DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-124 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on 
June 4, 1999, upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  30,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx,1 asked the Board to correct his military record 
by removing two negative “page 7” administrative entries (Form CG-3307) dated 
June 11, 199x, and June 25, 199x.   

 
The  page  7  entry  dated  June  11,  199x,  and  signed  by  the  commanding 
officer  (CO)  of  USCG  xxxxxx,  states  that  according  to  a  female  member  of  the 
Coast  Guard  and  witnesses,  the  applicant  “used  inappropriate  language  and 
made denigrating comments” to the female member in a bar in xxxx on the night 
of June 7, 199x.  The page 7 further indicates that when she asked him to be quiet 
and leave, he told her that his behavior “in the civilian community had nothing 
to do with the workplace.”  Later that night, he tried to apologize, but she felt the 
effort was insincere.  The page 7 indicates that the applicant was counseled for 
making  comments  that  “constituted  verbal  sexual  harassment,”  and  that  he 
apologized to the female member in front of three officers at the station.  It also 

                                                 
1    The  applicant  was  a  xxx  at  the  time  he  applied  to  the  Board.    However,  he  was  recently 
appointed as a xxxxxxxx. 

indicates  that  the  female  member  told  the  commanding  officer  that  she  was 
satisfied with the command’s handling of the incident, and it warns the applicant 
that a further incident will result in disciplinary action. 

 
The  page  7  dated  June  25,  199x,  signed  by  the  same  CO,  documents  a 
sexual harassment complaint based on incidents that occurred in the fall of 199x 
but  that  only  came  to  light  after  news  of  the  June  7,  199x,  incident  and  its 
aftermath spread.  The complainant [xx] and witnesses stated that the applicant, 
who  was  then  her  supervisor,  harassed  her  during  her  pregnancy.    When  she 
told him she would report his behavior, he told her he had advised the command 
of his actions and that they approved, which was not true.  She did not report the 
incident earlier because she feared reprisal.  The page 7 further indicates that the 
applicant  was  ordered  to  undergo  training  in  civil  rights  and  human  relations 
but that no disciplinary action would be taken because this harassment incident 
had predated the incident and counseling documented in the page 7 dated June 
11, 199x.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  page  7s  “are  false  and  have  affected  my 
military career despite my outstanding performance for the past 13 years.”  He 
alleged that one of the women who accused him of sexual harassment has since 
tried  to  harm  his  career  by  mailing  copies  of  the  page  7s  to  his  last  two 
commanding officers.   
 

The applicant also alleged that in November 199x he was in xxx place on 
the 199x Final Eligibility List for appointment to the rank of chief warrant officer 
(CWO).  He alleged that he was removed from the list when it was discovered 
that the two disputed page 7s were not in the paper copy of his personal data 
record (PDR) when it was reviewed by the CWO appointment board, although 
the  page  7s  were  in  his  electronic  PDR  file.    He  alleged  he  would  have  been 
promoted to CWO on June 1, 199x, if his name had not been removed from the 
list.  

 
The  applicant  submitted  with  his  application  several  statements  from 
superiors and other members who served with him in xxxx and from members 
who have served with him since.  These submissions are summarized below. 
 
 
In addition, to support his allegation that he has been harassed by one of 
his former accusers, the applicant submitted a copy of an e-mail message dated 
August 9, 199x, from the husband of xxx, the member whose accusations were 
documented in the page 7 dated June 25, 199x, to the Master Chief Petty Officer 

I’m  writing  in  hopes  that  you  will  take  action  to  right  a  wrong  that  is 
being committed.  You are already familiar with my wife’s situation.  In 
March she provided you an approximately 20 page statement describing 
the  sexual  and  other  harassment  she  underwent  while  assigned  to  xxx.  
The acts were committed by [the applicant].  Presently, [the applicant] is 
number x on the CWO promotion message.  This should not be.  As you 
already know, he advanced to E-x unscrupulously.  He does not deserve 
to be a chief, CWO, or even to be in my Coast Guard.  I did not intervene 
on my wife’s behalf when we were in xxx for a few reasons:  I was not 
aware  of  the  extent  of  harassment,  I  did  not  think  it  appropriate  to 
intervene, nor was I asked. … 
 
