DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2003-060 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Ulmer, Chair: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  April  7,  2003,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  18,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  remove  a  summary  court-martial  (SCM) 
conviction  from  her  military  record.    "Specifically,  I  request  that  the  punishment  be 
removed  . . . and I receive back pay from 2 March xxxx." 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  she  was  appealing  the  SCM  because  of  an  error 
prejudicial to her substantial rights and because the sentence was inappropriate.  She 
stated that on March 2, 2000, a SCM1 found her guilty of disorderly conduct, a violation 
                                                 
1   Rule 1301 of the MCM states that the function  of the SCM is to promptly adjudicate minor offenses 
under a simple procedure.  It is composed on one commissioned officer on active duty and the accused is 
not entitled to counsel.  The maximum punishment that may be imposed by a SCM is confinement for not 
more  than  one  month,  confinement  without  hard  labor  for  not  more  than  45  days,  and  restriction  to 
specified  limits  for  not  more  than  2  months,  and  forfeiture  of  not  more  than  2/3  pay  for  1  month.   

of  Article  134  of  the Uniform  Code  of Military  Justice  (UCMJ).   She  was  convicted  of 
being disorderly "for knocking and shaking [an SK3's] door and for hitting his car with 
my hand and a broom handle" on 19 September 199x.   She was sentenced to be reduced 
one rank to pay grade E-4.  
 
 
The applicant further alleged that the SCM found her guilty of an inappropriate 
relationship with an SK3.  She stated that a relationship between an E-5 and an E-4 "is 
hardly a reason for [her] to receive continuous and harsh punishment while the other 
petty officer [an E-4] was not even counseled."   
 
 
disproportionate to the offense for the following reasons: 
 

the  punishment  was  harsh,  unusual,  and 

The  applicant  stated 

that 

Prior to the Courts-Martial I was banned from the office and sent to work 
in  an  office  space  alone  and  with  no  contact  with  other  member  of  the 
command;  
 
 I received numerous Administrative Remarks2 (page 7 entries) placed in 
my  service  record  prior  to  the  Courts-Martial,  therefore,  prior  to  any 
adjudication of guilt . . . 
 
I did not receive an award that was given to every other member in my 
office  (military  and  civilian)  even  though  I  was  present  and  working  in 
that very office during the entire period of the award;  
 
I  was  not  recommended  for  reenlistment  by  my  Commanding  Officer 
[CO] . . . and had to face a reenlistment board and plead for my livelihood; 
 
My  Enlisted  performance  evaluation  dated  31  October  199x  was 
significantly  lowered  prior  to  the  Courts-Martial  or  any  adjudication  of 
guilt;  
 
I was not recommended for advancement; and 
 
I was removed from my workstation instead of a junior petty officer.   

 

                                                                                                                                                             
Subsection 2 states that "In the case of enlisted  members above the fourth pay grade, summary courts-
martial may not adjudge confinement, hard labor without confinement, or reduction except to the next 
pay grade."   
2    An  administrative  remarks  page    (known  as  a  page  7)  is  a  document  used  to  record  miscellaneous 
entries of a positive, adverse, or counseling nature.  
  

 
The applicant stated that the reduction in rank was humiliating, particularly in 
light  of  the  fact  that  she  had  between  16  and  17  years  of  service.   She  stated  that  the 
reduction in rate has cost her approximately $462 per month and an additional $500 per 
month after her advancement to E-6.  She commented that as a result of the reduction in 
rank, she had to re-qualify and re-compete for advancement to E-5.   
 
 
The applicant stated that she has learned her lesson.  She asserted that in the 34 
months since the incident she has dedicated herself to the mission of the Coast Guard 
and has served with honor and integrity.  She further stated that she fought hard for the 
opportunity to reenlist because it was always her intention to serve in the Coast Guard 
for 20 years.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  June  17,  198x  and  has  served 
continually on active duty since that time.  The applicant's military record contains the 
following pertinent entries. 
 
 
On August 18, 199x, a page 7 was placed in the applicant's record informing her 
that  the  eligibility  period  for  a  good  conduct  award  had  been  terminated  due  to  an 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  on  her  performance  evaluation  for  the  period  ending 
August 18, 199x. 
 
On September 20, 199x, the applicant's CO informed her on a page 7 that he had 
 
received  information  indicating  that  the  applicant  had  violated  the  UCMJ.    The 
applicant was ordered to avoid all contact with a co-worker until an investigation and 
administrative action had been finalized.  
 
 
On  November  4,  199x,  a  page  7  was  entered  in  the  applicant's  record 
documenting  an  unsatisfactory  mark  in  conduct  due  to  a  civil  arrest  and  her  alleged 
harassment of a civilian family on September 19, 199x.  
 
