DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2012-029 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
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  after  receiving  the  completed 
application  on  November  29,  2011,  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  August  3,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The  applicant,  a  senior  chief  xxxxxxxxx  (XXCS/E-8)  in  the  Coast  Guard  Selected 
Reserve  (SELRES),  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  record  by  advancing  her  to  master  chief 
xxxxxxxxx (XXCM/E-9) as of December 1, 20xx, and to award her the back pay and allowances 
that would be due as a result of that advancement.1   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  20xx,  there  were  four  authorized  Reserve  XXCM  billets, 
and only two of the billets were filled.  In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted the 
October 31,  20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Manpower Report  - Positions,” showing  a total of  four 
authorized XXCM billets in the SELRES; and the October 31, 20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Man-
power  Report  –  Strength  by  Paygrade,”  showing  that  only  two  of  the  four  authorized  XXCM 
billets were filled.2  The applicant noted that at the time, there were actually seven reservists who 
were  XXCMs,  but  five  of  them  did  not  count  against  the  Reserve  component  end  strength 
because  

                                                 
1 The applicant actually stated, “I should have been advanced to XXCM during FY 20xx.  I request advancement on 
1 Dec  20xx  with appropriate adjustments to pay.”  December 1,  20xx, is in fiscal  year (FY)  20xx, rather than FY 
20xx,  but  Coast  Guard  advancements  lists  are  normally  effective  for  periods  of  calendar  years,  rather  than  fiscal 
years, so the Board presumes the applicant meant calendar year (CY) 20xx rather than fiscal year (FY). 
2  The  SELRES  Manpower  Reports  also  show  that  although  there  were  92  master  chief  positions  authorized, 
including 27 non-rate-specific positions, and 91 master chiefs filling those positions, four ratings, including DC, FS, 
IV, and YN, had fewer master chiefs than authorized positions.   

 

 

 

 

two had been serving on active duty for a few years and, under Chapter 1.C.2.b.(1) of the 
Reserve Policy Manual, reservists serving on active duty for more than 180 are counted 
in the active duty component end strength, rather than the Reserve component; 
three (including one of those on active duty) had more than 30 years of service; and 

 
  one was over 60 years old and on the inactive status list. 

 
Therefore, the applicant concluded, because there were two vacant XXCM billets in the 
SELRES, and eligible reservists are supposed to be advanced to fill vacancies,  she should have 
been advanced.3 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  at  the  time  she  contacted  the  following  persons  and  offices 
about  her  entitlement  to  advancement  to  no  avail:  her  unit’s  Reserve  Command  Master  Chief, 
Senior  Reserve  Officer,  the  District’s  Reserve  Command  Master  Chief,  the  Reserve  Enlisted 
Assignment Officer, the Xxxxxxxxx Rating Force Master Chief, the Master Chief Petty Officer 
of  the  Coast  Guard  –  Reserve  Component,  The  Deputy  Commander  for  Mobilization  and 
Reserve Affairs Atlantic Area, and Personnel Service Center Advancements.   

 
The  applicant  noted  that  in  20xx,  when  she  was  no  longer  eligible  for  advancement 
because she had more than 28 years of service,4 three other reservists advanced from XXCS to 
XXCM.  In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted the September 20xx Reserve man-
power reports showing five XXCMs with less than 30 years of service.  (Although the number of 
authorized XXCM billets remained at four, one XXCM who had been serving on active duty for 
several  years returned to the SELRES  and so the authorized number of Reserve  XXCM billets 
was temporarily exceeded.) 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On February 24, 2012, 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 after taking the Reserve servicewide examination (SWE) in October 
2009, the applicant was first on the advancement list for advancement to XXCM in calendar year 
20xx.  The JAG alleged, however, that the Service “had no vacancies or service need to advance 
the  applicant”  in  20xx.    Citing  Article  5.C.1.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  20xx,  the 

                                                 
3  The  applicant’s  allegation  suggests  that  she  was  at  the  top  of  the  Reserve  XXCM  advancement  list  in  effect  in 
20xx.    The  applicant  failed  to  allege  this  fact  or  to  submit  the  advancement  list  to  prove  it.    However,  the  Coast 
Guard  admitted  in  the  advisory  opinion  that  she  was  one  of  three  XXCSes  who  took  the  Reserve  servicewide 
examination for advancement to  XXCM in October 2009, and that, as a result, she “was number one on the list to 
advance for calendar year 20xx.” 
4  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.”    Because  the 
applicant  had  28  years  of  military  service  as  of  March  5,  20xx,  she  was  not  allowed  to  take  the  servicewide 
examination to compete for advancement in October 20xx and so was not on the advancement list in effect in 20xx. 