[The  applicant]  is  a  cancer  that  has  been  allowed  to  spread.  …    I  feel 
removal of [the applicant’s] name from the CWO promotion list and a full 
CGIS investigation with possible future disciplinary action is appropriate. 
… 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

of the Coast Guard.2  The husband, a chief petty officer, wrote the following after 
learning that the applicant had again been chosen for appointment to CWO in 
2000: 
 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 20, 198x.  He attend-
ed “A” School and became a radioman (xx).3  In the 1980s, he served as a xxxx at 
Group xxx and xxxx at Air Station xxx.  In 1991, he was assigned to xxxx as a 
xxxx, where he was advanced to xxxx (xxxx).   
 

The  two  disputed  page  7s  were  entered  in  the  applicant’s  PDR  in  June 
199x,  while  he  served  in  xxxx.    In  December  199x,  the  applicant  received 
evaluation  marks  of  7  (the  highest  possible  mark)  for  “Professional/Specialty 
Knowledge”  and  “Developing  Subordinates.”    Two  page  7s  that  documented 
these marks indicated that he had developed an excellent training program that 
permitted the members of his section to be promoted much faster than usual.  In 
addition, for his service inxxxx, he received a Letter of Commendation from his 
CO, who stated that he had qualified for, and performed the duties of, xxxxx in 
record time.  The CO praised him as a “consummate professional” who “expertly 
managed all aspects of [his] xxxx section.” 

 
In 199x and 199x, the applicant served as a xxxxx at xxxx.  From 199x until 
the date he applied to the BCMR, he served as the xxxxx in charge at Group xxx.  
                                                 
2  This e-mail message was for a short time available to anyone who visited the Master Chief’s 
web site.  Apparently, the problem has been fixed. 
3  The skill rating “xxxxxx” has since been changed to “xxxxxxxxx.” 

He has been awarded the Coast Guard Achievement Medal four times: once for 
his  service  in  xxxxx  and  three  times  for  his  service  in  xxxxxx.    He  has  also 
received many marks of 7 on his performance evaluations. 
 
 
On  xxxxx,  199x,  the  199x  CWO  Final  Eligibility  List  resulting  from  the 
199x Warrant Appointment Board  was issued.  The list was effective from xxx, 
199x,  to  xxxxx.    Among  members  in  the  xxxxxx,  the  applicant’s  name  appears 
xxxxx on the list. 
 
 
On  November  27,  199x,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  the  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) that a special board would be convened to deter-
mine whether his name should be reinstated on the CWO eligibility list.  CGPC 
indicated that his name had been removed from the list “upon receipt of notifi-
cation that your Headquarters Personnel Data Record was incomplete at the time 
it was considered by the Warrant Appointment Board” because the two disputed 
page 7s were not in the PDR.  He was invited to submit comments to the special 
board.  
 
 
On  xxxxxxx,  199x,  a  special  board  was  convened  to  consider  reinstating 
the applicant on the CWO eligibility list.  On xxxxx, 199x, CGPC forwarded the 
special  board’s  report  to  the  Commandant  with  an  endorsement  of  its  recom-
mendation that he be reinstated on the list. 
 
On  xxxxxx,  199x,  the  Commandant  disapproved  the  special  board’s 
 
recommendation,  but ordered  that,  if  the  applicant  reapplies  for CWO,  neither 
the special board’s report nor the results of the previous selection board should 
be made available to the next selection board. 
 
 
The applicant reapplied for CWO in 199x and appeared in xxxx place (up 
from  xxxx  place  the  year  before)  on  the  xxxx  Final  Eligibility  List.    The  two 
disputed  page  7s  were  in  his  record  before  this  appointment  board.    He  was 
recently appointed to CWO2.  
 