 
On  November  4,  199x,  another  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant's  record 
advising  her  that  she  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  the  performance 
evaluation  ending  October  31,  199x.    The  page  7  stated  that  the  applicant  had  shown 
poor judgment in dealing with others and had failed to conform to civilian and military 
rules, regulations and standards.   
 
 
On  November  4,  199x,  a  third  page  was  entered  in  the  applicant's  record 
documenting  the  2  that  she  received  in  the  Human  Relations  category  of  her 
performance evaluation for the period ending October 21, 199x.  The CO pointed to the 
counseling  the  applicant  received  on  August  26,  199x  concerning  her  actions  in  the 
work place toward the victim of her disorderly conduct.  He also stated that later that 

day,  the  applicant  was  counseled  again  about  a  confrontation  with  this  individual.  
Last, the CO mentioned that a police report was filed against the applicant for harassing 
a civilian family and for criminal trespassing, resulting in her arrest.   
 
 
On  November  9,  199x,  the  applicant  was  counseled  on  a  page  7  regarding  the 
provisions  of  Article  8.H.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.    She  was  further 
counseled  that  any  inappropriate  behavior  on  her  part  against  another  member, 
whether actual or perceived, that threatened the good order and discipline of the unit, 
could result in further administrative or disciplinary action.   
 
Summary Court-Martial (SCM) 
 

On  March  2,  xxxx,  a  SCM  convicted  the  applicant  of  "disorderly  conduct  for 
repeatedly  knocking  and  shaking  [an  SK3's]  apartment  door  and  repeatedly  striking 
[the SK3's] automobile with her hands and a broom handle," a violation of Article 134 of 
the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).      The  SCM  heard  testimony  from  the 
applicant  and  from  the  victim  (the  E-4).    According  to  the  testimony,  this  incident 
occurred off base at or around 0145 on September 19, 199x.  The SCM also considered 
the applicant's military record, including her performance marks, 3 Coast Guard Unit 
Commendations,  4  good  conduct  awards,  2  special  operation  service  awards,  a 
Bicentennial  Unit  Commendation,  a  National  Defense  Service  Medal,  a  Humanitarian 
Service Medal, and a Secretary's Outstanding Unit Award.   

 
On  March  9,  xxxx,  the  applicant  submitted  an  appeal  of  her  SCM  to  the 
convening authority (CA), in which she requested that the charge and specification of 
which she was convicted be set aside.  She also requested that her sentence of reduction 
to  the  next  inferior  pay  grade  be  remitted.    She  stated  that  she  "was  engaged  in  a 
personal relationship with an individual plagued with months of dishonesty and anger" 
and  that  she  "realize[d]  [she]  put  [her]self  in  a  bad  situation  by  going  over  to  the 
[victim's  apartment]."    In  mitigation,  she  pointed  out  that  she  had  sixteen  years  of 
service, was the mother of two minor children who depended on her for their support, 
and was providing housing for a foreign exchange student.  She told the CA that she 
was receiving anger management therapy and that she was sorry for her actions. 

 
On March 10, xxxx, the applicant's military lawyer challenged the SCM's finding 
that the applicant had been guilty of disorderly conduct.  The lawyer argued that the 
conduct that formed the basis for the applicant's conviction did not meet the definition 
of  disorderly  conduct.    She  argued  that  the  Manual  for  Courts-Martial  defined 
disorderly conduct as that "of such a nature as to affect the peace and quiet of persons 
who may witness it and who may be disturbed or provoked to resentment thereby." 

 
On  March  15,  xxxx,  the  CA  approved  the  finding  of  guilty  and  sentence  and 
ordered it executed.  On March 23, xxxx, a law specialist reviewed the SCM, including 

the  applicant's  appeal  and  her  lawyer's  allegation  of  error.    The  law  specialist 
determined  that  based  on  Unites  States  v.  Rogers,  50  M.J.  805  (1999),  the  evidence 
presented was legally sufficient to sustain the finding that the applicant was guilty of 
disorderly  conduct.    He  also  stated  that  her  conduct  "disturbed  [the  E-4's]  peace  and 
quiet enough to cause him to call the police."   

 
On July 24, xxxx, a lawyer in the office of the Chief Counsel reviewed the SCM 
record of trial under Article 69 of the UCMJ.3  He found no basis for modification of the 
findings or sentence.    

