DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2007-208 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 
 

 

 

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 September 13, 2007, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  24,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

The applicant, a senior chief yeoman (YNCS/E-8) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the 
Board to correct her record by advancing her to master chief yeoman (YNCM/E-9) as of June 1, 
1995, or at the latest, December 1, 2002, and to order the Coast Guard to pay her back pay and 
allowances owed as a result of that advancement, with interest.  The applicant acknowledged that 
she knew of these errors in 1995 and 2002 but argued that it is in the interest of justice for the 
Board to waive the statute of limitations because she has been investigating the matter for the 
past  eight  years  by  contacting  appropriate  offices  and  has  yet  to  receive  a  satisfactory  answer 
explaining the Coast Guard’s failure to advance her.  

 
The applicant alleged that, following the October 1994 Reserve servicewide examination 
(RSWE), her name was in second place on the list for advancement to YNCM.  The cutoff for 
guaranteed advancement was zero, indicating that no advancements were expected to occur off 
the list.  Nevertheless, one YNCM retired in March 1995, and the YNCS who was first on the list 
was advanced to fill the YNCM billet on the Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL).  How-
ever, when another YNCM retired in May 1995, the applicant was not advanced to YNCM; nor 
was anyone else.  When she contacted her District Personnel Division on July 19, 1995, to ask 
about advancement, she was advised that there was no empty YNCM billet on the RPAL, and 
subsequent inquiries about the status of the billet of the second YNCM to retire in 1995 have 
gone unanswered.  However, she noted, candidates for master chief boatswain’s mate (BMCM), 
master chief damage controlman (DCCM), and master chief electronics technician (ETCM) were 
advanced to master chief in 1995 even though their names were below the “cutoffs” for guaran-

teed advancement on their ratings’ advancement lists.  She noted that the DCCS and the ETCS 
were advanced to master chief even though the cutoffs on their advancement lists were zero.  She 
asked where their new billets came from, and why was she not advanced when she was second 
on the Reserve YNCM advancement list and two Reserve YNCMs retired in 1995. 

 
The applicant stated that she was not advanced off the 1994 advancement list before it 
expired, and she continued to compete for advancement from 1995 through 2000 by taking the 
RSWE.    She  made  no  allegations  about  her  lack  of  advancement  pursuant  to  those  RSWEs 
except to note that very few members were advanced to YNCM but that some were advanced 
from below the cutoff. 

 
Following the October 2001 RSWE, the applicant stated, her name was in third place on 
the YNCM advancement list and the cutoff was placed so that only the first person on the list 
was guaranteed advancement.  On February 1, 2002, the first person on the list (YNCM 8 (see 
the chart on page 3 below)) was advanced to YNCM, and on April 1, 2002, the second person on 
the advancement list was advanced (YNCM 9).  Therefore, since the applicant had been third on 
the advancement list and had risen to the top because of the advancement of YNCM 9, on July 
23,  2002,  she  called  the  Reserve  Force  Master  Chief  at  the  Human  Resources  Services  and 
Information Center (HRSIC) to ask about whether she would be advanced prior to the expiration 
of the advancement list or should seek a waiver so that she could take the RSWE again in Octo-
ber 2002.1  He told her that the YNCM advancement on April 1, 2002, had been an administra-
tive error and that even adjusting for that error there was still one too many YNCMs than there 
should have been given the number of YNCM billets.  The Reserve Force Master Chief stated 
that a mistake had also been made with a PACM (public affairs) advancement but that the erro-
neous advancements were not going to be withdrawn despite the mistakes.   

 
The applicant also alleged that another “adjustment should have occurred,” but apparently 
did not, when YNCM 3 attained 30 years of service on June 13, 2002.  Because she was not 
advanced,  the  applicant  prepared  a  request  for  waiver  to  be  able  to  take  the  RSWE  again  in 
October 2002 and forwarded it through her chain of command.  In addition, her command sent 
the  Reserve  Personnel  Management  (RPM)  Division  at  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) an email asking whether there was a projected YNCM vacancy and whether the appli-
cant would be advanced.  A chief warrant officer (CWO S) at RPM advised her command that 
there was “no RPAL vacancy for YNCM.  The attrition point that will create an RPAL vacancy 
for [the applicant] is for HRSIC to receive a YNCM retirement request.”  In response, the com-
mand asked how close YNCM 5 was to attaining 30 years of service.  The applicant submitted 
copies  of  these  emails  and  alleged  that  CWO  S  never  responded  to  her  command’s  question 
about when YNCM 5 would attain 30 years of service. 

 

                                                 
1 Under Article 7.C.12.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM), candidates for advancement to master chief petty 
officer (E-9) “must have at least two years of pay status eligibility remaining as computed from 1 January of the year 
following the October Service Wide Exam, to be eligible for advancement.  Individuals scheduled for discharge, due 
to reach their 30 year pay base date (PBD) anniversary, or reaching maximum age for mandatory retirement during 
the two year period following the 1 January date are ineligible to participate.”  Members who are prohibited from 
competing for advancement under these rules may request a waiver to participate in the RSWE. 
 