 

 

JAG argued that “Coast Guard policy with respect to enlisted advancements is well settled in that 
‘[t]he  objective  of  the  enlisted  advancement  system  is  to  ensure  the  required  degree  of  profi-
ciency at the various grade levels  within each specialty and promote those best qualified to  fill 
vacancies which occur.’”  (Emphasis in original.)  The JAG stated that the applicant’s reliance 
on the Coast Guard Reserve’s manpower reports to assert that there were Reserve XXCM vacan-
cies in  20xx is erroneous but  did not explain why  except  to  note that Service needs, as well as 
vacancies, play a role in whether members are advanced. 

 
The  JAG  noted  that  enlisted  members  compete  for  advancement  “irrespective  of  the 
availability  of  anticipated  vacancies”  and  that  cutoff  points  for  guaranteed  advancement  are 
“based upon vacancies anticipated at the time the eligibility list is compiled.”  The JAG stated 
that members below the cutoff should plan to re-compete for advancement and that it is unknown 
why the applicant did not take the October 20xx SWE.5 

 
The JAG argued that the applicant “has failed to show an error or injustice with regard to 
her advancement opportunities.  The Applicant’s assertions are speculative at best and failed to 
show the CG did not follow its policy or law regarding the advancement processes.”  Therefore, 
the JAG argued that the Board should deny the application. 

 
In recommending denial, the JAG adopted the findings and analysis in a memorandum on 
the case submitted by Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).  PSC stated that there was 
no Service need to advance a XXCS to XXCM in 20xx and that the Reserve manpower reports 
are just “one tool that the Coast Guard uses to determine the number of reservists that advance 
each month.”  PSC alleged that the applicant did not prove the Coast Guard committed any error 
by not advancing her.  Therefore, PSC recommended that the Board deny the application. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On April 17, 2012, the applicant submitted her rebuttal to the views of the Coast Guard.  
The  applicant  alleged  that,  contrary  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  claims,  reservists’  advancements  are 
determined by vacancies alone—i.e., by comparing the number of authorized positions (billets) 
to  the  manpower  strength  by  paygrade.    She  noted  that  in  2006,  the  Reserve  Policy  Manual 
(RPM)  was  amended  because  too  many  Reserve  billets  were  standing  empty  while  the  incum-
bents filled active duty billets.  The amended RPM (Change 3) provided that reservists serving 
on  active  duty  for  more  than  180  days  no  longer  counted  as  part  of  the  Reserve  manpower 
strength and counted as part of the active duty manpower strength instead.  Therefore, she should 
have  advanced  to  XXCM  because  there  were  two  vacancies  shown  on  the  Reserve  Manpower 
Report, which, she alleged, “is the only tool necessary to determine the number of reservists that 
advance each month.” 

 
The  applicant  alleged,  however,  that  the  new  policy  in  Change  3  was  not  properly  fol-
lowed in 20xx.  Late in 20xx, while discussing this issue with the active duty Master Chief of the 
Coast  Guard,  he  told  her  that  “[a]lthough  this  does  not  help  your  situation  or  the  few  others 
affected in  FY 20xx, I have heard from a reliable source that members on ADOS  [active duty] 

                                                 
5 But see note 3, above, for explanation of applicant’s ineligibility to take the SWE in October 20xx because she had 
more than 28 years of service. 

 

 

for  over  180  days  will  not  be  considered  in  future  advancements.”    Subsequently,  in  20xx, 
Reserve XXCMs serving on ADOS for more than 180 days were not counted in determining the 
SELRES  manpower  strength  and  three  XXCSes  advanced  to  XXCM.    However,  the  applicant 
argued, the new policy had been in effect since 2006 and should have been applied in 20xx.  She 
alleged that if it had been, she would have advanced to XXCM. 

