DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2010-218 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXX   

 

 
 

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 on August 3, 2010, and subsequently prepared 
the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  19,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 The applicant asked the Board to correct his  record to show that he was appointed to 

 
 
warrant officer status on June 1, 2009. 
 

BACKGROUND 

 

 
The  applicant  was  selected  for  a  warrant  officer  appointment  in  June  2008.    The 
appointment list was published on June 6, 2008 and was effective from June 1, 2009 through 
May 31, 2010.  The applicant was number 8 on the list of 45 selected for warrant officer in the 
marine safety specialist engineering specialty and the initial cut (those ensured an appointment) 
was at number 4.   The message publishing the appointment list stated the following, in pertinent 
part: 
 

[O]nly  those  whose  names  appear  at  or  above  the  cutoff  for  each  specialty  are 
assured appointment as vacancies occur.  Those whose names appear at or above 
the cutoff by the time this list expires on 31 May 2010 will be carried over to the 
top  of  the  next  eligibility  list,  ahead  of  new  candidates.    Those  whose  names 
appear  at  or  above  the  predictor,  but  below  the  cutoff  are  in  no  way  assured 
appointment to warrant grade and should be prepared to recompete in next year’s 
CWO appointment board . . .   
 

Commanding  officers  shall  .  .  .  comply  [Articles]  1.D.11.E.  and  F.  of  the 
[Personnel Manual], with respect to physical examinations . . .  .  
 
 
The record indicates that the cut was revised to number 13 on September 18, 2008, and to 
number  28  on  December  23,  2008.    On  January  14,  2009,  the  detailer  for  warrant  officer 
assignments sent the  applicant an email advising him to submit his assignment preference for 
warrant  officer.    The  detailer  also  advised  the  applicant  that  he  expected  orders  for  new 
assignments  to  be  issued  on  February  6,  2009  and  that  the  applicant  was  required  to  have  a 
commissioning physical within one year of his appointment date, June 1, 2009.    
 
 
The  applicant  responded  to  the  email  by  explaining  that  he  had  undergone  an  initial 
medical  board  (IMB)  and  that  he  would  likely  be  retired  within  the  next  year  because  of  a 
physical disability.  According to the applicant, the detailer told him in a subsequent telephone 
conversation that his appointment would be withheld due to the medical board.  The applicant 
alleged that the detailer told him that he would be carried over to the next appointment board if 
“it got this far with no results.”  
 

 The applicant complained about the amount of time it was taking to process him through 
the physical disability evaluation system (PDES).  He stated that he signed the medical board in 
October 2008 and rejected the informal physical evaluation board (IPEB) findings in December 
2009.  As of May 12, 2010, he was still waiting for a final decision from the PDES.  The Coast 
Guard recently informed the Board that the applicant had been found unfit for duty on February 
13, 2011.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief in accordance with a memorandum 
from  the  Commander,  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC).    PSC  stated  that  the  applicant  was 
scheduled to be appointed to warrant officer on June 1, 2009, but he had an IPEB pending at that 
time.   PSC stated that according to Article 1.D.11 of the Personnel Manual, if an appointee is not 
physically qualified on the date of appointment, PSC will remove the candidate’s name from the 
final eligibility list, and if the candidate becomes fit for full duty and the current list has expired, 
the member must re-compete for a future CWO appointment.  PSC stated that the applicant is not 
physically qualified for a CWO appointment.     

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 20, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the 
Coast Guard.  He disagreed with them.  He stated that on the date he should have been appointed 
to warrant officer the medical board had reviewed his case and referred it to the  IPEB.    He 
argued that at that time he was entitled to a presumption of fitness for duty under Article 2.B.2. 
of the PDES Manual because physical evaluation boards only make recommendations about a 
member’s fitness for duty.      
 

 
The applicant also argued that since there was no adverse information in his record, his 
name  should  not  have  been  removed  from  the  eligibility  list  under  Article  1.D.10  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  He argued that having a pending physical evaluation board is not the type of 
adverse information contemplated by the Personnel Manual for removal from the appointment 
eligibility list.   
 

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: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.   
 

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

2.    The  applicant  alleged  that  his  name  was  removed  from  the  warrant  officer 
appointment list without proper compliance with the procedures in Articles 1.D.10 and 1.D.11.d. 
of the Personnel Manual.  Articles 1.D.10 and 1.D.11.d. allow for the removal of an appointee’s 
name  from  the  warrant  officer  final  eligibility  list  due  to  a  moral  or  professional  failing. 
However, except for the applicant’s statement, there is no other evidence in the record to support 
his contention in this regard.   The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that 
his name was removed from the appointment eligibility list under Article 1.D.10 or 1.D.11.d.   

 
3.    The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  admitted  that  the  detailer  for  warrant  officers 
informed  him  in  January  2009  that  his  appointment  would  be  withheld  after  the  applicant 
informed the detailer that he was undergoing PDES processing.  The applicant’s statement in this 
regard  supports  the  Board  finding  that  his  name  was  removed  from  the  warrant  officer 
appointment  eligibility  list  because  he  was  unable  to  comply  with  Article  1.D.11.e.  of  the 
Personnel  Manual  by  producing  a  medical  report  that  he  was  physically  qualified  for  an 
appointment.  This provision of the Personnel Manual states the following: 
 

A commissioning physical is required for appointment.  It must be reviewed and 
approved by Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command . . . or designated 
clinical administrator prior to execution of the oath of office.  If the appointee is 
physically qualified on the date of appointment, a copy of the approved Report of 
Medical Examination (SF-88) shall be forwarded to Commander ([PSC]-opm-1) 
along with the completed oath of office form.  If the appointee is not physically 
qualified  on  the  date  of  appointment,  the  appointment  letter  along  with  the 
original  SF-88  shall  be  returned  to  Commander  ([PSC]-opm-1).    Commander 
([PSC]-opm-1) will remove the candidate’s name from the Final Eligibility List.  
 
4.  As stated, Article 1.D.11.e. requires appointees to undergo a commissioning physical 
examination and to submit a Report of Medical Examination Form SF-88 showing that they are 
physically qualified before they can become warrant officers.  Even if an appointment letter is 
issued to a given appointee, the appointee must return the letter and cannot take the oath of office 
unless he can submit a Form SF-88 that has been reviewed and approved by appropriate Coast 
Guard  personnel.      The  applicant  has  not  submitted  an  SF-88  or  any  other  medical  evidence 

showing that he was physically qualified for a warrant officer appointment on June 1, 2009 or 
any date thereafter. 
 

5.    In  response  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  finding  in  the  advisory  opinion  that  he  was  not 
physically  qualified  for  an  appointment  under  Article  1.D.11.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the 
applicant asserted that he was entitled to a presumption of fitness for duty under Article 2.B.2. of 
the PDES Manual.   However, the procedures in the PDES Manual pertain to fitness for duty to 
remain in the Coast Guard and do not relieve the applicant of his obligation to comply with the 
requirements of Article 1.D.11.e. of the Personnel Manual.  Removing the applicant’s name from 
the  appointment  eligibility  list  did  not  affect  his  rights  under  PDES,  which  he  apparently 
continued to pursue even after his name was removed from the warrant officer appointment list. 
 Even  assuming  that  the  applicant’s  removal  from  the  appointment  list  was  procedurally 
incorrect  or  premature,  the  applicant  still  was  required  to  comply  with  the  appointment 
requirements of Article 1.D.11.e. of the Personnel Manual by showing through a SF-88 that he 
was  physically  qualified  for  an  appointment.    In  addition,  the  applicant  has  submitted  no 
evidence that that his removal from the appointment list prevented him from obtaining a Form 
SF-88; nor does he even allege that he was medically qualified for a warrant officer appointment 
as of June 1, 2009, the date of his scheduled appointment or any subsequent date.   The Board 
notes that under Article 1.D.11.e., the applicant had until May 31, 2010, the date on which the 
appointment eligibility list expired, to obtain the necessary SF-88 proving that he was physically 
qualified for a warrant officer appointment.  He did not do so.   
  

5.    Therefore,  for  the  reasons  discussed  above,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has 
failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by not appointing him as a 
warrant officer from the 2008 appointment eligibility list.  Accordingly, his request should be 
denied.   
 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Frank E. Howard 

 

 

 

 
 
 Jennifer A. Mehaffey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is denied.