 

The applicant alleged that her request for a waiver of the rules so that she could take the 
RSWE in October 2002 was denied.  She submitted an email from her Executive Officer stating 
that  “[a]lthough  ALCOAST  266/02  temporarily  suspended  (until  30Sep03)  the  waiver  proce-
dures for SELRES personnel who attained 30 yrs of service, COMDT (CGPC-rpm) is holding a 
hard line that members with over 28 yrs remain ineligible for RSWE competition.  [T]hey’re not 
approving  requests  or  appeals.    In  discussing  this  issue,  it  is  quite  clear  that  [RPM]  assessed 
whether to amend eligibility requirements, but ultimately made the decision not to.  If you have 
any outstanding favors owed, now may be the time to call them in.  [I]t doesn’t look like I can 
take it any further.”  Therefore, she and her husband, who is a retired captain, contacted various 
high-ranking officers about RPM’s refusal to grant any waivers, but their efforts were to no avail. 

 
The applicant argued that YNCM 5’s attainment of 30 years of service on November 29, 
2002,  should  have  created  a  YNCM  vacancy  and  resulted  in  another  advancement—her  own.  
The advancement list resulting from the October 2001 RSWE did not expire until December 16, 
2002, and so she should have been advanced on December 1, 2002, after YNCM 5’s 30th anni-
versary date on November 29, 2002.  However, her repeated inquiries about her advancement 
produced no satisfactory answers. In support of her allegations, she submitted a chart with the 
following Reserve YNCM data: 

 

Pay Base Date (30th Anniversary Year)* 

Date of Rank as YNCM 

 
In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from her commanding 
officer, who wrote that “it is clear that there is a possibility of at least one and potentially two 
administrative  oversights  that  may  have  led  to  an  injustice  concerning  the  well-deserved 
advancement of [the applicant] to YNCM.”  He further stated that the applicant has been “dili-

April 1, 1978 
April 1, 1989 

June 29, 1960 (1990) 

February 27, 1967 (1997) 

May 31, 1973 (2003) 
May 28, 1975 (2005) 

June 13, 1972 (2002) 
June 25, 1971 (2001) 

November 29, 1972 (2002) 
October 26, 1979 (2009) 

January 1, 1990 
January 1, 1991 
January 1, 1991 
August 1, 2001 
October 1, 2001 
February 1, 2002 

Yeoman 
YNCM 1 
YNCM 2 
YNCM 3 
YNCM 4 
YNCM 5  
YNCM 6 ** 
YNCM 7 ** 
YNCM 8 ** 
YNCM 9 ** 
YNCM 10 
* The 30th anniversary years were added to this chart for clarity. 
** Double asterisks were added to mark those who on December 1, 2002, were YNCMs 
with less than 30 years of service.   
 
The applicant alleged that CWO S, who was working at RPM in 2002, intentionally pre-
vented her from being advanced because of his personal bias against her.  In support of this alle-
gation, the applicant submitted a statement signed by a retired senior chief petty officer, SPCO B, 
on  March  3,  2006.    He  wrote  that  in  a  September  2002  telephone  conversation  with  CWO  S 
about a request he had made for a waiver to participate in the RSWE, he mentioned the appli-
cant’s name.  CWO S “was very angry and said, ‘[the applicant] will never be able to take the 
Master Chief Servicewide ever again or never be promoted to master chief!’”  CWO S also told 
him that the applicant “went over his head with an Admiral to pressure him to change his mind.” 

November 27, 1974 (2004) 

March 15, 1976 (2006) 

April 1, 2002 

October 1, 2003 

gent  in  her  repeated  attempts  to  seek  answers  to  legitimate  questions  on  whether  or  not  the 
Reserve advancement system was applied properly and equitably.  Her attempts to solicit detailed 
information and answers via her regular chain of command, Reserve Program managers, Head-
quarters, and via the network of Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers have not resulted in complete 
answers.”  The applicant also submitted copies of the following documents inter alia: 

 

•  The Reserve advancement list dated November 30, 1994, shows that the applicant placed 
second on the list for advancement to YNCM, but the cutoff for guaranteed advancement 
to YNCM was zero—i.e., no advancements to YNCM were expected to occur. 
 

•  The May 1995 issue of the publication Coast Guard Reservist announced the retirement 

of a YNCM as of March 1995. 
 

•  A list of advancement announcements indicates that the YNCS who placed first on the 
Reserve advancement list dated November 30, 1994, was advanced to YNCM on May 1, 
1995. 
 

•  The August 1995 issue of the publication Coast Guard Reservist announced the retire-

ment of a second YNCM as of May 1995. 
 

•  ALDIST  155/95,  issued  on  August  21,  1995,  shows  that  no  YNCS  was  advanced  to 
YNCM  after  the  second  YNCM’s  retirement,  but  that  candidates  for  BMCM,  DCCM, 
and ETCM were advanced.  In addition, the applicant submitted the advancement lists for 
these  ratings,  which  show  that  the  master  chief  candidates  whose  advancements  were 
announced in ALDIST 155/95 had placed below the cutoff for guaranteed advancement 
when the advancement list was published. 

•  The Reserve advancement list dated December 27, 2001, shows that the applicant placed 
third on the list for advancement to YNCM, but the cutoff for guaranteed advancement to 
YNCM was one—i.e., only one YNCS was guaranteed advancement to YNCM in 2002. 

•  ALCGPERSCOMs 010/02 and 026/02 announced the advancement of the first and sec-
ond candidates on the Reserve YNCM advancement list—YNCM 8 and YNCM 9—on 
February 1 and April 1, 2002, respectively. 

•  ALCGPERSCOM 039/02 announced that although a rule had been waived to allow mem-
bers to remain in the Selected Reserve beyond their 30th anniversary, the rule under Arti-
cle 7.C.12.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual would still be enforced so that members who 
would have more than 28 years of service as of January 1, 2003, would not be eligible to 
compete for advancement by taking the RSWE in October 2002. 

