DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2012-094 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

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  applicant’s 
completed  application  on  March  10,  2012,  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). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  7,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant, a Reserve lieutenant commander (LCDR) serving on active duty, asked the 
Board to correct her record to show that her LT date of rank is July 3, 2005, instead of July 30, 
2005, and to show that she was promoted to LCDR on March 1, 2012, instead of May 1, 2012.  
She also asked the Board to award her the corresponding back pay and allowances she would be 
due as a result of these corrections.   

 
The applicant alleged that on July 3, 2005, she received a call from the Personnel Com-
mand stating that she was out of uniform but was being promoted that very day instead of on July 
30, 2005, which is the date of promotion that was stated in ALCGPERSCOM 058/05.  However, 
a  few  hours  later,  she  received  another  call  stating  that  the  first  call  was  in  error  and  that  she 
would be promoted on July 30th in accordance with the bulletin. 

 
The applicant stated that in 2005, she was selected to become an active duty Reserve Pro-
gram  Administrator.    Her  classmates  who  were  serving  on  inactive  duty—i.e.,  on  the  inactive 
duty promotion  list  (IDPL)—were all promoted to  LT on July 3, 2005, but  her classmates who 
were  serving  as  RPAs  or  on  extended  active  duty—i.e.,  on  the  active  duty  promotion  list 
(ADPL)—were not promoted until July 30, 2005.  The applicant stated that she later learned that 
the  Personnel  Command  had  erroneously  placed  Reserve  officers  at  the  bottom  of  their  class 
when they transferred from the IDPL to the ADPL.  She was told that the Personnel Command 
was working on fixing the precedence error. 

 

 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  2010,  she  noticed  that  the  error  had  never  been  fixed  and 
began trying to learn about and fix the problem.  She stated that her Reserve officer classmates 
on  the  IDPL,  even  those  below  her  in  class  precedence,  were  promoted  to  LCDR  on  March  1, 
2012,  while  classmates  on  the  ADPL  are  still  waiting  to  be  promoted.    When  she  complained 
about the errors, she was advised to apply to this Board. 

 
In support of her allegations of error, the applicant noted that under 14 U.S.C. 41a(b), a 
Reserve officer “shall, when he enters on active duty, be placed on the active duty promotion list 
in  accordance  with  his  grade  and  seniority,”  and  that  14  U.S.C.  §  725  states  that  a  “Reserve 
officer shall not lose precedence when transferred to or from the active duty promotion list, nor 
shall that officer’s date of rank be changed due to the transfer.”   

 
The applicant also submitted a PowerPoint presentation showing class precedence before 
and after her entry on active duty and the Reserve officers’ dates of rank.  She alleged that in July 
2005, she and her fellow Reserve LTJGs should have been promoted to LT depending solely on 
their precedence on the Officer Personnel Allowance List (OPAL) and not on whether they were 
on the IDPL or ADPL. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 8, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis in a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC).   

 
PSC  submitted  a  class  roster  showing  that  there  were  25  officers  in  the  applicant’s 
Reserve  Officer  Candidate  Indoctrination  Class,  which  graduated  on  August  3,  2001.    ALCG-
PERSCOM 058/05, issued on June 23, 2005, authorized the promotion of 22 of the 25 officers to 
LT as of July 30, 2005. 

 
PSC submitted copies of the 2006 Register of Officers and Register of Reserve Officers, 
showing that all 22 of the LTs had dates of rank of July 30, 2005.  However, a PSC staff member 
erroneously entered July 03, 2005, as the date of rank for 18 of them in the Coast Guard’s Direct 
Access database.  Therefore, when the 2007 registers were issued, for 18 of the 22, their dates of 
rank  were  inadvertently  shown  as  July  03,  2005.    Moreover,  as  a  result of that error, 12 of the 
applicant’s classmates were erroneously promoted to LCDR two months early in 2012. 

 
PSC  stated  that  the  July  03,  2005,  dates  of  rank  are  clearly  erroneous  because  under 
Article  3.A.4.h.(4)(a)  of  COMDTINST  M1000.3,  all  officers  must  serve  a  minimum  of  30 
months in the grade of lieutenant junior grade (LTJG) before being promoted to LT.  PSC stated 
that on April 24, 2012, it took  corrective action by correcting the erroneous dates of rank from 
July  03  to  July  30,  2005;  correcting  each  Reserve  officer’s  running  mate  accordingly;  and 
correcting the 12 officers’ LCDR dates of rank from March 1 to May 1, 2012.  PSC submitted a 
copy of the letter it sent to the officers in question to notify them of the correction of their dates 
of rank. 
 

 

 

PSC noted that the applicant was also promoted to LCDR on May 1, 2012, and concluded 
that the erroneous dates of rank in the officer registers have been corrected and that the applicant 
“has  failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  with  regards  to  her  record.”    Therefore,  PSC 
recommended that the Board deny relief.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSES TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 21, 2012, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

 
 
and invited her to submit a response within thirty days.  No response was received.   
  

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  application  was  timely  filed  because  the  applicant  has  been  serving  on  continuous  active 
duty.1 
 

1. 

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

2. 

The  applicant  alleged that her LT date of rank should be July 03  instead of July 
30, 2005, and that her LCDR date of rank should be March 1 instead of May 1, 2012.  She com-
plained  that  her  dates  of  rank  were  later  than  those  of  her  classmates  even  though  14  U.S.C.  
§  725  states  that  a  “Reserve  officer  shall  not  lose  precedence  when  transferred  to  or  from  the 
active  duty promotion  list,  nor shall that officer’s date of rank be changed due to  the transfer.”  
The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  information  in  the 
applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the bur-
den of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or 
unjust.2 Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other 
Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”3 

 
3. 

 PSC  stated  that  dates  of  rank  in  the  officer  registers  were  erroneous,  but  it  was 
her classmates’ July 03, 2005, LT dates of rank that were erroneous, not the applicant’s July 30, 
2005, LT date of rank.  In addition, PSC stated that  the applicant and her classmates should all 
have  been  promoted  to  LCDR  on  May  1,  2012,  but  because  of  the  erroneous  database  entry 
switching July 30s to July 03s, some of her classmates were erroneously promoted on March 1, 
2012.    PSC  submitted  persuasive  documentation  and  information  supporting  these  claims  and 
evidence that it has corrected the errors in the applicant’s classmates’ records.  The applicant did 
not rebut PSC’s documentation or information.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has 
not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her LT and LCDR dates of rank are in error. 

 
4. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.   

                                                 
1 Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591, 598 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that, under § 205 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil 
Relief Act of 1940, the BCMR’s three-year limitations period under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) is tolled during a member’s 
active duty service). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b.   
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR,  for  correction  of 

her military record is denied.   

        

 
 Donna M. Bivona  

 

 

 
 Andrew D. Cannady 

 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito