DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-057 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 upon receipt of the applicant’s 
completed application on December 16, 2010, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 

 
This  final  decision,  dated  August  18,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant, a lieutenant (LT) in the Reserve, asked the Board to adjust her date of rank 
as  a  LT  to  the  date  she  left  active  duty  and  to  remove  from  her  record  her  non-selections  for 
promotion to lieutenant commander (LCDR) in the Reserve. 

 

BACKGROUND 

 
On July 1, 2007, the applicant was promoted to LCDR in the Regular Coast Guard.  On 
 
February  23,  2008,  she  was  punished  at  mast  and  received  a  Punitive  Letter  of  Reprimand  for 
having  a romantic  relationship with  an enlisted  man whom she supervised.  On a special, poor 
performance  evaluation,  her  commanding  officer  wrote  that  she  was  “[n]ot  recommended  for 
promotion.  Recent conduct indicates officer does not possess the judgment and responsibility to 
assume duties of greater leadership or increased responsibilities.”   
 

As a result of these events, the applicant resigned her commission and was discharged on 
July  1,  2008.    Before  her  discharge,  she  requested  an  officer’s  commission  in  the Reserve,  but 
the Regular to Reserve Officer Commission Panel (RROCP) that convened in June 2008 did not 
select  her.    However,  the  RROCP  that  convened  in  September  2008  selected  her  to  receive  a 
commission as a LT.  She was offered the LT commission with a date of rank of May 12, 2004, 
in a letter dated November 5, 2008.  The letter stated that her date of rank was based on that of 
“the senior most officer on the Inactive Duty Promotion List in the Lieutenant grade who has not 

 

 

been considered for promotion to the next higher grade” in accordance with Article 1.H.2.d. of 
the Personnel Manual.  The applicant accepted the LT commission with a May 12, 2004, date of 
rank on November 12, 2008, by signing an Acceptance and Oath of Office.  Her commission was 
made effective retroactive to July 2, 2008. 
 
 
Following  her  discharge  from  active  duty,  the  applicant  found  civilian  employment  for 
which she moved overseas until the spring of 2010.  While working overseas she could not drill 
with  a Reserve unit, and so she was assigned to the  Individual  Ready Reserve and received no 
substantive performance evaluations.  With a LT date of rank of May 12, 2004, the applicant was 
eligible for promotion to LCDR in the Reserve in the fall of 2009 and again in the fall of 2010.  
However, the Reserve LCDR selection board did not select her for promotion in either 2009 or 
2010.  Therefore, she was honorably discharged from the Reserve on June 30, 2011. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE 

 

The applicant stated that when she transferred to the Reserve in 2008, she was demoted 
from  LCDR  to  LT  with  no  explanation  from  the  RROCP.    She  alleged  that  her  demotion  was 
erroneous and unjust because all of the other eight  LCDRs who received Reserve commissions 
through the RROCP in 2008 retained their  LCDR rank.   In addition, she alleged that six of the 
LTs  who  began  their  commissioned  service  in  1997,  as  she  did,  and  who  were  released  from 
active duty in 2008 had their date of rank adjusted to the date they received their Reserve com-
mission.  However, the RROCP erroneously adjusted her date of rank to May 12, 2004, instead 
of July 2, 2008.  This error caused her to be eligible for promotion to LCDR very quickly and so 
she  had  inadequate  time  to  show  improved  performance  before  the  Reserve  LCDR  selection 
board reviewed her record.  The applicant alleged that she did not discover the alleged error in 
her record until July 1, 2010.  In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted the following 
documents: 
 

  ALCGRSV  013/08  stated  that  a  RROCP  would  convene  on  June  3,  2008,  to  consider 
whether  to  award  a  Reserve  commission  to  certain  Regular  officers  who  were  leaving 
active duty.  The applicant’s name and the names of two other LCDRs are on the list of 
those under consideration. (The applicant was not offered a commission by this panel.) 

  ALCGRSV  030/08  announced  that  another  RROCP  would  convene  on  September  10, 
2008.  The applicant’s name and the names of three other LCDRS are on the list of those 
under consideration.  (The applicant was offered a commission as a LT by this panel.) 

  ALCGRSV  043/08  announced  that  a  third  RROCP  would  convene  on  November  12, 

2008.  The names of two more LCDRS are on the list. 

  The applicant  submitted an undated copy of the register of Reserve lieutenants  listed  in 
order  of  their  LT  dates  of  rank.    None  of  the  LCDRs  listed  in  the  three  ALCGRSVs 
appear  on  the  list  of  Reserve  LTs,  except  the  applicant,  which  presumably  means  they 
received commissions as LCDRs.  The register also shows that of the LTs who, like the 
applicant, began their commissioned service in 1997, two have dates of rank in 2001, one 
has date of rank in 2002, the applicant and one other have dates of rank in 2004, two have 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dates of rank in 2005, and eight have dates of rank in 2008.  The names of seven of the 
LTs  listed  as  seeking  Reserve  commissions  in  ALCGRSVs  appear  on  this  register  of 
Reserve LTs, but only one of the seven has a date of rank in 2008. 
 

  On  August  8,  2010,  the  applicant  submitted  a  Letter  of  Communication  to  the  Reserve 
LCDR  selection  board.    She  explained  why  she  had  no  recent  substantive  performance 
evaluations in her record.  However, she noted that upon returning to the United States in 
2010,  she  was  assigned  to  a  Reserve  unit  and  immediately  began  using  her  skills  and 
qualifications  as  a  Senior  Marine  Inspector,  Marine  Casualty  Investigator,  Suspension 
and  Revocation  Investigator,  and  Certified  Defense  Financial  Manager.    The  applicant 
described  her  civilian  job  and  the  significant  work  she  had  been  assigned  by  the  Coast 
Guard  since  returning  home.    The  applicant  further  stated  that  “[i]n  2008,  I  received  a 
punitive letter of reprimand for falling in love and marrying another member of the com-
mand.  That period of time was difficult for me, but I feel that in the end, I made the right 
choices for my personal life.  I take full responsibility for my actions and have found that 
the experience has helped me grow significantly, as an officer and a person.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 30, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 

 
 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s requests.   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  RROCP  deliberations  about  whether  to  offer  commissions  and  at 
what rank are confidential, and the JAG will not speculate on why the RROCP decided to offer 
the applicant a commission as a LT.  The JAG noted that the applicant could have appealed the 
RROCP’s decision in accordance with Article 1.H.3. of the Personnel Manual, but did not.  The 
JAG stated that the applicant voluntarily accepted the commission she was offered, and her alle-
gations are without merit. 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant’s  LT  date  of  rank  was  adjusted  to  May  12,  2004,  in 
 
accordance  with  the  policy  in  Article  1.H.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and  that  her  desire  or 
ability  to  show  improved  performance  “is  not  dispositive  nor  a  factor  for  consideration  [with 
regard to] her date of rank determination.” 
 
 
The JAG noted the applicant’s then-pending discharge from the Reserve and stated that 
“[a]lthough  extremely  unfortunate  for  this  applicant,  the  applicant’s  choice  of  violating  clearly 
established 8H policy was the catalyst for her career destruction.  If [she] was not satisfied with 
[the PSC’s] appointment [as a LT with a date of rank of May 12, 2004], she could have rejected 
the offer in its entirety” or appealed the decision.  The JAG noted that because the applicant is 
challenging significant issues of Coast Guard policy, any decision to the contrary by the Board 
should be reviewed by the delegate of the Secretary. 
 

The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis of the case provided in a memorandum 
prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).  The PSC stated that the applicant was offered 
and voluntarily accepted a commission as a LT with a date of rank of May 12, 2004.  The PSC 
stated that because she received notice that her proposed commission in the Reserve would be as 

 

 

a  lieutenant  with  a  May  12,  2004,  date  of  rank,  no  error  was  committed.    The  PSC  also  stated 
that  under  Article  1.H.2.d.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant’s  LT  date  of  rank,  May  12, 
2004, is correct. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On April 6, 2011, the Chair mailed the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

and invited her to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
The Coast Guard’s regulations for Regular to Reserve commissions of former active duty 
Coast Guard and Navy officers appear in Article 1.H. of the Personnel Manual 1.H.1.  Any Coast 
Guard officer who resigns his Regular commission or who has twice been non-selected for pro-
motion  but  is  not  eligible  for  retirement  may  apply  for  a  Reserve  commission.    PERSMAN, 
Article  1.H.2.a.    Under  Article  1.H.2.c.,  after  reviewing  the  applicants’  military  records,  the 
RROCPs may 

 

(a)  approve the request; 

 

(b)  conditionally  approve  the  request,  offering  a  Reserve  commission  at  the  same  grade  held 

while a member of the Regular Coast Guard or Navy, but assigned a different date of rank; 

(c)  conditionally approve the request, offering a Reserve commission, but at a lower grade than 

previously held, or; 

(d)  disapprove the request. 
 
Under Article 1.H.2.d. of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Date of Rank Determination,” 
 
1.  If applicant is approved with an appointment to the same grade, the date of rank shall remain 
the same if the applicant resigned their commission from active duty. 
 
2.  If applicant, who has multiple non-selections on the ADPL and is discharged from active duty, 
is approved with an appointment to the same grade, the date of rank shall be the date the applicant 
signs their oath for a Reserve commission. 
 
3.  If applicant is approved with appointment to a lower grade, the date of rank will normally be 
equal to that of the senior most officer on the Inactive Duty Promotion List in that grade who has 
not yet been considered for promotion to the next higher grade. 

 

 

 

Under Article 1.H.3. of the Personnel Manual, an applicant for a Regular to Reserve com-
mission may appeal a decision of the RROCP to offer a commission at a lower grade than that 
previously held by the officer.   The appeal must be made within 15 days of receipt of the letter 
offering the commission and must include “additional information that is a matter of record but 
was not available to the panel making the original determination.  Mere disagreement is not suf-
ficient justification for appeal.” 
 
 

 

 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
Under  10  U.S.C.  §  1552(b)  and  33  C.F.R.  §  52.22,  an  application  to  the  Board  must  be  filed 
within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice.  Although the appli-
cant alleged that she discovered the errors in her record on July 1, 2010, the Board finds that the 
preponderance of the evidence shows that she knew about the alleged errors—her commission-
ing  as  a  LT  with  a  date  of  rank  of  May  12,  2004—on  or  about  November  5,  2008,  when  she 
received  the  written  offer  of  the  commission.    Since  her  application  was  received  within  three 
years of that date, it was timely filed. 

 
2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.1   
 

3.  

The applicant alleged that her Reserve rank, date of rank, and non-selections for 
promotion resulting in her discharge from the Reserve are erroneous and/or  unjust.  The Board 
begins its analysis in every case by “presuming administratively regularity on the part of Coast 
Guard  and  other  Government  officials.”2    The  applicant  bears  the  burden  of  proving  the  exis-
tence of an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.3  Absent evidence to the con-
trary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard  officials  and  other  Government  employees  have 
carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”4  

 
4. 

The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence that her Reserve commission as a LT, instead of a LCDR, is erroneous or unjust.  The 
record  shows  that  she  was  offered  a  commission  as  a  LT  and  voluntarily  accepted  it.    The 
RROCP has authority to approve or disapprove  a Regular officer’s  request  for  a Reserve com-
mission and is also expressly authorized, under Article 1.H.2.c.2.(c) of the Personnel Manual, to 
offer only a commission at a lower rank.  The applicant complained that she received no expla-
nation  of  the  RROCP’s  decision  in  this  regard,  but  she  is  not  entitled  to  one  under  the  regula-
tions.  The Board notes, however, that Regular officers may be offered Reserve commissions at a 

                                                 
1 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b). 
3 Id. 
4 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

lower rank based on their past performance or simply because there are insufficient vacancies in 
the Reserve at their active duty rank.5 

 
5. 

The Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that her LT date of rank in the Reserve is erroneous or unjust.  The Coast Guard has stated 
that her May 12, 2004, date of rank accords with the requirement of Article 1.H.2.d.3. of the Per-
sonnel Manual that an officer approved for appointment to a lower grade in the Reserve receive 
the  same  date  of  rank  as  “the  senior  most  officer  on  the  Inactive  Duty  Promotion  List  in  that 
grade who has not  yet been considered for promotion to the next higher grade.”  The applicant 
has not proved that her date of rank does not conform to this policy.  Although she complained 
that her date of rank did not give her sufficient time in the Reserve to improve her performance 
record and chance of promotion, no provision of the Personnel Manual allows an officer to select 
a date of rank simply to enhance their opportunity for promotion.  The rule in Article 1.H.2.d.3. 
appears reasonably designed to help former active duty officers with strong performance records 
regain their prior, higher rank after they accept Reserve commissions at a lower rank.  The appli-
cant’s performance record, however, was not strong because of the mast and special OER.  She 
might have had a better chance for promotion if the rule in Article 1.H.2.d.3. were different or if 
she had been able to drill with a Reserve unit throughout her first two years in the Reserve, but 
these  possibilities  do  not  prove  that  either  the  rule  in  Article  1.H.2.d.3.  or  her  date  of  rank  is 
erroneous or unjust. 

 
6. 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  remove  her  non-selections  for  promotion  in 
2009 and 2010 from her record so that she could remain in the Reserve.  Because the applicant 
has not proved that her military record contained any prejudicial error when it was reviewed by 
the  LCDR selection boards in  2009 and 2010, there are no grounds for removing her two non-
selections for promotion.6   

 
 7. 
 

 

 
 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s requests should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

                                                 
5 See Article 7.A.4. of the Reserve Policy Manual (showing that the total number of commissioned officers and the 
percentage of commissioned officers at each rank is prescribed by statute). 

6 Christian v. United States, 337 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 
175-76 (Ct. Cl. 1982); Quinton v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 118, 125 (2005). 

 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

her military record is denied.