 

 

 

 

• 

 ALCGPERSCOM  118/02  announced  advancements  authorized  for  December  1,  2002.  
No one was advanced to YNCM. 
 
The applicant stated that after RPM refused to advance her when YNCM 5 attained 30 
years of service, she studied the advancements to master chief petty officer (MCPO) in all the 

ratings and determined that there had been manipulation or borrowing of billets between the rat-
ings;  that  in  some  ratings  advancements  had  been  effected  months  early  in  anticipation  of  an 
MCPO’s attainment of 30 years of service; and that the number of master chiefs and advance-
ments  per  rating  did  not  correspond  to  the  authorized  numbers  for each rating.  In support of 
these allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of an email she sent to the Reserve Force Master 
Chief at HRSIC on August 1, 2003, presenting charts concerning master chief advancements and 
her allegations about her own non-advancement.  She pointed out that, although he had told her 
in 2002 that there was an “overage of E-9s,” two BMCSes had been promoted to BMCM in 2002 
and that although only one PSCM had attained 30 years of service in 2002 and thus dropped off 
the RPAL, four PSCSes had been promoted to PSCM in 2002.  She also pointed out that one 
MKCM had attained 30 years of service and dropped off the RPAL in 2002 but no one was pro-
moted to MKCM to replace him.2  She further asked why a TCCS had been promoted to TCCM 
on January 1, 2003, if there was really an overage of E-9s at the end of 2002.  In addition, the 
applicant noted that YNCM 7 must have dropped off the RPAL on May 31, 2003, because she 
would have attained 30 years of service on that date, but no one advanced to YNCM on June 1, 
2004.  She argued that since some members were apparently promoted to master chief several 
months before the vacancy occurred, she should have been advanced on December 1, 2002, in 
anticipation of YNCM 7’s 30th anniversary. 

 
On August 4, 2003, the Reserve Force Master Chief responded to the applicant’s email.  
He noted that even though YNCM 7 had dropped off the RPAL on May 31, 2003, there were still 
three YNCMs with less than 30 years of service on the RPAL (YNCMs 6, 8, and 9 on the chart 
on page 3) even though only two YNCM billets were authorized.  Therefore, they still had one 
too many YNCMs than authorized.  He stated that he could not see how the applicant could have 
advanced  to  YNCM  in  December  2002  given  the  overage  even  though  YNCM  5  attained  30 
years of service on November 29, 2002.  He stated that he did not know what happened in 1994 
but would try to find someone who did.  He further stated that he did not understand why she had 
provided information about E-9 advancements in other ratings. 

 
On  September  29,  2003,  the  applicant  emailed  the  Reserve  Force  Master  Chief  again.  
She complained that she had not received a response to questions she submitted on August 10, 
2003,  about  her  non-advancement  in  1994.    She  also  asked  why  another  YNCS  was  being 
advanced to YNCM on October 1, 2003 (YNCM 10), if there were already too many YNCMs on 
the RPAL.  The Reserve Force Master Chief replied that he did respond to her previous emails 
but did not have any information about what happened in 1994.  He pointed out that the issue 
“should have been brought up last century and not 10 years after.”  He stated that E-9 advance-
ments  made  in  other  ratings  “have  nothing  to  do  with  YNCM  advancements.    There  are  a 
MAXIMUM of TWO BILLETS for YNCM.”  He recommended that she address her questions to 
CWO S, “the keeper of the advancement numbers,” and forwarded her email to CWO S.  On 
September 30, 2003, CWO S replied to the Reserve Force Master Chief stating that the YNCM 
advancement  occurring  on  October  1,  2003,  “was  from  the  new  department  ‘USJFCOM/ 
CINCLANTFLT’ created this month.”  The Reserve Force Master Chief forwarded the email to 
the applicant and stated that because of the creation of the new YNCM billet there “are now three 

                                                 
2 The applicant later corrected this information to note that two MKCSes had been promoted to MKCM in early 
2002. 

authorized YNCM billets and we have three people filling those billets,” citing YNCMs 8, 9, and 
10, from the chart on page 3 above.   

 
The applicant also stated that since 2004 she has raised her questions about E-9 advance-
ment and the unfairness of not allowing members with more than 28 years of service to compete 
for advancement even though they are now allowed to remain in the Selected Reserve past their 
30th anniversary with various officers, including Admiral Collins and Admiral Allen.  However, 
she has not received a satisfactory answer.  She alleged that the policy prohibiting competition 
for advancement after 28 years of service is contrary to the Coast Guard’s policy and goals of 
creating equal opportunity and developing and retaining a quality work force. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 4, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 

The JAG stated that the applicant was not above the cutoff on the advancement lists in 
effect in either 1995 or 2002, and there were apparently no further vacancies to be filled when 
she rose to the top of those lists.  He noted that under Article 5.C.3.a.2. of the Personnel Manual, 
the cutoff point on an advancement list is set in advance based upon expected Service needs, and 
only members whose names appear above the cutoff are assured of advancement.   

 
The JAG stated that the applicant unduly delayed her complaint with respect to her non-
advancement in 1995 without excuse.  He argued that this part of her claim should be barred by 
the doctrine of laches because “[d]ocuments that might have been relevant to an investigation of 
the  applicant’s  claim  are  no  longer  available  for  review.”    He stated that when an applicant’s 
“unexcused delay has caused substantial prejudice to the government,” the application should be 
barred because during the delay evidence regarding the applicant’s claims “becomes lost, stale, or 
inaccessible” and the costs of investigating or correcting the matter increase.  In support of his 
argument  regarding  the  doctrine  of  laches,  the  JAG  submitted  an  email  from  a  civilian  staff 
member of the Reserve Policy and Plans Division of CGPC, who wrote the following: 

 
The  year  in  question  [1995]  also  followed  a  period  of  significant  drawdown,  where  the  CG 
Reserve went from 12, 000 billets to 8,000 billets.  There are many variables that play in when or 
if  a  member  who  is  eligible  to  advance  gets  advanced,  and  as  you  said,  it  is  driven  off  vacant 
billets.  It does depend on when other members of the same rate in the next higher pay grade retire, 
thereby POTENTIALLY opening a billet.  However, there is the continual process in the field to 
allocate billets where they are needed and in what rates; i.e., the programming of billets.  This is 
done by the SARR process today.  Given the time lapse since 1995, it is nearly impossible at this 
point to determine what transpired back then, and if there was even a position to which to advance 
the member. 

 
 
Regarding the merits of the applicant’s 1995 claim, the JAG stated that her argument that 
she  was  entitled  to  advancement  because  a  YNCM  retired  when  she  was  at  the  top  of  the 
advancement list in 1995 assumes that the YNCM who retired vacated a YNCM billet, which is 
not necessarily the case.  The JAG alleged that Article 12.C.1.a. of the Reserve Administration 
and  Training  Manual  (RATMAN)  in  effect  in  1995  stated  that  “the  overall  objective  [of  the 
advancement  system]  is  to  advance  the  best  qualified personnel to fill available vacancies. … 

Advancements  are  based  on  vacancies  generated  within  a  pyramidal  structure  in  each  rating.  
Vacancies in each rate are based on current shortages.  In ratings that are overpopulated, there is 
no existing shortage; as a result, advancement opportunities are limited.” 
 
 
Therefore, the JAG concluded, the YNCS who was originally in first place on the 1995 
YNCM advancement list was presumably advanced because of a vacancy even though none had 
apparently been expected since the cutoff was set at zero.  The JAG stated that presumably “the 
needs of the service required the Coast Guard to dip below the cutoff point to fulfill a specific 
need; i.e. fill a specific vacancy.  Specific vacancy draws upon a significant distinction between 
“designated  billets”  and  “non-designated  billets.”  [Citation  omitted.]  It  is  most  likely  that  the 
billet occupied by [the first YNCM to retire in 1995] upon his retirement was a designated YN 
billet,” which triggered the advancement of the first YNCS on the advancement list to YNCM.  
The  JAG  further  stated  that  because  the  applicant  was  not  advanced  when  a  second  YNCM 
retired in 1995, it is likely that that YNCM was filling a non-designated billet.  The JAG noted 
that the applicant admitted that she was told by someone in her District Personnel Office in July 
1995—after the second YNCM retired—that there was no vacant YNCM billet, and the informa-
tion given to her by that personnel officer is presumably correct.  The JAG argued that the appli-
cant  has  failed  to  submit  “evidence  to  rebut  the  presumption  that  in  1995,  the  Coast  Guard 
administered  the  Reserve  advancement  program  correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith,”  citing 
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
Regarding the merits of the applicant’s allegation that she was wrongly denied advance-
ment in 2002, the JAG stated the applicant has failed to prove that the RPM Division or other 
Coast Guard personnel “failed to carry out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  He 
noted that the applicant’s “claim for advancement in 2002 received review in and outside of her 
chain of command, which included Flag Level inquiry.”  The JAG stated that the Coast Guard’s 
advancement regulations are written “to ensure a fair and equal advancement opportunity based 
on authorized ‘strength in numbers’ in each grade to provide for the needs of the Service.  The 
applicable statutes and regulations do not bestow upon individual members a right to be involved 
in the decision making process when it comes to an ‘annual strength in numbers’ determination, 
nor do the applicable statutes and regulations require the Coast Guard to deliver an individual-
ized explanation or after action report, breakdown, or summary to each member when they have 
failed to make the cut, or failed to advance.”  The JAG concluded that the applicant was not enti-
tled to advancement in 2002 because she did not place above the cutoff.  In addition, he pointed 
out that although the Reserve Force Master Chief “never addressed the specific inquiry on the 
status of YNCM [5’s] billet, he did answer the underlying premise to her question consistently” 
by noting that there were three YNCMs on the RPAL but only two authorized YNCM billets.  
The JAG noted that under 14 U.S.C. § 702(b), the authorized number of billets for each rating is 
reset “at least annually” in accordance with Service needs, but if the number of authorized billets 
in a particular grade is reduced, members are not usually separated or reduced in grade. 
 
 
The JAG also adopted the facts and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum pre-
pared by CGPC.  CGPC stated that “the delay in application has disproportionately hampered the 
Coast Guard’s ability to ascertain additional information in support of the case.”  CGPC further 
stated that 
 

advancement numbers are produced by comparing bodies to billets.  The number of positions for a 
particular rate comes from the “Billet” list, which is used for advancements.  The number of per-
sonnel attached to those billets comes from the Selected Reserve (SELRES) list, which is not used 
for advancements.  The “SELRES” list is used as a report of strength only.  Changes in positions 
on  the  billet  list  can  significantly  impact  advancements,  but  are  not  visible  to  most  members.  
Another factor in advancement calculations is that some personnel are in billets listed as “general 
petty officer.”  These are mostly Command Master Chief positions.  Personnel in those positions 
are not considered to be filling a job in their rate/rank, which allows for an additional advance-
ment.    Once  these  personnel  return  to  a  normal  billet  within  their  rate/rank,  there  will  be  some 
over-billeting  which  can  delay  advancements  until  either  billet  changes  or  other  losses  occur.  
There are no assumptions or predictions used in the monthly advancement numbers.  Everything is 
based  on  a  snapshot  of  the  reserves  as  of  the  last  day  of the month and the actual inventory of 
billets and members. 
 
CGPC concluded that the record does not support the applicant’s contention that she was 

 
treated unfairly or unjustly denied advancement. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On March 6, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 
and invited her response.  The applicant was granted an extension of the time to respond and her 
response was received on May 16, 2008.   

 
 
In response to the JAG’s argument regarding the doctrine of laches and her 1995 claim, 
the applicant stated that her advancement in 1995 “was swept aside or not effected due to errors 
in administration of the Reserve advancement system.”  She argued that in 1995, the Reserve 
administrators were preoccupied with the changes involved in integrating the Reserve into the 
active duty forces, which caused “chaos within the Active Duty and Reserve programs.”3  The 
applicant  stated  that  in  1995  her  inquiry  was  handled  by  a  junior  petty  officer  at  HRSIC  and 
“should have been referred to a higher level.”  She argued that someone should have advised her 
to apply to the BCMR at that time, but they failed to do so.  She had “no exposure” to the BCMR 
process prior to her performance of extended active duty in 2002.  She also argued that she has 
been diligent and persistent in pursuing her advancement and in inquiring about the denial of her 
advancement since 2002 and that she has shown “a uniform pattern of injustice against [her] that 
is repeated over and over in more recent times.”  She stated that she renewed her inquiries about 
her  1995  non-advancement  in  2003,  when  the  Coast  Guard  “could  have  provided  an  answer” 
about  what  had  happened  in  1995,  but  CWO  S  refused  to  return  her  calls.    In  addition,  she 
pointed out that SPCO B signed the affidavit for her in 2006.  The applicant further argued that if 
the  Coast  Guard  cannot  adequately  answer  her  questions,  its  record-keeping  “appears  to  be 
inadequate.”  She also alleged that the Coast Guard “is unable to furnish documentation to sup-
port its opinion.”  
 
The applicant objected to the JAG’s discussion of what “most likely” happened in 1995 
 
as mere supposition without a factual basis.  She stated that the significant known facts are that 
advancements are sometimes made below the cutoff points and that two YNCMs retired in 1995 
but she was not advanced even though she was at the top of the advancement list when the sec-

                                                 
3  The  applicant  submitted  documents  concerning  problems  encountered  in  integrating  the  Reserve  into  the  active 
duty forces.   

ond YNCM retired.  She further argued that because, under Article 7.C.21.b. of the RATMAN in 
effect in 1995, the cutoff is set based upon the number of advancements to be made in the com-
ing year and yet some members were advanced below the cutoff, advancements must have been 
made without respect to the number of vacant billets.  She argued in essence that because some 
members below the cut on their respective advancement lists were advanced, she was also enti-
tled to advancement in 1995 even though she was below the cutoff. 
 

 
In  response  to  the  JAG’s  argument  that  the  applicant  was  never  assured  advancement 
because  she  placed  below  the  cutoff,  the  applicant  pointed  out  that  sometimes  members  are 
advanced even though their names are below the cutoff.  However, she alleged, the statement 
from  SPCO  B  proves  that  CWO  S  was  biased  against  her  and  would  have  prevented  her 
advancement if there was a vacancy.  The JAG’s failure to respond to SPCO B’s affidavit, she 
argued, reinforces the fact that CWO S “was capable of adverse action” to deny her advancement 
to YNCM.  She noted that in 2002 and 2003, CWO S repeatedly refused to return her telephone 
messages about her non-advancement.   

 
In response to the JAG’s argument that the Board should presume that the advancement 
system was managed correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in 1995 and 2002 based upon the pre-
sumption of regularity, she pointed out that the Coast Guard has already admitted that errors were 
committed in the advancement system, such as the erroneous advancement of a YNCS and PACS 
to master chief rank in 2002.  In addition, she alleged that in deciding not to withdraw the two 
erroneous advancements, CGPC violated Article 5.C.38.e. of the Personnel Manual, which states 
that when enlisted members are advanced as a result of an administrative error, they “shall be 
reduced to the correct rate as of the date the erroneous advancement is noted.” 

 
The applicant stated that the Coast Guard has never provided a responsive answer to her 
inquiries  about  why  she  was  not  advanced  when  YNCM  5  passed  her  30th  anniversary  on 
November  19,  2002.    She  pointed  out  that  the  JAG  admitted  in  the  advisory  opinion  that  the 
Reserve Force Master Chief “never addressed the specific inquiry on the status of YNCM [5’s] 
billet, [but] he did answer the underlying premise to her question consistently.”  The applicant 
stated that she did not ask the Reserve Force Master Chief about “an underlying premise,” so his 
emails were unresponsive to her clearly stated question about why she did not get YNCM 5’s 
billet when she completed 30 years of service on November 29, 2002.  The applicant pointed out 
that the Reserve Force Master Chief acknowledged that members drop off the RPAL on their 30th 
anniversaries because he stated that when he himself “went over thirty,” someone was advanced.  
The applicant concluded that she was entitled to advance in 2002 because she has proved that 

 

•  members are sometimes advanced months in advance in anticipation of a vacancy; 
•  YNCM 5 passed her 30th anniversary on November 29, 2002; 

•  members below the cutoff on an advancement list are sometimes advanced even if there 

is no corresponding vacancy on the RPAL; 

•  members who pass their 30th anniversaries drop off the RPAL list and thus may create a 

vacant billet at their grade level on the RPAL list; 

•  members are sometimes advanced when someone else drops off the RPAL list by passing 

their 30th anniversary; 

•  no one has explained to her exactly why she did not advance when YNCM 5 passed her 
30th  anniversary  except  to  allege  that  there  was  an  overage  of  YNCMs  and  thus  no 
vacancy on the RPAL; and 

•  CWO S was biased against her and in a position to prevent her advancement. 