 

Reenlistment Board Proceedings 
 

On  May  2,  xxxx,  the  applicant  was  advised  by  the  CO  that  she  was  not 
recommended for reenlistment because of two separate disciplinary actions during the 
current  enlistment.    She  was  informed  that  she  had  the  right  to  present  her  case  and 
appear before a reenlistment board, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right 
to waive the reenlistment board, in writing, with the advice of counsel.  The applicant 
acknowledged this advice with her signature.   

 
 
On  June  13,  xxxx,  a  reenlistment  board  convened  to  consider  whether  to 
recommend  to  the  Commandant  that  the  applicant  be  allowed  to  reenlist.    The 
reenlistment  board  found  that  the  applicant  had  been  punished  at  non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) on August 18, 1997 for failure to obey a lawful order as a result of her 
relationship with a chief petty officer; that she was removed from recruiting duty as a 
result  of  her  relationship  with  the  chief  petty  officer  and  the  NJP;  and  that  she  was 
convicted at a SCM for disorderly conduct involving an incident with a co-worker, an 
SK3.   
 
 
The  reenlistment  board  offered  the  following  pertinent  opinions:  1.    That  the 
relationship  between  the  applicant  and  the  SK3  while  not  prohibited  by  the  Coast 
Guard,  was  nonetheless  inappropriate  due  to  the  close  working  relationship  between 
the  two  and  the  size  of  the  office  in  which  they  worked.    2.    That  a  pattern  of 
inappropriate behavior had not been established on the part of the applicant.  3.  That 
the applicant's performance has been average or above average during her Coast Guard 
career.   
 
 
reenlistment board made the following recommendations to the Commandant:   
                                                 
3   Rule 1201(b)(3)(A) of the Manual for Courts-Martial states that the Judge Advocate General may, sua 
sponte  or  at  the  request  of  the  accused,  review  a  final  conviction  by  court-martial  for  several  reasons, 
including  sentence  appropriateness  or  for  an  error  prejudicial  to  the  substantial  right  of  the  accused.  
Subsection (C) requires that such request be made within two years of the convening authority's action 
approving the SCM findings and sentence.   

On  the  issue  of  whether  the  applicant  should  be  allowed  to  reenlist,  the 

 

  That  [the  applicant]  be  granted  a  probationary  extension  of 

1. 
reenlistment for a period not to exceed 12 months. 
 
2.    That  [the  applicant]  be  transferred  to  a  billet  within  the  Storekeeper 
rating at a Coast Guard unit outside [of the] area. 
 
3.  That during the probationary period [the applicant] shall not have any 
UCMJ violations or equivalent civilian convictions. . . . 
 
4.  That during the probationary period [the applicant] shall complete all 
requirements  for  advancement  to  SK2.   Failure  to  meet  this  requirement 
shall be grounds for immediate discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 
5.  That the applicant be evaluated by a qualified health care professional 
for  her  recurring  anger  management  and  relationship  problems.    If  this 
evaluation  recommends  continued  counseling 
it 
is  strongly 
recommended by the board that this counseling be pursued. 

. 

. 

. 

 
 
On  September  28,  xxxx,  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC)  approved  the  findings  of  fact,  opinions,  and  recommendations  of  the 
reenlistment board.  CGPC stated that the applicant would be eligible to reenlist at the 
end  of  the  12-month  probationary  period  if  she  met  all  of  the  requirements  of  her 
probations.   
 
 
acknowledged the terms of her probation.   
 

On October 18, xxxx, a page 7 was placed in the record, wherein the applicant 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 20, xxxx, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
 
opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  He argued that the 
application should be denied because the applicant did not exhaust the administrative 
remedies  that  were  available  to  her  under  the  Manual  for  Courts-Martial  MCM) 
because she did not seek review of the SCM from the Judge Advocate General of the 
Coast  Guard.    See  Rule  1201  of  the  MCM.      He  asserted  that  "because  of  the  appeal 
procedures established by statute and regulation within the military system, the Board 
should  deem  any  issue  not  raised  through  this  process  to  be  waived,  absent  proof  of 
compelling circumstances that prevented the applicant from raising such issues within 
the military justice system."   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  under  10  U.S.C.  §  801,  a  SCM  is  defined  as  a 
congressionally established, quasi-judicial means for military commanders to deal with 

relatively  minor  violations,  as  an  essential  part  of  their  responsibility  to  preserve 
discipline and maintain an effective armed force.  He further stated that it is an interim 
step  between  the  less  formal  non-judicial  punishment  and  the  more  formal  special  or 
general court-martial, where a finding of guilty could result in a federal conviction.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the BCMR may review a SCM only with respect to 
granting clemency on the sentence.  See, 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f).  However, when doing so it 
should  recognize  that  the  officer  appointed  to  serve  as  the  SCM  is  responsible  for 
determining  the  appropriate  punishment  after  weighing  the  evidence  including  the 
demeanor of the witnesses.  He further stated that the applicant's commanding officer 
(CO), as  convening authority, is charged with oversight of the entire process and has 
the  ability  to  grant  clemency  or  to  set  aside  the  decision  of  the  SCM.  He  argued  that 
absent evidence that the CO's determinations were clearly erroneous or that there was a 
violation  of  one  of  the  applicant's  substantial  rights,  the  CO's  decision  should  be 
upheld. The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has failed to prove any factual or 
legal error with respect to the SCM.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has presented no substantial reason 
that the Board should grant clemency in her case.  He stated that the power of clemency 
like  the  power  of  pardon  is  intended  to  address  extraordinary  circumstances  that 
normal legislative and judicial processes cannot effectively address.  See 59 AM JUR 2d 
10-11.    He  stated  that  the  punishment  the  applicant  received  was  far  less  than  the 
maximum she could have received.  In addition, he argued that the applicant's conduct 
toward  a  junior  service  member  was  more  than  enough  evidence  for  the  SCM  to 
conclude  that  reduction  in  rank  was  an  appropriate  punishment.      He  stated  that the 
punishment was fair, fitting, appropriate and anything but unjust.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  August  25,  xxxx,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 

 
 
Coast Guard and invited her to respond.  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  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  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

 
3.  The Board is not persuaded by the Chief Counsel's argument that the BCMR is 
barred  from  reviewing  this  application  because  the  applicant  failed  to  exhaust  her 
administrative  remedies  by  failing  to  seek  a  review  of  her  SCM  from  the  Judge 
Advocate  General  (TJAG),  as  permitted  under  Rule  1201.(b)(3)  of  the  Manual  for 
Courts-Martial.  The time for a TJAG review has expired. Review under this rule must 
be requested within two years of the date on which the CA takes action approving the 
sentence.    The  CA's  action  in  this  case  occurred  on  March  15,  xxxx.  Therefore,  this 
remedy  was  no  longer  available  to  the  applicant  at  the  time  she  filed  her  application 
with the Board on March 24, 2003.  The Board deems that in situations where a remedy 
is no longer available, exhaustion of administrative remedies has occurred.4   

 
4.  Moreover, the SCM record of trial shows that, through her own statement and 
that  of  her  lawyer,  the  applicant  appealed  the  SCM  to  the  CA.    The  record  of  trial 
further shows that a review under Rule 1201.(b)(3), which allows the TJAG to complete 
such a review sua sponte or upon application of the accused, was completed on July 24, 
2000.  Since the SCM was thoroughly reviewed by the CA, a law specialist, and TJAG, 
the Board finds that the applicant exhausted her administrative remedies.  

 
5.  The applicant has not shown that she was denied any of her rights.  She was 
advised  of  all  of  her  rights  with  respect  to  the  SCM  and  was  represented  by  counsel 
during the entire process. 

 
6.  With  respect to the  applicant's  request  to  set  aside  the  conviction,  the  Board 
does  not  have  the  authority  to  remove  the  SCM  conviction  from  her  record.    Section 
1552(a) of title 10 of the United States Code authorizes the Board to correct any military 
record to remove an error or an injustice.  However, the Board's authority with respect 
to  courts-martial  convictions  is  limited  by  section  1552(f)(2)  of  title  10  of  the  United 
States Code, which states the Board may only act to grant clemency with respect to a 
court-martial sentence. Clemency is defined as "bestowing mercy -- treating an accused 
with less rigor than he deserves."  See, United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (CMA 1988). 

 
 
7.    The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  grant  her  clemency  by  setting  aside  the 
punishment  she  received  for  disorderly  conduct.  Although  the  applicant  argued  that 
her  punishment  was  excessive,  she  received  only  a  reduction  to  the  next  inferior  pay 
                                                 
4      The  Board  does  not  agree  with  the  Chief  Counsel's  position  that  the  requirement  to  exhaust 
administrative  remedies,  as  discussed  in  the  Board's  rules  (33  CFR  §  52.13),  bars  the  Board  from 
considering an application where a remedy was but is no longer available due to a statute of limitations.   
If no current remedy is available, the applicant is considered to have exhausted his or her administrative 
remedies.   

grade,  E-4,  which  was  less  than  the  maximum  punishment  that  could  have  been 
imposed.    The  maximum  allowable  punishment  the  applicant  could  have  received  at 
the SCM was 60 days restriction, forfeiture of 2/3 of one month's pay, reduction to next 
inferior pay grade and a reprimand.  
 
