations.  As I assumed a senior rule, I taught 
that same lesson to those junior to me.  It was true then and it true now. 
 
There are several very troubling aspects of this case.  First among them is 
the assertion that I was removed from the advancement list because of a 
database  entry.    This  is,  of  course,  false  because  the  entry  wasn’t  made 
until two days after I was removed from the list and a day before the list 

was  published.    Second,  who  made  the  erroneous  database  entry?    The 
records I have provided make it clear that it wasn’t done by anyone who 
was authorized to do so.  This also begs the question, not only who but 
why?  . . .  I will say this . . .  doesn’t pass the “smell test”.   

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

 
 
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: 
 
 
title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2.      The  Board  finds  that  both  the  applicant  and  the  Coast  Guard  committed 
errors in the processing of the applicant’s request for a lateral transfer to the IV rating.  
However the errors committed by the Coast Guard were much more serious than the 
error committed by the applicant.  The Coast Guard’s errors led to the commission of a 
serious injustice in the applicant’s military record that prevented him from advancing 
to BMC as a result of the October 2002 SWE. 
 
 
3.      The  applicant  submitted  a  request  for  a  lateral  transfer  to  the  IV  rate  in 
September  2002.    However,  he  failed  to  properly  address  his  request  as  required  by 
Article  7.C.17b.(2)  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  then  in  effect.    This  provision  stated 
that  letters  requesting  approval  to  pursue  a  change  in  rating  must  be  sent  to  the 
servicing  ISC  via  the  member’s  chain  of  command.    The  applicant  improperly 
addressed  his  letter  to  the  COMDT  (G-O-CGIS),  through  the  special  agent  in  charge, 
CGIS Northwest region, and the commanding officer, USCG MSO St. Louis, with a copy 
to USCG ISC St. Louis.   
 
4.      However,  the  incorrect  addressing  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  lateral 
 
transfer  did  not  significantly  delay  the  processing  of  his  request.    In  this  regard,  on 
November  11,  2002,  the  Director  CGIS,  who  is  also  Commandant  (G-O-  GGIS)  by 
position, informed ISC Ketchikan and ISC St. Louis that the applicant was authorized to 
pursue a lateral, that he was eligible for assignment to an RPAL investigator billet, and 
that he was eligible for assignment of the HA (special agent) qualification code.  This 
letter  further  requested  that  the  applicant’s  servicing  personnel  reporting  unit 
(PERSRU) assign the appropriate training rating indicator to the applicant and advise 
him  that  he  was  no  longer  eligible  for  advancement  within  the  BM  rate.    The  letter 
informing the ISC that COMDT (C-O-CGIS’s) had authorized the applicant to pursue a 
lateral  to the  IV  rate, although  not  the  final  step  in  the  process,  was  a  necessary  step 
toward obtaining approval for a lateral transfer to the IV rate.  Article 7.C.17b.(2) states 
in  pertinent  part  that  “the  ISC  will  consult  the  appropriate  Special  Agent  in  Charge 

before approving the lateral.  The Special Agent in charge reviews the request ensuring 
the member meets all requirements to hold Special Agent credentials, that all other IV 
rating requirements are met, and that a vacant billet exists.”  However, no where in the 
regulation  then  in  effect  was  anyone,  except  the  servicing  ISC,  given  authority  to 
approve a member’s request for a  lateral transfer.  There is no evidence in the record 
that either ISC Ketchikan or ISC St. Louis approved the applicant’s request to lateral to 
the IV rating.   
 
 
5.  The Coast Guard admitted in its advisory opinion that neither of the two ISC 
offices discussed above acted to grant approval of the applicant’s request for a lateral 
transfer after receipt of the letter from COMDT (G-O-GIS) granting permission for the 
applicant  to  pursue  a  lateral  to  the  IV  rate.      The  advisory  opinion  indicates  that  a 
servicing personnel office effected the change in rate by making certain entries to  the 
applicant’s  electronic  record.    However,  the  Board  concludes  that  such  entries  were 
erroneous  because  as  stated  in  the  advisory  opinion,  approval  for  the  lateral  had  not 
been obtained from the appropriate ISC.  Therefore, whoever made the entries into the 
applicant’s  electronic  PDR  by  changing  his  rate  from  BM1  to  IV1,  did  so  without 
authority.    Article  7.C.13f.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  states  that  once  a  change  in 
rating  is  approved  by  the  ISC,  the  servicing  PERSRUs  will  assign  the  appropriate 
training rating indicator to the individual. 
 
 
6.  The erroneous entry into the applicant’s electronic military record constituted 
error  by  the  Coast  Guard,  which  resulted  in  the  applicant  suffering  an  injustice  that 
shocks  the  Board’s  sense  of  justice.    The  applicant  acted  as  any  career  minded  Coast 
Guard member would have by taking the October SWE for advancement even though 
he had requested a lateral to the IV rating because the submission of a lateral request 
did  not  mean  that  it  would  be  approved.    When  the  advancement  results  from  the 
October  2002  SWE  were  published  with  the  applicant  ranking  number  one  for 
advancement to chief boatswain’s mate, the erroneous computer entry indicated that he 
was not eligible for advancement.  At least five BM1s were advanced to BMC from that 
list  in  January  2003  and  certainly  the  applicant  would  have  been  advanced,  if  the 
erroneous database entry had not been made.   
 
7.    Although  the  applicant  requested  to  have  his  name  reinstated  on  the 
 
advancement list, the Coast Guard denied it stating that his request to lateral to the IV 
rating was approved on November 11, 2002.  However, the denial letter does not state 
who  gave  the  approval  nor  was  a  copy  of  the  approval  attached  to  the  July  29,  2003 
letter.  Therefore, the Board can only conclude that the denial of the applicant’s request 
for reinstatement to the advancement list was based either on the unapproved database 
entry or upon the letter from COMDT (C-O-CGIS) who, under the regulation, did not 
have authority to approve the applicant’s request for a lateral transfer.  The fact that on 
May 25, 2004, the applicant reapplied for a lateral to the IV rate and in September 2004 
received orders assigning him to CGIS is further evidence that the electronic entry and 

COMDT (C-O-CGIS) letter were insufficient to effect the applicant’s lateral from BM1 to 
IV1.   
 
8.    If  the  Coast  Guard  had  followed  its  regulation  and  the  lateral  process  had 
 
been completed before the publication of the advancement eligibility list, the applicant 
would have no claim for advancement because Article 7.C.13f.(2) of the Reserve Policy 
manual states “Personnel may not train or advance in their present (old) rating” once a 
request for a change in rating is approved.  The erroneous electronic database entry was 
made before the applicant’s request to lateral was approved.  Moreover, it appears to 
the Board that the ISC never approved the applicant’s 2002 request for a lateral transfer. 
 
 
9.  The Coast Guard admitted that errors were committed in the processing of the 
applicant’s request for a lateral change in rating but argued that both the applicant and 
the  Coast  Guard  acted  as  if  the  lateral  had  been  approved  because  the  Coast  Guard 
issued CGIS credentials to the applicant and he accepted them and began working as a 
CGIS agent.   If the CGIS and the applicant’s actions operated to approve the applicant’s 
request for a lateral transfer, why was it necessary for the applicant to reapply for the 
transfer in May 2004, when a properly approved lateral transfer request is effective for 
three  years.      Article  7.c.13g.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  states,  “changes  in  rating 
must  be  completed  within  three  years.”    The  fact  that  the  applicant  was  required  to 
reapply for the lateral before November 11, 2005, strongly corroborates his contention 
that  he  had  not  obtained  the  necessary  approval  to  pursue  a  lateral  to  the  IV  rating 
before  the  release  of  the  SWE  advancement  eligibility  list  on  December  31,  2002.  
Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard acted to approve the 
lateral request prior to removing the applicant’s name from the advancement eligibility 
list.   
 
 
10.  The Board would further note that Article 7.C.17.b.(2) of the Reserve Policy 
Manual then in effect stated that “[l]ateral changes in rating to IV will not be authorized 
for  E-6  and  above.”    Therefore,  it  appears  that  the  applicant  should  not  have  been 
permitted  to  lateral  to  the  IV  rate  in  2002  because  he  was  a  petty  officer  first  class.   
Although the CGIS Manual authorized first class petty officers to lateral to the IV rate, it 
cautioned that “[in] cases of apparent conflict between this Manual and provisions of 
statutes  and  regulations,  the  latter  provisions  shall  be  applied.”    Accordingly,  the 
Reserve  Policy  Manual  controlled  in  this  situation  and  the  applicant,  as  a  BM1,  was 
prohibited from obtaining a lateral to the IV rate at that time.  In May 2003, with the 
publication of the current Reserve Policy Manual, this policy was changed.   
 
 
11.  In light of the above, the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed a series 
of errors by its failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Reserve Policy Manual 
for processing and approving the applicant’s request for a lateral from BM1 to IV1.   The 
Coast  Guard’s  failure to  follow  the regulation  resulted  in  an  erroneous  entry  into  the 
applicant’s  electronic  military  record  that  caused  his  name  to  be  removed  from  the 

advancement eligibility list, when in fact, necessary and proper approval of his lateral 
had not been obtained.   
 
12.    In  light  of  the  errors  identified  above,  the  Board  must  determine  if  the 
 
remedy  recommended  by  the  Coast  Guard  is  sufficient  relief.    The  Coast  Guard 
recommended  that  the  applicant’s  record  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  received 
approval to pursue the IV rate on November 11, 2002, to which the applicant objects.  
However, the Coast Guard’s recommendation does nothing to address the fact that an 
erroneous  database  entry  was  the  basis  for  removing  applicant’s  name  from  the 
advancement eligibility list; nor does it address the fact that the applicant’s request for a 
lateral transfer to the IV rate languished unapproved for approximately two years.  The 
Board finds the JAG’s argument that both the applicant and Coast Guard acted as if the 
lateral  was  approved  to  be  disingenuous,  since  it  was  necessary  for  the  applicant  to 
reapply for a lateral in May  2004.  
 
 
13.  Without an approved request to pursue a lateral to the IV rate, the applicant 
was entitled to continue to compete for advancement in the BM rate.  The Board finds 
nothing in the regulation that states that an incomplete or partially processed request 
for a lateral transfer is sufficient to cause an applicant to be ineligible for advancement.  
Therefore,  the  board  finds  that  the  only remedy  that  makes  the applicant  whole  is  to 
direct the Coast Guard to advance him to BMC prior to the expiration of the December 
31, 2003 advancement list.   Under the current Reserve Policy manual, unlike the earlier 
Manual, the provision prohibiting E-6s from requesting a lateral change to the IV rate 
has  been  removed.    In  addition,  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  now  in  effect  does  not 
prevent an E-7 from obtaining a lateral transfer.  In this regard Article 7.C.9.d.(2) of the 
Reserve  Policy  Manual  states  that  the  servicing  ISC    shall  forward  requests  from 
reservist  in  pay  grade  E-7  and  above  for  lateral  changes  to  CGPC-rpm  for 
determination.  The Board notes that although the CGIS Manual states that as a matter 
of  policy  members  in  pay  grades  E-7  through  E-9  can  not  lateral  to  the  IV  rate,  the 
Reserve Manual controls because as stated above, the CGIS Manual states that that “[in] 
cases  of  apparent  conflict  between  this  Manual  and  provisions  of  statutes  and 
regulations, the latter provisions shall be applied.”   
 
14.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant’s record shall be corrected to 
 
show that he was advanced to BMC as a result of the October 2002 SWE.   The Coast 
Guard shall pay the applicant any back pay and allowances to which he is entitled as a 
result of this correction.    
 
 
.    
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

The application of BM1 XXXXXXXXXXX,   , for correction of his military record is 
granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he was advanced to BMC prior to 
the expiration of the advancement eligibility list resulting from the October 2002 SWE, 
with back pay and allowances.  His approval to lateral to the IV rate resulting from his 
May 25, 2004, request shall remain in effect.