 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard’s reliance on an alleged lack of Service need 
for  another  XXCM  is  erroneous  and  noted  that  the  Coast  Guard  did  not  cite  any  regulation  or 
policy providing that advancements depend upon Service need, as well as on vacancies in autho-
rized billets.  She noted that while the Personnel Manual contains the phrase “Service need” 134 
times,  the  phrase  does  not  appear  anywhere  in  Article  5.C.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  which 
governs the advancement of enlisted personnel.  In addition, the phrase appears three times in the 
RPM, but not once in the Chapter 7.C., which governs the advancement of enlisted reservists. 

 
The  applicant  further  stated  that  the  role  of  the  Reserve  itself  illustrates  why  “Service 
need” is not a reasonable explanation or basis for not advancing her when there were two open 
Reserve  XXCM billets.   She explained that in  the regular Coast  Guard,  18 active duty  XXCM 
billets have been created based on actual Service needs, every billet is filled, and if one became 
vacant,  a reservist  would  likely  be asked to  fill  it temporarily.   Thus, a  reservist  meets  Service 
needs when called to active duty, not by drilling.   

 
The applicant explained that when the Reserve integrated with the active duty force in the 
late 1990s, the Reserve originally assigned its four XXCM billets to the four units where Reserve 
XXCMs happened to be serving.  However, the Service’s needs for reservists to fill in or other-
wise  augment  the  active  duty  force  vary,  are  somewhat  unpredictable,  and  do  not  necessarily 
occur  at  the  units  or  in  the  regions  where  the  Reserve  XXCM  billets  are  officially  located.    In 
this regard, she noted that currently, of the four authorized Reserve  XXCM billets, only one of 
the  four  is  filled  even  though,  due  to  the  20xx  advancements,  there  are  more  than  enough 
XXCMs to fill the four positions.  

 
The applicant stated that in the early 20xx, one Reserve XXCM retired and three Reserve 
XXCSs were advanced to XXCM to fill the three open XXCM billets—one new billet due to the 
retirement and the same two that were vacant in 20xx.  She alleged that the three were advanced 
not  because  the  number  of  XXCM  billets  increased  or  because  “Service  needs”  increased  but 
only because the Service finally decided to adhere to Chapter 1.C.2. of the RPM, which had been 
in effect since 2006 and therefore counted the Reserve XXCMs on active duty against the active 
duty  force  strength,  instead  of  the  Reserve  force  strength;  acknowledged  the  vacancies  in  the 
Reserve  XXCM  force  strength;  and  promoted  reservists  to  fill  those  vacancies.    However,  in 
20xx,  because  the  Service  refused  to  follow  its  own  regulation  and  was  still  holding  Reserve 
billets open for reservists serving on ADOS, she was denied advancement.  The applicant noted 
that by September 20xx, the number of Reserve XXCMs exceeded the limit of four because after 
the three advancements, one Reserve XXCM left active duty to return to the SELRES. 

 
The  applicant  argued  that  she  has  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  follow  its  own 
regulation  in  Chapter  1.C.2.b.(1)  of  the  RPM  because  there  were  two  vacant  Reserve  XXCM 
billets in 20xx, and she was at the top of the advancement list.  The applicant noted that because 

 

 

she is retiring as of July 1, 2012, the requested correction to her record would not prevent anyone 
else from being advanced to  XXCM, but it would give her the retirement pay she is entitled to 
because under the regulations, she should have advanced to XXCM in 20xx. 

 

 
Reserve Policy Manual 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

According to Chapter 1.C.2. of the RPM in effect in 20xx (Change 3), the Ready Reserve 
consists of the Selected Reserve (SELRES) and the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  Reservists 
in the SELRES, the IRR, or on the Active Status List of the Standby Reserve are consider to be 
in an active status. 

 
Chapter 1.C.2.b(1) of the RPM states that “reservists performing ADSW [Active Duty for 
Special Work6] for a period greater than 180 days and Extended Active Duty are removed from 
the Ready Reserve and counted in the active component end strength.” 

 
Chapter 5.A.10. of the RPM states, “For reservists, advancement and promotion are cen-
tralized  while  assignment  is  decentralized.  This  means  that  advancement  does  not  depend  on a 
local vacancy, but on a national vacancy. Situations may occur where a person is advanced based 
on a vacancy located in a distant geographic region, and cannot fill the position. Or there could 
be an empty position at  a unit where a person is  next  on the advancement  list,  but  if there is  a 
nationwide surplus in that rating or pay grade, the person won’t be advanced.”  Chapter 5.A.10.c. 
specifies that “[a]s members become more senior, the opportunities for assignments within Rea-
sonable Commuting Distance (RCD) are increasingly scarce. Since the number of paid SELRES 
O-5/O-6 and E-8/E-9 positions is limited, it is possible that if a person wants to continue to serve 
in  a  paid  SELRES  status  at  these  senior  grades,  he  or  she  may  have  to  agree  to  assignment 
beyond RCD of his or her residence.” 

 
Chapter 5.B.8. states that “[c]hief warrant officers and enlisted members may be assigned 
to  the  SELRES  during  their  first  30  years  of  service.  Normally,  on  the  thirtieth  anniversary  of 
their pay base dates, chief warrant officers and enlisted members shall be transferred to the Inac-
tive  Status  List,  Standby  Reserve,  unless  they  have  requested  transfer  to  the  IRR,  requested 
retirement, or have been granted waivers by the Personnel Command (CGPC-rpm) to remain in 
the  SELRES.  See  Sections  8.A.7.b  and  8.B.4.”    Chapter  8.B.4.  states  that  “[e]nlisted  members 
shall be removed from active status after completing 30 total years of service. To satisfy a spe-
cific Service need, Commandant may defer mandatory transfer from an active status due to years 
of service. Enlisted members who desire to remain in an active status beyond 30 total years ser-
vice  may  apply  to  the  Personnel  Command  (CGPC-rpm)  via  the  chain  of  command  and  their 
servicing ISC (pf). See Section 5.B.8 of this manual.”  And Chapter 8.C.12.d. states that “[a]ny 
enlisted member or chief warrant officer qualified for retirement who does not request transfer to 
the Retired Reserve will be transferred to the Inactive Status List (ISL), Standby Reserve on the 
day the member completes 30 total years of service.” 

 

                                                 
6  In  October  2009,  voluntary,  short-term  stints  of  active  duty  performed  by  reservists,  known  as  Active  Duty  for 
Special Work (ADSW), was renamed Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS). 

 

 

Chapter 7.C. of the RPM governs the advancement of enlisted reservists.  Chapter 7.C.1. 
of  the  RPM  states  “[t]he  provisions  of the  Personnel  Manual,  COMDTINST  M1000.6  (series), 
apply to advancements of Reserve enlisted personnel except as specifically modified by this sec-
tion.” 
 
 
Chapter 7.C.5.a. states that  candidates for advancement to  chief, senior  chief, or master 
chief petty officer “must have at  least  two  years  of SELRES  eligibility remaining as computed 
from the 1 January terminal eligibility date to be eligible for advancement. Individuals scheduled 
for separation, due to reach their 30  year pay base date anniversary, or reaching maximum age 
for  mandatory  retirement  during  the  two  year  period  following  terminal  eligibility  date  are 
ineligible to compete for further advancement.” 
 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
Article 4.C. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 20xx (Change 42) pertains to the assign-
 
ment  of  enlisted  members  but  also  contains  provisions  pertinent  to  their  advancement.  Article 
4.C.3.b. states that “[e]nlisted advancements occur when a vacancy is created in the higher pay 
grade.  This  means  that  a  need  exists  for  a  member  in  the  higher  pay  grade  to  fill  a  higher  pay 
grade  position.  Although  every  effort  will  be  made  to  minimize  unscheduled,  unplanned,  and 
transfers prior to tour completion, these may be required to meet Service needs.” 
 
 
Article  4.C.3.f.e.  states  that  “[a]dvancements  recognize  the  member's  accomplishments 
and reaffirm the Service’s faith and confidence in the member to assume positions of increased 
leadership and responsibility. It is important for members and commands to remember advance-
ments are possible only because position vacancies exist somewhere in the Service, so transfers 
to fill those vacancies are likely to occur. Assignment Officers (AO) consider these factors when 
members  advance:    1.  “Service  Need”  is  the  main  criterion  in  determining  when  or  where  to 
assign a newly advanced member.” 
 
