Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-073
Original file (2001-073.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied


BCMR Docket  
No. 2001-073 

Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 





ULMER, Chair: 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed April 12, 2001, upon the BCMR's receipt of 
the applicant's complete application for correction of his military record. 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
The  applicant,  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  was  advanced  to  his  present  grade  on 
August 29, 2000, rather than December 4, 2000, and to grant him back pay and allowances.  

This  final  decision  dated  February  28,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 


On September 28, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  The 
applicant was promised training in the ET rating, which he received. On xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, while 
at ET school, the applicant was taken to non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failure to obey an 
order  by  “wrongfully  possessing  and  consuming  alcohol  while  on  duty.”    His  punishment 
included 30 days of restriction, a reduction in rate to pay grade E-2 (SA), and a $400 forfeiture of 
pay.  The reduction in rate and the forfeiture were suspended for six months.   He graduated from 
ET  school  on  August  3,  2000,  but  was  not  advanced  to  ET3  at  that  time.    (Individuals  who 
complete a basic “A” schools are advanced to petty officer third class, if they remain eligible for 
advancement.  See Article 5.C. of the Personnel Manual.)  The applicant reported to his new duty 
station on August 29, 2000.  He was subsequently advanced to ET3 on December 4, 2000. 
The  applicant  claimed  that  the  delay  in  advancing  him  to  E-4  was  in  error  or  unjust 
because no records indicating that his promotion to E-4 had been delayed were sent to his current 
unit upon his graduation from ET school.  He claimed that the necessary officials at his school 
command approved his advancement to E-4.  In support of his allegation, he submitted a copy of 
the  program  from  his  graduation  ceremony,  which  listed  him  as  an  ET3.    He  submitted  a 
certificate  showing  his  appointment  as  a  petty  officer  third  class  (ET3).    He  also  submitted  a 
copy of his transfer orders containing this language – member advanced to ET3 on August 3, 
2000.  The orders were dated xxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

The applicant’s current commanding officer (CO) wrote a letter, dated April 10, 2001, 
recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request for a retroactive advancement.  He 
stated  that  prior  to  reporting  to  his  current  unit,  the  applicant  contacted  his  supervisor  and 
advised him of the alcohol incident and subsequent NJP.  The CO further stated the following: 

The  [applicant’s]  supervisor  discussed  the  situation  with  me  and  expressed  his 
desire to closely monitor [the applicant’s] performance for the first few months 
after reporting to the unit. 
After approximately three months monitoring [the applicant’s] job performance, 
the . . . supervisor recommended him for promotion to petty officer third class.  I 
signed [the applicant’s] advancement request on 4 December 2000.  Due to his 
good  job  performance  and  can  do  attitude,  I  asked  the  Integrated  Support 
Command . . . about a possible retroactive advancement date.  In researching the 
original alcohol incident and subsequent sequence of events, several discrepancies 
in his personnel record were found.   
Upon graduating from ET . .  school on 3 August 2000, [the applicant] received 
his advancement certificate to petty officer third class signed by the commanding 
officer  of  [the  training  command].    A  search  revealed  no  message  was  sent  to 
CGPC-epm stating [the applicant] would not be advanced to ET3.  In addition, no 
counseling  was  performed  and  no  page  7  entry  with  an  explanation  for  non 
advancement was written.  [The applicant’s] orders to [his new unit] also stated 
that he was advanced to ET3 on 3 August 2000. 

The applicant’s headquarters military record shows that the applicant received a mark of 
not recommended for advancement (resulting from the NJP) on a special performance evaluation 
dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  The applicant’s military record also contains an administrative remarks 
(page 7) entry informing him that he had been given an unsatisfactory mark in conduct and that 
his  eligibility  period  for  a  Coast  Guard  Good  Conduct  award  terminated  on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
and began anew on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  The record does not, however, contain the required page 7 
entry advising the applicant that he was not recommended for advancement, as required by the 
Personnel Manual.  
Views of the Coast Guard  
of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant.   
The Chief Counsel stated that the delay in the applicant’s promotion had nothing to do 
with  a  failure  to  transmit  documents  to  his  current  unit,  but  resulted  from  the  former  CO’s 
recommendation that the applicant not be advanced and the unsatisfactory conduct mark of 2 he 
received on his performance evaluation dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  The Chief Counsel stated that 
the  negative  advancement  recommendation  and  the  unsatisfactory  conduct  resulted  from  the 
applicant’s NJP.   

On September 14, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief counsel 

The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  Article  5.C.28.c  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that 
“[c]ommanding officers shall not advance a member retroactively, advancements are considered 
retroactive after 30 days have elapsed since the  requested date of  advancement.”  Even if the 
Board were to find error or injustice, the earliest date that the applicant could be retroactively 
advanced would be November 4, 2000.   
In  a  memorandum  attached  to  the  advisory  opinion,  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) stated that the CO of the training center where applicant attended 
ET school, made an administrative error by signing applicant’s graduation certificate listing the 
applicant as an ET3.   
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
an invitation for him to submit a response.  He did not submit a response. 

On September 17, 2001, a copy of the Coast Guard's views was sent to the applicant with 


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

The Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis of the 

applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
United States Code. The application was timely. 
2.  The applicant has failed to show that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice 
by not advancing him to E-4 upon his graduating from ET school.  He has also failed to establish 
that the Coast Guard’s refusal to make his subsequent advancement to E-4 retroactive to August 
29, 2000 to be in error or unjust. 
3.  According to 5.C.4.b. of the Personnel Manual, in order for an enlisted member to be 
advanced  in  rate,  he  must  have  the  recommendation  of  the  CO.    The  applicant  was  not 
recommended for advancement on a special performance evaluation he received after a NJP for 
an orders violation.  Therefore, he was ineligible for advancement until he received a positive 
advancement recommendation from his CO. He received that recommendation from his current 
CO and was advanced on December 4, 2000.   
4.  Although his current CO recommended that his December 4, 2000, advancement to E-
4 be retroactive to August 29, 2000, the date the applicant reported to his current unit, Article 
5.C.28.c. prohibits retroactive advancements.  Therefore, it would be a violation of the Personnel 
Manual to make the applicant’s advancement retroactive to August 29, 2000.   
5.  There is no page 7 entry in the applicant’s military record documenting the negative 
advancement  recommendation,  as  required  by  Article  5.C.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.  
However,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  evidence  showing  that  he  was  unaware  of  the 

6.  The applicant has not shown the existence of any error or injustice in this case that 

negative  advancement  recommendation,  or  that  the  outcome  of  his  situation  would  have  been 
different if the page 7 entry had been prepared. 
requires corrective action by this Board.  Accordingly, relief should be denied.   


The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 





military record is denied.   











George J. Jordan 

John A. Kern 

David M. Wiegand 






Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-006

    Original file (2001-006.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On March 6, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that alternative relief be granted to the applicant “as a matter of equity.” According to the Chief Counsel, the applicant failed to prove that the Coast Guard committed error in appointing him an ensign rather than a lieutenant junior grade upon graduation from PA school. The Chief Counsel said that the Board should grant alternative relief “as a matter of equity.” The applicant asserted in his application “that had he...

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1999-118

    Original file (1999-118.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also asked the Board to remove from Coast Guard records his command’s negative endorsement of his request for assignment to recruiting duty (Assignment Data Card; form CG-3698A), as well as any other negative correspondence concerning his request for recruiting duty. CGPC stated that, aside from the two negative page 7s dated June 15, 199x, in the applicant’s per- sonal data record, the Coast Guard has a negative endorsement dated October 4 The Chief Counsel stated that there are only...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-040

    Original file (2004-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that his name was unfairly removed from the YNC advancement list after he received a mediocre Enlisted Performance Evaluation Form (EPEF) for the evaluation period from June 1 to November 30, 2002, and was not rec- ommended for advancement on the EPEF by his rating chain.1 The applicant stated that upon completing the Service-Wide Examination (SWE) for YNC in May 2002, he 1 Enlisted members are evaluated by a rating chain, which consists of a supervisor, who...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2003-062

    Original file (2003-062.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On November 2, 2002, the applicant’s PERSRU recommended remission of the $5,748.29 debt in full, finding that “it is reasonable to assume [the applicant] was not properly counseled.” The PERSRU noted that the applicant’s record contains no CG- 3307 documenting SRB counseling upon his enlistment in April 1999 or at the time his change in rating was approved by CGPC. (7) of Enclosure (1) and Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33, the Coast Guard had a duty (a) to counsel the applicant about SRB...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-142

    Original file (2006-142.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted a letter from a current commander in the Coast Guard, who stated that following: I recently had the opportunity to speak with [the applicant] regarding his discharge from the Coast Guard in March of 1990 while we both served in [the same station]. CGPC pointed out that, for members discharged for unsuitability due to alcohol abuse, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code Handbook authorizes the assign- ment of no other reenlistment code except the RE-4. There...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-062

    Original file (2007-062.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no urgent Service need for direct accession AMT’s at the time of the applicant’s enlistment in the Coast Guard.” CGPC stated that since the applicant’s specialty was not on the ORL, he was offered enlistment as an E-3 because “other than the direct petty officer program under the open rate list, there is no provision for enlistment at a higher pay grade.” APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On May 23, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the...

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-036

    Original file (2004-036.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 9, 2004, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record by removing (1) an administrative remarks (page 7) page that terminated her eligibility period for a Good Conduct award, (2) a page 7 documenting her First Alcohol Incident, and (3) an unsatisfactory conduct mark on her performance evaluation for the period ending December 30, 2002. A third individual received a page 7 documenting an...

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2004-046

    Original file (2004-046.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    3 Under Article 1.D.10.a.2 of the Personnel Manual, if CGPC had acted to remove the applicant's name from the Preboard Eligibility List based solely on the CO's recommendation, without the special evaluation, the applicant would have been entitled to review the recommendation, comment on it, and have his record reviewed by a special board that would have recommended whether his name should have been reinstated on the Preboard Eligibility list, if CGPC had acted to remove it. Under Article...

  • CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2009-197

    Original file (2009-197.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated March 26, 2010, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was honorably discharged for unacceptable conduct on October 10, 2000, asked the Board to correct her record to reflect a medical separation for bipolar disorder.1 The applicant stated that she was diagnosed as bipolar after she was discharged from the Coast Guard, but she believes that she had the condition prior to her discharge and was misdiagnosed by...

  • CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2008-065

    Original file (2008-065.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CGPC did not remove the Page 7 dated February 17, 2004, from the applicant’s record, but neither was the applicant discharged as a result of his third documented alcohol incident. On June 1, 2007, the applicant’s new command noted that the applicant’s record con- tained documentation of a third alcohol incident (which, under the Personnel Manual, would result in his separation) and asked CGPC to remove it from his record. (authorizing commanding officers to determine whether an alcohol...