AFFIDAVITS 

 

The  CO  who  signed  the  two  disputed  page  7s  submitted  a  statement 
signed on May 24, 1999.  The CO stated that in 199x, the applicant “was deeply 
troubled  and  frustrated  by”  what  the  applicant  believed  was  a  “personality 
conflict” with xxxx.  The applicant told him that he did not agree with the second 
disputed  page  7  but  did  not  fight  it  because  “he  wanted  to  put  the  situation 
behind him.”  The CO further stated that, after receiving additional training in 
leadership  and  human  relations,  the  applicant  “performed  in  an  exemplary 
manner  ultimately  resulting  in  the  award  of  the  CG  Achievement  Medal.”    In 

addition,  the  CO  stated  that,  while  he  believes  he  handled  both  situations 
correctly,  “if  it  means  that  the  [page  7]  dated  25  JUN  9x  needs  to  be  removed 
from [the applicant’s] record in order to rectify this injustice, then I support that.” 

 
A xxx stated that he was stationed in xxx from 199x to 199x.  In 199x, he 
stated, he was asked to work in and “monitor” the applicant’s section because of 
complaints from someone who “felt threatened” by the applicant.  The xxx stated 
that xxx was a member of the section at that time.  The xxx stated that, while the 
applicant  “had  a  very  strong  and  hard  leadership  style,”  he  never  saw  the 
applicant “mistreat, belittle, or offend anyone working for him, nor did he ever 
sexually  harass  any  female  member  of  the  section.”    The  xxx  said  that  the 
applicant’s  “style  of  leadership  offended  [xxx,  a  female  petty  officer],  and  I 
believe she thought it was personal.” 

 
A xxxx (xxxx) who supervised the applicant in xxxx signed a statement on 
June  9,  199x,  indicating  that  the  applicant  was  a  “dedicated,  proactive  leader” 
who  “personified  the  word  ‘professional.’”    He  stated  that  “an  incident  arose 
between [the applicant] and [xxxx] which, in my opinion was then, and is now, 
part of her personal vendetta against [the applicant].” 

 
A  xxx  who  worked  closely  with  the  applicant  in  xxxx  from  May  199x 
through June 199x, signed a statement on June 10, 199x, praising the applicant’s 
work and leadership highly.  He also stated that he “never witnessed or remem-
bered [the applicant] harassing or degrading any individual he made contact or 
worked with.” 

 
Another xxx who worked in the applicant’s xxx station in xxx also signed 
a statement on June 10, 199x.  This xxx stated that the applicant “was always fair 
and professional to all his xxxxxxx.  His standards as well as most of the folks in 
the  section  were  very  high.    I  never  witnessed  any  poor  treatment  or  actions 
which may have been considered harassing or degrading.” 

 
Another xxx who worked in xxx stated that the applicant was “a firm and 

fair leader.” 

 
A xxx signed a statement indicating that he served under the applicant in 
xxxx from May 199x to May 199x.  Although their section included members of 
both genders and varied ethnic backgrounds, he stated, he “never witnessed any 
animosity  among  the  section  or  observed  anything  but  professional  behavior 
from [the applicant].” 

 
Another xxx, who worked at the xxx in xxx from 199x through 199x, stated 
that the applicant was a very helpful supervisor who never treated her different-

ly though she was a single parent.  The applicant, she stated, “wanted everyone 
to have the same successes and the same rewards.” 

 
A  YN2  (yeoman  second  class)  who  opened  the  mail  for  the  xxxxxxx  in 
xxxxxx, where the applicant worked in 199x and 199x, signed a statement dated 
June 10, 199x.  The YN2 stated that he had received a page 7 in the mail concern-
ing  the  applicant  and  an  incident  in  xxxxxx.    He  did  not  know  where  it  came 
from, and a copy of the page 7 was already in the applicant’s record.  He brought 
it to the attention of his supervisor and the applicant, who told him “the history 
concerning this incident.” 

 
A YN3 who opened the mail for Group xxxxxxx, where the applicant has 
worked since 199x, signed a statement dated June 10, 199x, relating the following 
incident:  “[In the mail] I received a Page 7 (3307) concerning [the applicant] and 
a  female  member  at  a  unit  in  xxxxxx.    I  showed  it  to  my  supervisor  [a  petty 
officer] who checked [the applicant’s] PDR [personal data record].  The page 7 
was  already  in  his  PDR  so  we  gave  it  to  [the  applicant]  for  his  records.    [The 
applicant] stated that this had happened at his prior unit and that he wished it 
would stop.”  The YN3 also praised the applicant’s work. 

 
A CWO who served as Comptroller for Group xxxxxx in the fall of 199x 
described  his  own  experiences  with  xxxx.    He  stated  that,  while  they  served 
together  on  the  Coast  Guard  cutter  xxx  in  the  mid  1990s,  she  frequently 
complained of sexual harassment and discrimination.  He described her behavior 
as “extremely irrational” and “hysterical.”  The CWO also stated that he believes 
xxxx “has continued in her attempts to ruin [the applicant’s]  career due to my 
observations onboard xxx and numerous references in her speech regarding xxxx 
and [the applicant].”  

 

 
A  xxx  signed  a  statement  on  May  25,  199x,  indicating  that  she  worked 
under  the  applicant  from  June  199x  to  June  199x.    She  stated  that  he  “always 
made  me  feel  comfortable  and  a  member  of  the  group,  and  gave  me  as  many 
responsibilities as anyone else. …  [H]e was always very kind and patient with 
me. …  I WAS ALWAYS TREATED FAIRLY.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 17, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for 
lack of proof. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that, “although it appears that Applicant is a 
high performing individual who can take great pride in his career accomplish-

ments,  none  of  that  evidence  rebuts  or  specifically  calls  into  question  the 
substantial  evidence  of  sexual  harassment  presented  by  the  statements  taken 
from Coast Guard members as part of the Command’s review of this matter in 
June 199x or a Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) investigation into this 
matter  dated  11  March  199x.”    The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Report  of 
Investigation, a copy of which he attached to his advisory opinion, proves that 
the  applicant’s  CO  “did  not  act  arbitrarily  or  capriciously  when  he  chose  to 
document  Applicant’s  conduct  as  sexual  harassment  in  the  June  199x  CG-3307 
entries.”  In addition, the Chief Counsel noted that in his statement submitted to 
the BCMR on the applicant’s behalf, his former CO clearly stood by his decision 
to issue the page 7s. 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel noted that the applicant has been appointed to 
CWO2  and  that,  as  an  officer,  his  enlisted  records,  including  the  two  disputed 
page 7s,  “are no longer maintained as an active part of his military record (e.g., 
only the Applicant’s Officer Record will be used for any personnel action in the 
future).”    The  Chief  Counsel  noted  but  did  not  address  the  following  issues, 
which he called “[n]ot material to the central issues of this case and not alleged as 
error by Applicant”:  absence of the disputed page 7s from the applicant’s PDR 
prior  to  first  selection  board;  removal  of  the  applicant’s  name  from  the  CWO 
appointment  list;  and  whether  the  applicant’s  conduct  amounted  to  sexual 
harassment (because he has not admitted to the conduct in question).  He offered 
to address these issues at the Board’s request. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION4 

 
 
On  March  25,  199x,  the  Chief  of  the  Law  Enforcement  Branch  of  the 
xxxxxx  District  approved  a  Report  of  Investigation  into  sexual  harassment 
allegedly  committed  by  the  applicant  and  another  member  at  xxxxx.    The 
investigator concluded that the applicant had “sexually harassed various women 
at  xxxxx.”    These  conclusions  were  based  on  interviews  with  members  of  the 
applicant’s section in xxxx.  Several witnesses confirmed the allegations of sexual 
harassment on which the two disputed page 7s are based.  Many members, both 
male  and  female,  indicated  that  prior  to  June  199x,  they  had  witnessed  the 
applicant sexually harassing female members or had heard the applicant say that 
women do not belong in the military or make similarly hostile remarks.  Other 
members indicated that they had heard of such incidents.  One member stated 
that  she  had  neither  experienced  nor  heard  of  any  harassing  behavior  by  the 
applicant. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

                                                 
4    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  this  report  was  not  releasable  to  the  applicant  and  should  be 
returned to the Coast Guard upon completion of this case. 

 
 
On  February  18,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief 
Counsel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On 
March 15, 2000, the applicant responded.   
 

The applicant stated that although he was recently appointed to CWO, he 
has  lost  six  months  of  increased  pay  and  allowances  because  the  Coast  Guard 
failed to maintain his PDR correctly.  He alleged that, when he received a copy of 
his PDR, 15 other documents were missing in addition to the two disputed page 
7s.  He alleged that the six-month delay in his appointment will “cause a chain 
reaction for the rest of my career,” costing him thousands of dollars.  He argued 
that  the  fact  that  he appeared higher on the list issued by the second appoint-
ment  board,  which  saw  the  two  disputed  page  7s,  proves  that  the  six-month 
delay in his appointment, caused by the Coast Guard’s error, was unjust. 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 

COMDTINST  5350.21,  contains  “The  Commandant’s  Human  Relations 
and Sexual Harassment Policy Statements” issued on October 9, 1990.  The state-
ment  prohibits  sexual  harassment  and  requires  all  Coast  Guard  personnel  “to 
actively demonstrate their own commitment and support of these policies” and 
“to avoid any vestige of discrimination based on … gender … in any thoughts or 
actions affecting our personnel … .” 
 
 
COMDTINST  1000.14A,  “Preparation  and  Submission  of  Administrative 
Remarks (CG-3307),” authorizes commanding officers to prepare negative page 7 
entries  for  the  PDRs  of  members  who  commit  acts  that  are  contrary  to  Coast 
Guard  rules  and  policies  but  that  the  officer,  in  his  discretion,  does  not  deem 
serious enough to require non-judicial punishment or court martial. 
 
Article 1.D.10.b. of the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) states 
 
that “[a] candidate will be removed from the Preboard or Final Eligibility Lists if 
information is discovered which casts doubt on the candidate’s moral or profes-
sional qualifications.” 
 
 
Article  1.D.10.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that,  if  a  member’s 
commanding officer or a superior officer recommends that he be removed from 
the eligibility list, “the recommendations shall be reviewed at the Coast Guard 
Personnel Command by a special board of senior officers … [which] shall recom-
mend  to  the  Commandant  either  that  the  candidate  be  reinstated  on  the  Final 
Eligibility  List  or  that  the  candidate  not  be  reinstated  on  the  Final  Eligibility 
List.” 
 

 
Article 5.B.5.b of the Personnel Manual provides that “[a] warrant officer 
whose name has been removed from the list of selectees  … [due to the receipt of 
adverse  information  about  him]  shall  be  considered  for  promotion  by  the  next 
regularly  scheduled  selection  board.    If  selected  by  this  board,  the  warrant 
officer’s name shall be replaced without prejudice on the list from which it was 
removed.    The  date  of  rank  is  the  date  it  would  have  been  had  the  member’s 
name not been removed; pay and allowances accrue from the date of rank.”  This 
article applies only to CWOs who are competing for promotion, however, not to 
enlisted members competing for appointment to CWO. 
 

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 submissions, 
and applicable law: 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to 

section 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant submitted several statements from members indicat-
ing that they have not witnessed or been the target of any sexual harassment by 
the applicant.  However, none of the statements he submitted expressly refutes 
the  harassment  documented  in  the  two  disputed  page  7s.    Moreover,  the 
disputed  page  7s  and  the  Report  of  Investigation  indicate  that  the  female 
members’ allegations were corroborated by witnesses.  Therefore, the preponder-
ance  of  the  evidence  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  acted 
correctly, in accordance with COMDTINSTs 5350.21 and 1000.14A, in preparing 
the two disputed page 7s.  

 
3. 

 
4. 

The applicant submitted evidence indicating that one of the targets 
of his sexual harassment has sent copies of at least one of the disputed page 7s to 
his  subsequent  commands  and  has  attempted  to  prevent  his  appointment  to 
CWO.  However, the evidence does not prove that the female member’s efforts 
have  had  any  improper  effect  upon  the  Coast  Guard’s  actions  regarding  his 
eligibility  for  CWO.    Even  assuming  that  it  was  her  efforts  that  drew  CGPC’s 
attention to the incompleteness of his record before the first appointment board, 
CGPC’s  decision  to  remove  him  from  the  eligibility  list  because  of  the  incom-
pleteness would not therefore be in error or unjust. 

The applicant alleged that an error by the Coast Guard in maintain-
ing his PDR caused him to be removed from the 199x CWO eligibility list and 
therefore  not  be  appointed  to  CWO  on  June  1,  199x.    Although  he  did  not 

expressly ask to have his appointment to CWO back dated,5 he did allege that his 
failure to be appointed to CWO on June 1, 199x, was an injustice.  Therefore, the 
Board concludes that the date of the applicant’s appointment to CWO has been 
properly raised by the applicant as an issue to be decided in this case. 

The Chief Counsel identified the administrative error of the incom-
pleteness of the applicant’s PDR before the first appointment board as an issue in 
this  case  but  chose  not  to  address  it,  although  he  offered  to  address  it  at  the 
request of the Board.  However, the Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion was not 
submitted until February 17, 199x, more than eight and one-half months after the 
applicant submitted his application.  Therefore, insufficient time remained in the 
Board’s ten-month statutory period for deciding the case under 14 U.S.C. § 425 
for  the  Board  to  (a)  request  and  receive  additional  arguments  from  the  Chief 
Counsel, (b) forward them to the applicant for response within 15 days, in accor-
dance with 33 C.F.R. § 52.82(d), and (c) duly deliberate and meet to decide the 
case. 

The  applicant  appeared  xxx  on  the  199x  Final  Eligibility  List  for 
appointment to CWO and would have been appointed to CWO on June 1, 199x, 
except for the incompleteness of his record.  The record indicates, and the Chief 
Counsel has admitted, that the applicant was removed from the list only because 
the  Coast  Guard  erred  by  failing  to  include  the  two  disputed  page  7s  in  his 
record.  Since June 199x, the applicant has been stationed in xxxxxx, xxxx, and 
xxxx,  while  his  PDR  has  been  maintained  in  Washington,  D.C.    There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  incompleteness  of  the  applicant’s  record  before  the  first 
appointment board was due to any fault of his own.  

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

Although  a  special  board  recommended  that  the  applicant  be 
reinstated on the 199x Final Eligibility List after reviewing his complete record, 
the Commandant disapproved the recommendation.  In doing so, the Comman-
dant reasonably required the applicant to recompete before the next appointment 
board with the two negative page 7s in his record.  However, the Commandant 
also ordered that the applicant be allowed to compete before the next appoint-
ment board as if for the first time, with no record of his previous attempt or of 
his removal from the eligibility list in his PDR. 

After the applicant’s record was corrected to include the negative 
page 7s, he competed before the next CWO appointment board, which put him 
in xxx place on the xxxx Final Eligibility List, even higher than he had been on 
the 199x list.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant would have been 
                                                 
5    The  applicant’s  failure  expressly  to  request  this  relief  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  when  he 
applied to the BCMR on June 1, 1999, the new CWO eligibility list had not yet been issued and he 
had not yet been appointed CWO. 

selected  for  appointment  to  CWO  by  the  first  appointment  board  even  if  the 
disputed page 7s had been in his PDR. 

 
9. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
an administrative error by the Coast Guard caused him to be appointed to CWO 
several  months  late.    He  has  also  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence 
that, if the Coast Guard had not erred, he would have been appointed to CWO 
on June 1, 199x.  Although Article 5.B.5.b. of the Personnel Manual applies only 
to the promotion of CWOs rather than to their appointment, the Board finds that 
the remedy provided in Article 5.B.5.b. and the Commandant’s decision to allow 
him to recompete without prejudice are indicative of both the injustice suffered 
by  the  applicant  because  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  error  and  the  measure  of  relief 
due. 
 
 
Therefore, the Board should grant partial relief by back dating the 
applicant’s appointment to CWO2 to June 1, 199x.  However, the two disputed 
page 7s should not be removed from the applicant’s record because he has failed 
to prove that they are in error or unjust. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

10. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXX, 

USCG, is hereby granted in part as follows: 

 
His date of rank and date of appointment to CWO2 shall be changed to 

 
He shall receive any back pay and allowances due him as a result of this 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
  

 
  

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 1, 199x. 

 
 

correction.