 
8.  Despite the applicant's argument that the court-martial sentence is excessive 
in light of the  number of page 7s that were  placed in her record before and after her 
conviction, the CO acted properly in causing the page 7s to be placed in her record. The 
page 7s are administrative actions by the applicant's CO and they are independent of 
the court-martial charges, conviction, and punishment.  In this regard several of them 
were  prepared  in  support  of  low  or  adverse  marks  the  applicant  received  on  her 
performance evaluation for the period ending October 31, 199x.  While the page 7s may 
appear excessive to the applicant in light of her other punishment, they were executed 
in accordance with the Personnel Manual, as discussed below.  
 
 
9.  Under Article 10.B. of the Personnel Manual, the rating chain must document 
any low performance marks (1 or 2 on a 7 point scale, with 7 being the highest) on a 
page 7.  Therefore, the page 7 documenting the 2 she received in the Human Relations 
category  for  the  evaluation  period  ending  October  31,  199x  was  proper.    It  was 
appropriate  for  the  rating  chain  in  evaluating  the  applicant  to  consider  the  event  of 
September 19, 199x, as it occurred during the reporting period. 
 
 
10.    In  addition,  the  applicant  was  not  recommended  for  advancement  on  the 
evaluation.    Pursuant  to  10.B.4.d.5.(4)  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  this  adverse  mark 
required the CO to support it with a page 7, which he did on November 4, 199x.  The 
page 7 advised the applicant that she was not recommended for advancement because 
of  poor  judgment  in  dealing  with  others  and  her  failure  to  conform  to  civilian  and 
military rules and standards. Under Article 10.B.7. of the Personnel Manual, a mark of 
not recommended is final and may not be appealed. 
 
11.  Article 10.B.4.d.5.(4) also required the CO to place a page 7 in the applicant's 
 
record  to  document  the  termination  of  her  eligibility  for  good  conduct  due  to  the 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  on  the  performance  evaluation  for  the  period  ending 
October 31, ,199x.  Article 10.B.2. requires an unsatisfactory mark in conduct when in 
the judgment of the CO a service member does not comply "with civilian and military  
rules, regulations, and standards."  It was the CO's judgment that the applicant failed to 
meet this standard because of her civil arrest and her harassment of a civilian family in 
September  199x.    As  a  member  with  sixteen  years  of  service,  the  applicant  knew  or 
should have known that her CO would not tolerate her actions.   
 
12.    The  CO  was  required  to  document  on  a  page  7  his  decision  not  to 
 
recommend  the  applicant  for  reenlistment,  which  he  did  on  May  2,  xxxx.      This 
recommendation  against  reenlistment  represented  the  judgment  of  the  CO  after  the 

applicant's conviction at an SCM.  However, because the applicant had eight years of 
service,  she  was  entitled  to  a  reenlistment  board,  which  recommended  her  retention 
pending the successful completion of a probationary period.  
 
 
13.  The applicant's statement that she was convicted for having an inappropriate 
relationship with an E-4 is without merit.  The SCM shows that she was convicted only 
of  disorderly  conduct  that  was  prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline.    She  also 
complained  that  the  E-4  was  not  punished.    However,  maintaining  good  order  and 
discipline within the command is within the purview of the CO and unless an abuse of 
that  power  is  demonstrated  the  Board  will  not  substitute  its  judgment  for  that  of  the 
CO.   In the Board's experience, it is the senior person involved in a relationship with a 
junior who is usually held to a higher standard.  
 
14. The Board is not persuaded that the applicant's good military service or her 
 
responsibility for the sole support of her minor children is a compelling reason to grant 
clemency,  which  would  require  the  Board  to  set  aside  the  only  punishment  she 
received.    In  light  of  the  behavior  for  which  the  applicant  was  convicted,  the 
punishment was not inappropriate.  The applicant was outside the E-4's apartment at 
approximately 0200 knocking repeatedly on his door and repeatedly hitting his car with 
a broom handle.   The act placed the applicant, the E-4 and the Coast Guard in a bad 
light.    In  addition,  the  applicant's  family  situation  and  good  military  service  were 
considered by the SCM when it imposed sentencing on her.  The CA also considered 
her circumstances during his post trial review.  The applicant has not proved any error 
with  respect  to  her  SCM  nor  has  she  presented  the  Board  with  such  exigent 
circumstances that a refusal to grant clemency on the sentence would be tantamount to 
an injustice.  
 
 
15.    There  is  insufficient  evidence  in  the  record  establishing  what  award  the 
applicant's  unit  received,  if  any,  or  whether  the  CO  abused  his  discretion  by  not 
including the applicant as a recipient of that award.   
 

16.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

record is hereby denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger