DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2010-034 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records on November 18, 2009, and 
subsequently prepared the final decision 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  July  29,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by removing his promotion 
year [PY] 2010 failure of selection for promotion to lieutenant (LT) and by directing that the next 
selection  board  to  consider  his  record  be  considered  his  first  opportunity  for  promotion  to  the 
grade of LT.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  consideration  for  promotion  to  LT  before  the  PY  2010 
 
selection  board  was  unjust  because  he  did  not  have  enough  time  in  grade  as  a  LTJG  to  be 
competitive for promotion to LT.  The applicant was promoted to LTJG on July 1, 2008 and the 
PY  2010  LT  selection  board  met  on  September  21,  2009.    The  applicant  stated  that  “[w]hen 
selecting my date of rank, I was unaware that the date would position me to be up for the next LT 
board.  [If I had known,] I would have selected a different date of rank.”   
 

BACKGROUND 

 

In two earlier BCMR applications, the Board ordered the applicant’s record corrected by 
reinstating him to active duty and by removing an OER and his failure of selection for promotion 
to  LTJG.  On May 11, 2007, the Board issued the following order in a technical  amendment to 
Docket No. 2006-070: 

 

 

 

 

Within  a  reasonable  time,  but  not  to  exceed  sixty  days  from  the  date  of  this 
decision, the Coast Guard shall offer the applicant the opportunity to be reinstated 
on  active  duty  at  a  unit  other  than  Coast  Guard  Sector  Portland.    Such 
reinstatement shall be at a time convenient to the applicant and Coast Guard, but 
must  be  completed  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  this  decision.  The 
applicant's record shall be further corrected to show that he was never discharged 
from  active  duty  and  that  his  commission  was  never  revoked.    He  shall  receive 
back pay and allowances, subject to appropriate off-sets. 
 
If  the  applicant  returns  to  active  duty,  he  shall  be  given  the  opportunity  to  earn 
one  full  additional  OER  before  his  record  is  placed  before  a  selection  board  for 
promotion to LTJG.    
 
Once  the  applicant  has  earned  one  additional  OER  (for  a  complete  OER  cycle) 
after  his  reinstatement  to  active  duty,  his  record  shall  be  placed  before  the  next 
LTJG selection board.  If the applicant is selected for promotion to LTJG by that 
board, he shall receive the date of rank commensurate with that board or a date of 
rank no earlier than if selected by the 2006 selection board at his discretion.  If the 
applicant  is  not  selected  for  promotion  by  that  board,  he  shall  be  considered  to 
have twice failed of selection for promotion to LTJG. 
 
 
The applicant was selected for promotion to  LTJG by the selection board that convened 
on June 2, 2008.  Pursuant to the Board’s order in 2006-070, the applicant’s LTJG date of rank 
could have been commensurate with that resulting from the 2008 selection or a date of rank no 
earlier than that he would have had if selected by the 2006 selection board, at his discretion.   In 
an email from the applicant to Coast Guard personnel at Headquarters, the applicant stated that 
he elected July 1, 2008 as his LTJG date of rank and not an earlier date.  He stated the following:  
“It is my understanding that if I choose to have my rank (LTJG) backdated, I would be up for LT 
promotion without any LTJG OERs.  With no LTJG OERs, I would not be very competitive for 
that board.  Not being very competitive for LT at this point has been a driving factor for me to 
choose  the  date  of  rank  (LTJG)  of  July  1,  2008.”    On  August  1,  2008,  the  applicant  was 
appointed to the grade of LTJG with a July 1, 2008 date of rank.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 15, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  The JAG adopted 
the findings and analysis provided in  a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Service  Command  (PSC).    In  recommending  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request,  PSC 
offered the following: 
 

[T]he applicant was not selected for promotion by the PY10 LT selection board.   
 
Although the applicant had the latest date of rank of those considered by the PY 
10 LT selection board, he had three LTJG  OERs prior to going before the board. 

 

 

 

 
Of  the  389  members  reviewed  by  the  PY  10  LT  selection  board,  approximately 
300 had three or fewer OERs. 
 
The applicant’s claim that he was “unaware” is based on a flawed assumption that 
[he] had the option to  choose a later date of  rank.  The applicant’s July  1, 2008 
date of rank is the latest date of rank he could have chosen pursuant to BCMR No. 
2006-070. 
 
Due to the law . . . and policies . . . governing officer promotions, it is common 
for  LTJGs  to  have  only  three  LTJG  OERs  prior  to  being  placed  before  a  LT 
selection board.  Therefore, the member’s date of rank did not disadvantage him 
as compared to his peers.   
 