 
The  applicant  further  argued  that  in  light  of  the  many  errors  committed  within  the 
advancement system, the Board should surmise that her advancement was denied in 2002 as a 
result of an administrative error. 

 
The  applicant  also  stated  that  she  has  never  received  a  satisfactory  response  to  her 
inquiries about why the Coast Guard did not waive the rule prohibiting members with more than 
28  years  of  service  from  competing  for  advancement  when  it  decided  to  allow  members with 
more than 30 years of service to remain in an active status the SELRES.  She submitted evidence 
showing that she has raised the issue with various officials since 2002.  The failure to waive the 
rule prohibiting continued competition for advancement, she argued, denies “equal opportunity 
for advancement to all enlisted personnel.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article  1.D.8.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  (RPM)  in  effect  in  2002  (COMDTINST 

 
 
M1001.28) states the following: 

 

 

 

 
Enlisted and chief warrant officers may be assigned to SELRES TRA/PAY CATs in their first 30 
years of service.  Normally, on the thirtieth anniversary of their pay base date, enlisted and chief 
warrant officers will be transferred to TRA/PAY CAT H.  

Article 7.C.1. of the RPM states the following: 

b. The goal of the Reserve enlisted advancement system provides for the orderly advancement of 
enlisted personnel.  It requires minimum standards of eligibility to ensure a degree of proficiency 
at each grade level. The overall objective is to advance the best qualified personnel to fill available 
vacancies.  
 
c. Advancements are based on vacancies generated within a nationwide pyramidal structure in each 
rating.  Vacancies in each rate are based on current shortages.  In ratings that are overpopulated, 
advancement opportunities are not available. 

 
 
Article 7.D.2. RPM states that “[r]eservists may compete for advancement in the Reserve 
Service Wide Exam except in the following circumstance: a. Candidates who do not have two 
years  of  pay  status  eligibility  remaining,  as  computed  from  01  January  following  the  Service 
Wide Exam, may not compete for advancement to paygrade E-7 and above.”  Article 7.C.12.b. 
states that candidates for advancement to grades E-7, E-8, and E-9  

 
must have at least two years of pay status eligibility remaining as computed from 1 January of the 
year  following  the  October  Service  Wide  Exam,  to  be  eligible  for  advancement.    Individuals 
scheduled for discharge, due to reach their 30 year pay base date (PBD) anniversary, or reaching 
maximum age for mandatory retirement during the two year period following the 1 January date 
are ineligible to participate.  

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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.   

 The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case with-
out a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

An application to the Board must be filed within three years after the applicant 
discovers the alleged error in her record.4  The applicant in this case alleged that the Coast Guard 
erred twice by failing to advance her to YNCM first in 1995 and then in 2002.  Her first claim, 
regarding her non-advancement in 1995, is not timely because she was not serving on active duty 
during 1996, 1997, and 1998.  The three-year statute of limitations is tolled during periods of 
active duty but not during a reservist’s inactive duty in the SELRES.5  The applicant’s second 
claim, which concerns her non-advancement in December 2002, is timely because she served on 
active duty from July 6, 2002, through September 30, 2004, and her application was received by 
the Board on September 11, 2007, within three years of her release from active duty.6   

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the Board may excuse the untimeliness of the 
applicant’s claim with regard to her non-advancement in 1995 if the Board finds that it is in the 
interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court 
stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver of the statute of limita-
tions, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of the 
claim based on a cursory  review.”  The court further instructed that “the longer the delay has 
been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the merits would need to 
be to justify a full review.”7  

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

The applicant argued that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the 
statute of limitations because she has been investigating the matter for the past eight years by 
contacting appropriate offices and has yet to receive a satisfactory answer explaining the Coast 
Guard’s failure to advance her.  She also argued that in 1995, Reserve administrators were pre-
occupied with the Reserve’s integration and that when she called her District Personnel Office to 
inquire about advancement, her inquiry was handled by a junior petty officer when it should have 
been passed to and addressed at a higher level.  In addition, the applicant stated that she had “no 
exposure” to the BCMR until 2002. 

                                                 
4 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
5 See Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that section 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ 
Civil Relief Act of 1940 “tolls the BCMR’s limitations period during a servicemember’s period of active duty”). 
6 Id. 
7 Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164-65 (D.D.C. 1992).  See also Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 
(D.C. Cir. 1995). 
 

6. 

7. 

The Board finds that the applicant’s explanation of her delay in seeking advance-
ment to YNCM in 1995 is not compelling.  She knew she had not been advanced to YNCM in 
1995 and she could and should have sought correction of her record within three years.  Instead, 
she apparently telephoned her District Personnel Office in 1995, accepted the answer given to her 
by a junior petty officer that there was no open YNCM billet, and did not pursue the matter fur-
ther  for  several  years.    The  Board  also notes that while the applicant claims that she had “no 
exposure” to the BCMR, she did not claim to have been unaware of the Board’s existence.  As a 
YNCS dealing with military personnel records, the applicant should have known of the Board’s 
existence  and  should  have  timely  pursued  her  claim  while  the  officers  charged  with  making 
Reserve advancements in 1995 and the documentation of billets, etc., were readily accessible. 
 

The Board’s cursory review of the merits indicates that the applicant’s 1995 claim 
cannot now prevail.  As the Coast Guard argued, because of the applicant’s delay, information—
whether  in  office  records  or  officers’  memories—that  would  have  shed  light  on  whether  the 
applicant was entitled to advancement and why she was not advanced in 1995 is no longer avail-
able.  Therefore, the claim would be barred under the doctrine of laches.  In addition, although 
the  applicant  has  submitted  published  retirement  announcements  for  two  YNCMs  from  1995, 
when she had placed second on the advancement list, she has not shown that those retirements 
left a designated YNCM billet empty for her or reduced the number of YNCMs with less than 30 
years of service below the authorized number on the RPAL.  Given the lack of a good excuse for 
the applicant’s delay with respect to her 1995 claim and the insufficiency of the evidence sup-
porting that claim, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of 
limitations for the 1995 claim, which should therefore be denied. 
 
 
As shown in Finding 3, however, the applicant’s request with respect to her non-
advancement to YNCM as of December 1, 2002, is considered timely because the Board’s statute 
of  limitations  was  tolled  while  she  remained  on  active  duty  through  September  30,  2004.  
According  to  the  record,  the  RPAL  allotment  for  YNCMs  in  December  2002  was  two.  
Therefore,  to  prove  that  she  was  entitled  to advancement on December 1, 2002, the applicant 
must show that there was only one Reserve YNCM with less than 30 years of service on that 
date.    She  alleged  that  the  RPAL was exceeded in some ratings, but even assuming improper 
advancements were made in other ratings, such improprieties would not render the applicant’s 
non-advancement to YNCM either erroneous or unjust.8  (Such logic would make every reservist 
on an advancement list potentially entitled to advancement, not just the applicant.)  Nevertheless, 
if there was only one Reserve YNCM with less than 30 years of service on December 1, 2002—
following  YNCM  5’s  30th  anniversary  on November 29, 2002—the applicant was  presumably 
entitled to advancement because she was at the top of the YNCM advancement list.  The chart 
submitted by the applicant (see page 3 above), however, indicates that there were four Reserve 
YNCMs  with  less  than  30  years  of  service  on  December  1,  2002:    YNCMs  6,  7,  8,  and  9.  
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Coast Guard’s position that there was 
an “overage” of YNCMs in December 2002, and no vacancy on the RPAL to permit the appli-
cant’s advancement, which was the explanation repeatedly given to her at the time. 
 

8. 

                                                 
8 Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976) (finding that for purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. 
§ 1552,  “injustice”  is  “treatment  by  military  authorities  that  shocks  the  sense  of  justice,  but  is  not  technically 
illegal”). 

9. 

 
The CGPC memorandum submitted as part of the advisory opinion indicates that 
not every master chief with less than 30 years of service counts toward the RPAL allotment for 
his or her rating.  YNCMs assigned to “general petty officer” billets—such as Command Master 
Chief billets—rather than to designated yeoman billets do not count toward the RPAL allotment.  
According  to  CGPC,  when  a  YNCM  who  has  been  assigned  to  a  general  petty  officer  billet 
leaves that billet, the YNCM suddenly counts against the RPAL allotment and so there may be an 
“overage”—i.e.,  too  many  YNCMs  on  the  RPAL—if  the  RPAL  allotment  was  already  filled.  
Therefore, theoretically, if three of the four Reserve YNCMs who had less than 30 years of ser-
vice on December 1, 2002, were assigned to general petty officer billets rather than to yeoman 
billets, the applicant might have been entitled to advancement.  However, the applicant made no 
arguments about the designation of the YNCMs’ billets in her application or in her response to 
the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion, and she has not proved that only one of the four YNCMs 
with less than 30 years of service on December 1, 2002, was assigned to a designated yeoman 
billet. 
 

The applicant argued that she should have been advanced to YNCM on December 
1, 2002, in anticipation of YNCM 7’s 30th anniversary on May 31, 2003, because, she alleged, 
members in other ratings were advanced months before a vacancy arose.  However, the fact that 
no YNCS was advanced as a result of YNCM 7’s 30th anniversary indicates that her anniversary 
did not create a YNCM vacancy on the RPAL.  (Perhaps she was assigned to a general petty offi-
cer billet, or perhaps her 30th anniversary simply eliminated some of the surplus of YNCMs on 
the RPAL.)  Moreover, even if, as the applicant alleged, some members were advanced to master 
chief without regard to the needs of the Service or the RPAL, such errors would not justify the 
applicant’s own advancement. 

The applicant submitted an affidavit from SCPO B dated March 3, 2006, stating 
that CWO S—who was the Enlisted Status Manager within the Reserve Personnel Management 
Division at CGPC in 2002—was mad at the applicant for complaining to flag rank officers and 
others about his office’s decision not to waive the rule under Article 7.C.12.b. of the Reserve 
Policy Manual so as to allow her and many others with more than 28 years of service as of Janu-
ary 1, 2003, to compete for advancement by taking the RSWE in October 2002.  However, there 
is no evidence that CWO S ever suffered any negative repercussions because of the applicant’s 
complaints, and a single affidavit alleging an expression of hostility by CWO S against the appli-
cant during a telephone conversation does not overcome the presumption of regularity9 and per-
suade the Board that CWO S would have or could have prevented the applicant’s advancement 
had  there  actually  been  an  RPAL  vacancy  for  a  YNCM  on  December  1,  2002.    Furthermore, 
since the applicant has not proved that there was such a vacancy, the point is moot. 

10. 

 
11. 

 
12. 

The  applicant  repeatedly  pointed  out  that  CGPC  sometimes  advances  members 
whose  names  appear  below  the  original  cutoff  point  on  an  advancement  list.    Clearly,  being 
below the cutoff is not an absolute bar to advancement although only those whose names appear 
above the cutoff are guaranteed advancement.  CGPC sets cutoffs when the advancement lists are 

                                                 
9 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, Government officials are presumed to 
have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”).   
 

issued based on foreseeable losses and Service needs in the next year.  The fact that CGPC some-
times advances members below the cutoff only proves that CGPC cannot perfectly predict future 
losses and Service needs that create RPAL vacancies or new billets; it does not support the appli-
cant’s contention that there was ever a YNCM vacancy on the RPAL that she was erroneously 
denied when she was at the top of the YNCM advancement list.  As stated in Article 7.C.1.c. of 
the Reserve Policy Manual, “[v]acancies in each rate are based on current shortages.  In ratings 
that are overpopulated, advancement opportunities are not available.”  The fact that CGPC some-
times advances members below the cutoff shows that vacancies and new billets are sometimes 
created unexpectedly in the year after an advancement list is issued, as when YNCM 10 (from the 
chart  on  page  3)  was  advanced  on  October  1,  2003,  following  the  creation  of  a  new  YNCM 
billet; it does not prove that officers within CGPC or any other Coast Guard office improperly 
manipulated the master chief billets in a way that prevented the applicant’s advancement.   

The applicant complained that in 2002, CGPC erred in advancing one PACS and 
the YNCS who was ahead of the applicant on the advancement list and did not demote those 
members in accordance with Article 5.C.38.e. of the Personnel Manual when the errors were dis-
covered.  Assuming her allegation is true, CGPC’s error does not prove that the applicant was 
also entitled to the benefit of such an error.  Nor has she shown that, but for these errors, she 
would have advanced to YNCM.  As the applicant was a yeoman, rather than a public affairs 
specialist,  she  was  not  on  the  PACM  advancement  list  and  the erroneous advancement of the 
PACS to PACM is unlikely to have affected the applicant’s own opportunity to advance.  And if 
CGPC  had  not  erroneously  advanced  the  YNCS  who  was  above  the  applicant  on  the  YNCM 
advancement list on April 1, 2002 (YNCM 9 in the chart on page 3), the applicant would never 
have risen to the top of that advancement list because that YNCS would have remained above her 
on the list.   

 
13. 

 
14. 

 
15. 

The applicant argued that it was unfair for the Coast Guard to waive one rule by 
allowing reservists to remain in the SELRES beyond 30 years of service without also waiving the 
rule that prohibits members with more than 28 years of service from competing for advancement.  
She argued that this combination of rules violates equal opportunity policy and undermines the 
Coast  Guard’s  goal  of  retaining  and  developing  qualified  members.    She  submitted  evidence 
showing that the latter rule has been enforced in all ratings although it means that reservists, who 
previously  might  serve  only  their  29th  and  30th  years  without  hope  of  advancement,  may  now 
choose to serve beyond their 30th year without hope of advancement.   

Article  7.C.12.b.  of  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual  in  effect  in  2002  provides  that 
reservists “due to reach their 30 year pay base date (PBD) anniversary … during the two year 
period following the 1 January date [following the October RSWE] are ineligible to participate” 
in the RSWE for advancement to pay grades E-7, E-8, and E-9.  As stated in Article 7.C.1.c., 
“[a]dvancements  are  based  on  vacancies  generated  within  a  nationwide  pyramidal  structure  in 
each rating. … In ratings that are overpopulated, advancement opportunities are not available.”  
The  rule  under  Article  7.C.12.b. effectively increases the opportunities for reservists with less 
than 28 years of service to advance to a higher pay grade by preventing reservists with more than 
28 years of service who are already in a high pay grade from competing for an even higher pay 
grade.  To facilitate the advancement of younger and newer members, the Armed Forces have 
adopted a variety of rules to keep open space at the top of the pyramidal structure of each enlisted 
rating and the officers’ ranks to allow the most qualified new members to advance, which is part 

of the “overall objective” of the advancement system as stated in Article 7.C.1.b.  The Board is 
not persuaded that the Coast Guard erred or committed an injustice when it refused to waive the 
rule under Article 7.C.12.b. at the same time that it decided to allow reservists with more than 30 
years of service to continue serving if they so desire. 

The  applicant  made  numerous  allegations  with  respect  to  the  actions,  attitudes, 
and error rates of various Coast Guard offices and officers.  Those allegations not specifically 
addressed above are considered to be not dispositive of the case. 
 
 
 Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because her claim regard-
ing her non-advancement in 1995 is untimely, and she has not proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence  that  she  failed  to  advance  to  YNCM  in  either  1995  or  2002  because  of  an  error  or 
injustice committed by the Coast Guard. 
 

17. 

 
16. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her 

ORDER 

 
 
military record is denied. 
 
 
 

 
   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 
 Eric J. Young