Article  5.C.  contains  the  procedures  and  criteria  for  the  advancement  of  enlisted  mem-
 
bers.  Article 5.C.1.a. states that “[t]he objective of the enlisted advancement system is to ensure 
the required degree of proficiency at the various grade levels within each specialty and promote 
those best qualified to fill vacancies which occur.” 
 
 
Article 5.C.26.a.1. states that “Commander (CGPC) will publish a list of personnel eligi-
ble for advancement or change in rating as a result of SWE competition to fill vacancies in pay 
grades  E-4  through  E-9.  Commanding  officers  may  advance  personnel  listed  on  the  monthly 
Advancement Announcement.” 
 
 
PSC  issues  a  monthly  “Enlisted  Reserve  Advancement  Announcement”  publishing  the 
names  of  enlisted  Reserve  personnel  who  are  authorized  advancement  as  of  the  first  of  the 
month.    The  advancement  announcements  for  20xx  show  that  no  Reserve  XXCS  advanced  to 
XXCM in 20xx.  They also show that overall, just twelve senior chief petty officers advanced to 
master chief in 20xx, including one in the IV rating as of November 1, 20xx.  
 
 

 

 

 

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: 
 

1. 

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

application was timely filed. 

 
2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  erroneously  and  unjustly  failed  to 
advance her to XXCM when there were two vacancies for Reserve XXCMs while she was at the 
top of the Reserve XXCM advancement list in 20xx.  She alleged that the only reason she was 
not advanced in 20xx was that the Coast Guard determined that there was no vacancy to warrant 
her  promotion  because  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  follow  its  rule  in  Chapter  1.C.2.b(1)  of  the 
RPM,  which  states  that  “reservists  performing  ADSW  for  a  period  greater  than  180  days  and 
Extended  Active  Duty  are  removed  from  the  Ready  Reserve  and  counted  in  the  active  compo-
nent end strength.” 

 
3. 

The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed infor-
mation in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant 
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is 
erroneous or unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes 
that Coast  Guard officials  and other Government employees have  carried out  their duties  “cor-
rectly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.”  Arens  v.  United  States,  969  F.2d  1034,  1037  (Fed.  Cir. 
1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
4. 

The Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that there were two unfilled XXCM positions on the Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) 
in  October  20xx.    The  October  31,  20xx,  Reserve  Manpower  Reports  clearly  show  that  there 
were four authorized XXCM positions and only two qualifying Reserve  XXCMs.7  In addition, 
the record shows that the applicant was number one on the Reserve XXCM advancement list in 
effect in 20xx but that no Reserve XXCM advancements were made in 20xx. 

 
5. 

Chapter 7.C.  of the RPM states that the Personnel  Manual  governs the  advance-
ment of enlisted reservists “except as specifically modified by this section.”  Article 4.C.3.b. of 
the Personnel Manual states that “[e]nlisted advancements occur when a vacancy is created in the 
higher  pay  grade.  This  means  that  a  need  exists  for  a  member  in  the  higher  pay  grade  to  fill  a 
higher  pay  grade  position.”  Article  5.C.1.a.  states  that  “[t]he  objective  of  the  enlisted  advance-
ment  system  is  to  ensure  the  required  degree  of  proficiency  at  the  various  grade  levels  within 
each  specialty  and  promote  those  best  qualified  to  fill  vacancies  which  occur.”    Therefore,  the 
Board finds that a reservist may not be advanced unless there is need to fill a vacancy in the next 
higher pay grade.   

 
6. 

However,  the  Board  cannot  find  any  regulation  requiring  every  vacancy  on  the 
RPAL to be filled within a certain period of time or to be filled regardless of the Reserve’s per-

                                                 
7 Reservists who have more than 30 years of service or who are serving on active duty for a period of more than 180 
days do not count in the calculation of the Reserve force strength. 

 

 

ceived current needs for personnel in the higher paygrade or to fill a particular billet.  While the 
distribution  of  positions on  the  RPAL  presumably  reflected  the  needs  of  the  Service  whenever 
the  RPAL  was  most  recently  reviewed  and  revised,  the  applicant  has  not  shown  that  the  20xx 
“Reserve (SELRES) Manpower Report – Positions” closely reflected the Service’s actual needs 
regarding the distribution of personnel in 20xx.  In this regard, the Board notes that, even taking 
into  account  the  number  of  general  petty  officer  positions,  the  distribution  of  personnel  on  the 
October  31,  20xx,  “Reserve  (SELRES)  Manpower  Report  –  Strength  by  Paygrade”  does  not 
closely match the authorized positions shown in the 20xx “Reserve (SELRES) Manpower Report 
– Positions.”  Similarly, the 20xx advancement announcements show that apparent vacancies in 
the  higher  pay  grades,  as  shown  on  the  manpower  reports,  did  not  always  result  in  prompt 
advancements. 

 
7. 

In  addition,  the  applicant  herself  noted  that  although  there  were  several  Reserve 
XXCMs in 20xx, only two of the four designated XXCM billets were filled, and currently, only 
one of the four billets is filled even though three reservists advanced to XXCM in 20xx.8  There-
fore, it appears that the Coast Guard has advanced reservists to XXCM with little regard for the 
officially designated XXCM billets, and there is no close connection between the actual needs of 
the  Service  for  XXCMs  and  the  four  billets  authorized  on  the  RPAL.    Although  the  applicant 
argued that this disconnection proves that only vacancies matter in the advancement of reservists 
and that Service need is not a factor, the Board finds insufficient evidence in the record to sup-
port this claim.   

 
8. 

Although the applicant alleged that she was told that the only reason she was not 
advanced in 20xx was that the Coast Guard chose to disregard the rule in Chapter 1.C.2.b(1) of 
the RPM, she submitted little to support this claim.  A Government agency is bound to follow its 
own  regulations,  but  the  fact  that  three  XXCSs  advanced  to  XXCM  in  20xx  does  not  per  se 
prove that the only reason the applicant did not advance in 20xx was that the Coast Guard arbi-
trarily  chose  to  disregard  Chapter  1.C.2.b(1)  until  20xx.    In  the  advisory  opinion,  the  Coast 
Guard cited a lack of a Service need for another Reserve XXCM as the reason the applicant did 
not advance.  Although the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion is conclusory and uninformative of 
the  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  lack  of  advancement  in  20xx, the  Coast  Guard’s 
unsubstantiated  claim  regarding  a  lack  of  a  Service  need  is  sufficient  to  rebut  the  applicant’s 
unsubstantiated  claim  that  the  only  reason  she  was  not  advanced  in  20xx  was  that  the  Coast 
Guard chose to disregard the rule in Chapter 1.C.2.b(1) of the RPM. 

 
9. 

In light of the findings above and given (a) the absence of a regulation requiring 
every vacancy on the RPAL to be filled promptly and regardless of Service needs, as perceived 
by  Commander,  PSC;  (b)  no  apparent  close  connection  between  authorized  positions  and  the 
distribution  of  Reserve  XXCMs;  (c)  no  evidence  showing  that  the  Coast  Guard  has  religiously 
and  promptly  advanced  reservists  to  fill  all  master  chief  petty  officer  positions  shown  on  the 
RPAL in the past; and (d) no allegation or evidence that the applicant’s lack of advancement was 
due to  prejudice of  any ilk, the  Board finds that  she has not  proved by  a  preponderance of the 
evidence that she was entitled to advancement to XXCM in 20xx or that she was unjustly denied 
advancement.  The Board acknowledges the tremendous effort a reservist must make throughout 
                                                 
8  Nor is this the first time the Board has heard of apparent vacancies on the RPAL going unfilled.  See e.g., BCMR 
Docket No. 2007-208. 

 

 

her  career  to  be  in  a  position  to  advance  to  XXCM  should  the  Service  need  another  Reserve 
XXCM, as well as the frustration inherent in getting so close to advancement, but there is insuf-
ficient evidence in the record to overcome the presumption of regularity and prove that her lack 
of advancement in 20xx was erroneous or unjust. 

 
10. 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her  military 

 
 
record is denied. 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Donna A. Lewis