Granting the applicant relief based on his date of rank would set a precedent that 
may  require  revision  of  14  USC  §  257  thereby  delaying  promotions  to  LT.  
Upsetting  the  long  standing  officer  promotion  cycle  will  have  unintended 
workforce management impacts and is not in the best interests of the Coast Guard.   

APPLICANT’S REPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On April 21, 2010, the Board sent  the applicant  a copy of the Coast  Guard’s views and 
advised  him  that  he  could  submit  a  response.    The  Board  did  not  receive  a  reply  from  the 
applicant to the views of the Coast Guard.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 

            2.  The applicant’s contention  that his PY 2010 failure of selection for promotion  to LT 
was  unjust  because  his  July  1,  2008  LTJG  date  of  rank  resulted  in  his  record  being  non-
competitive  for  promotion  is  without  merit.    The  applicant  has  not  alleged,  nor  presented  any 
evidence, that his record before the LT selection board was not a fair and accurate representation 
of his performance.  Although he argued that he was not competitive because of his LTJG date of 
rank,  he  offered  no  evidence  to  support  that  allegation.  In  fact,  the  applicant  had  earned  three 
LTJG OERs when his record was considered by the LT selection board.  According to the Coast 
Guard, approximately 300 other LTJGs before that board had three or fewer OERs.  This statistic 
strongly suggests that it was not the applicant’s date of rank that caused his failure but rather his 
record  of  performance.    According  to  Article  14.A.4.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  all  commis-
sioned service of a LTJG is considered significant when evaluated for promotion to LT.  In this 
regard,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant’s  record  contains  a  derogatory  ensign  OER  in  which 
the  reporting  officer  rated  him  as  unsatisfactory  on  the  comparison  scale  in  block  9  when 

 

 

compared  to  all  other  ensigns  that  reporting  officer  has  known  throughout  his  career.    Further, 
selection to LT is on a best qualified basis and the applicant was not among those the selection 
board members considered best qualified.    
 
 
3.  The applicant suggested that if he had known that a July 1, 2008 date of rank would 
have  had  his  record  placed  before  the  next  selection  board  he  would  have  selected  a  different 
date of rank.  The applicant misinterpreted the relief ordered by the Board in Docket No. 2006-
070. The order in that case was not without limitation.  In Docket No. 2006-070, the Board found 
that the applicant, an ensign at the time, had been wrongfully discharged from the Coast Guard 
and  ordered  his  reinstatement  to  active  duty  and  the  placement  of  his  record  before  the  LTJG 
selection  board  only  after  being  allowed  the  opportunity  to  earn  at  least  one  full  OER  prior  to 
consideration by that board.  The Board further ordered that if the applicant was selected by the 
LTJG selection board he would receive a date of rank “commensurate with that board or a date of 
rank no earlier than if selected by  the 2006  LTJG selection board.”  The  LTJG selection board 
met  on  June  2,  2008,  and  the  applicant  in  consultation  with  PSC  personnel  decided  on  July  1, 
2008 as his LTJG date of rank.   The applicant’s LTJG date of rank was in accordance with the 
Board’s order in Docket No. 2006-070 and the applicant has not proved otherwise.  Moreover, by 
having a July 1, 2008 LTJG date of rank, the applicant was able to build a record as a LTJG by 
earning three LTJG OERs.   
 

4.  Further there was no legal error in placing the applicant’s record before  the PY 2010 
LT  selection  board.    According  to  Article  5.A.4.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  a  LTJG  becomes 
eligible for promotion to the next higher grade at the beginning of the promotion year in which 
he  or  she  completes  2  years  of  service  computed  from  the  date  of  rank  in  the  grade  in  which 
serving.  Pursuant to Article 5.A.1.d. the promotion year begins on July 1 of each year and ends 
on  June  30  of  the  following  year.    The  applicant’s  LTJG  date  of  rank  is  July  1,  2008,  and  he 
became eligible for consideration for promotion to LT on July 1, 2009.  Therefore, the applicant 
was properly before the LT selection board, which met on September 21, 2009, because he was 
in his second year as a LTJG on July 1, 2009. 

 
5.  Since the applicant has not shown an error or injustice in his record, no basis exists on 
which to consider the removal of his failure of selection for promotion to LT.   Accordingly, the 
applicant’s request should be denied.    

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

  
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for correction of his military record 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr. 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
is denied.