DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-046 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

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 December 22, 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  September  9,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  (1)  by  removing 
special enlisted performance evaluation marks for the period ending June 11, 2001, (2) 
by reinstating his eligibility for a Good Conduct award retroactive to the date of his last 
Good Conduct award, and (3) by advancing him to chief warrant officer (CWO) in the 
engineering  specialty,  with  the  date  of  rank  he  would  have  received  if  he  had  been 
selected for CWO in 2001.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  June  11,  2001  special  performance  evaluation 
 
marks  were  prepared  in  violation  of  Article  10.B.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.1    He 
stated  that  he  could  not  find  any  policy  that  permitted  Coast  Guard  units  to  issue 
                                                 
1      This  provision  lists  the  instances  in  which  a  special  performance  evaluation  should  be  prepared.   It 
does  not  list  alleged  misconduct  that  is  not  the  subject  of  a  disciplinary  or  criminal  proceeding  as  a 
situation requiring a special evaluation.   

special  evaluations  arbitrarily  or  to  issue  them  as  punitive  measures.    The  applicant 
further stated the following: 
 

These evaluations resulted in my removal from the [2001] CWO Eligibility 
List and termination of Good Conduct eligibility.  These evaluations were 
issued after the theft of a government owned firearm that was stolen from 
a  government  vehicle  I  was  operating.    The firearm  was  assigned  to  me 
and  I  was  operating  the  vehicle  on  official  duty.  A  subsequent 
administrative investigation was conducted by my command.  I was not 
awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP) or convicted by Courts-Martial.  I 
was not convicted or charged with any offense.   
 
Without  these  erroneous  evaluations,  I  believe  I  would  have  been 
competitive and could have advanced to CWO in 2002 or 2003.  I thereby 
request that I be advanced to CWO at a time commensurate with the other 
primary candidates advanced from the 2001 CWO eligibility list . . . These 
evaluations resulted not only in my removal from the 2001 advancement 
list , but also prohibit any advancement until after January 2005.  In 2003 
the  Coast  Guard  held  a  special  CWO  board  for  a  new  Criminal 
Investigator specialty.  It is my understanding that everyone who applied 
for CWO under this special board was approved and offered appointment 
in  2003  .  .  .  If  advanced  I  also  request  reimbursement  for  back  pay  and 
allowances. 
 
The CG-3307's [page 7s] I received with these evaluations documented the 
adverse  evaluations  only,  and  should  therefore  be  removed  from  my 
military record along with the evaluations.   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 30, 1985, and has served 
 
continuously on active duty since that time.   He has risen to pay grade E-7.  In 2000, he 
was assigned for duty to the Coast Guard Investigative Service.   
 

In 2001, he applied for an appointment to CWO in the engineering specialty.  In 
April 2001, he was one of the 650 individuals listed in ALPERSCOM 038/01 (Preboard 
Eligibility List2) as having met the requirements for consideration by a selection board 
for appointment to warrant officer grade. 

                                                 
2   According to Article 1.D.6.c. of the Personnel Manual, the Preboard Eligibility List contains the names 
of  those  members  whose  records  will  be  placed  before  a  CWO  appointment  selection  board  for 
promotion to warrant grade.  This provision states "[b]ased on the estimated number of warrant officer 
appointments required for the following year, Commander (CGPC-opm)  will  determine the number  of 

 

On  June  11,  2001,  the  applicant  was  issued  the  special  performance  evaluation 
with  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  and  a  mark  of  "not  recommended  for 
advancement."    The  Personnel  Manual  requires  that  the  CO  document  certain 
unsatisfactory  and  low  performance  marks  on  a  page  7.  So,  on  June  11,  2001,  the 
following page 7s were entered into the applicant's record to explain the negative marks 
on the performance evaluation: 

 
1.    A  negative  page  7  was  placed  in  the  applicant's  record  documenting  the 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark.    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  was  given  the 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  "for  nonconformance  to  military  rules,  regulations,  and 
standards,  by  member  failing  to  adequately  secure  his  government  issued  weapon 
resulting in the theft of the weapon." 

 
2.  A page 7 was placed in the applicant's record documenting the mark of "not 
recommended"  for  advancement  because  the  applicant  failed  to  secure  a  government 
issued weapon resulting in the weapon being stolen.  The entry noted that the applicant 
had  been  counseled  that  any  further  failure  to  obey  regulations  could  result  in  non-
judicial  punishment  (NJP)  and/or  removal  from  his  assignment  with  the  USCG 
Investigation Service.  The CO further noted that the member had been counseled on 
the steps necessary to earn a mark of recommended for advancement. 
 
 
3.    A  third  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant's  record  documenting  the 
termination  of  the  applicant's  "period  of  eligibility  for  a  Coast  Guard  Good  Conduct 
award."  The entry stated that a new period of eligibility began on June 12, 2001. 
 
 
On June 21, 2001, the Special Agent in Charge, Coast Guard Investigative Service, 
(applicant's  CO)  advised  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  by 
letter that he had withdrawn his recommendation that the applicant be considered for a 
CWO appointment because of the applicant's unsatisfactory conduct mark on the June 
11,  2001  performance  evaluation.    The  CO  stated  that  the  applicant  received  the 
unsatisfactory  mark  for  failing  to  adequately  secure  his  government  issued  pistol 
resulting in the theft of the weapon. 
 
 
On  July  20,  2001,  CGPC  informed  the  applicant  that  action  had  been  initiated 
under Article 1.D.2 of the Personnel Manual to have the applicant's name removed from 
the 2001 Preboard Eligibility List.   CGPC stated the reason for the action was his receipt 
of  notification  from  the  applicant's  commanding  officer  (CO)  that  the  applicant  had 
been  given  an  unsatisfactory  mark  in  conduct  for  the  period  ending  June  11,  2001.   
CGPC further advised the applicant that according to regulations, he could not have an 

                                                                                                                                                             
candidates  to  be  considered  for  appointment  and  establish  minimum  preboard  scores  for  primary  and 
alternate candidates in each specialty."  

unsatisfactory mark in conduct for the three years immediately preceding the January 1 
application deadline up to the date of appointment.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  30,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion in which he adopted the findings and analysis provided 
by  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC).  CGPC's  comments 
were  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  advisory  opinion.    CGPC  did  not  recommend 
reinstating  the  applicant's  name  on  the  2001  CWO  eligibility  List  and  retroactive 
appoint  to  CWO.    He  did  recommend,  however,  that  the  Board  grant  the  following 
alternative relief: 
 

a.  The Special Evaluation dated June 11, 2001, should be removed from 
the Applicant's permanent record.  
 
b.    Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307's  dated  June  8  and  June  11  (2) 
should be removed from the Applicant's permanent record. 
 
c.    Applicant's  eligibility  for  the  Good  Conduct  Award  should  be 
reinstated, retroactive to June 11, 2001. 
 
d.  Preparation of a new Administrative Remarks, CG-3307, dated June 11, 
2001,  documenting  the  Applicant's  misconduct  and  action  taken  to 
remove  him  from  the  2001  Preboard  Eligibility  List  for  appointment  to 
CWO.   
 
e.  Pending receipt of a favorable recommendation from his commanding 
officer, CGPC shall authorize the Applicant to compete in the 2004 CWO 
Appointment cycle in the Investigator (INV) specialty. 
 
f.  If selected for promotion on the June 2004 CWO Appointment Board (or 
during a subsequent special board if the BCMR final action is not decided 
by approximately 7 June 2004), the Applicant should receive a back date 
of rank of 1 January 2004. 

 
 
CGPC stated that the special evaluation given to the applicant on June 11, 2001, 
was  not  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  Personnel  Manual.  Therefore  using  it  as  a 
basis  for  the  CO  to  withdraw  his  recommendation  for  the  applicant's  appointment  to 
CWO and for CGPC to remove the applicant's name form the Preboard Eligibility List 
was improper.  In this regard, CGPC stated that in the absence of a court-martial, civil 
conviction or NJP, there was no authority to prepare a "[s]pecial [e]valuation and mark 
the applicant "unsatisfactory" for the purpose of withdrawing his  recommendation or 

removing  him  from  the  list."    CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant  was  inappropriately 
removed  from  the  2001  Preboard  Eligibility  list,  unfairly  denied  his  right  to  a  special 
board,3 and erroneously disqualified from competing in the 2002, 2003, and 2004 CWO 
appointment cycles.  
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant's  CO  could  have  properly  removed  the 
applicant's name from the Preboard Eligibility List by choosing one or a combination of 
the following options: 
 

a.  Withdraw  the  recommendation,  counsel  the  member,  and  request 
CGPC to remove the Applicant's name from the Preboard Eligibility List.  
The Applicant would have been afforded the opportunity to comment on 
the  commanding  officer's  request  [that]  possibly  could  have  resulted  in 
the  convening  of  a  special  board  to  consider  removing  [the  applicant] 
from consideration for one year . . . 
 
b.  Subject the Applicant to Court Martial or NJP, complete an authorized 
Special Evaluation, mark [the applicant] unsatisfactory, and then request 
his removal from the 2001 Preboard Eligibility List . . . This would have 
legitimately resulted in the applicant's disqualification from competing for 
CWO  appointment  for  an  additional  3-year  period  (The  2002,  2003,  and 
2004 Appointment cycles).   
 
c.  A final option would have been for the commanding officer to exercise 
option  a,  then  at  the  Applicant's  next  regular  evaluation  (September  30, 
2001),  and  mark  him  "unsatisfactory"  in  conduct,  in  accordance  with 
Chapter 10 of the Personnel Manual  . . . This would have  . . . legitimately 
disqualified  the  Applicant  from  competing  in  the  CWO  appointment  in 
2002, 2003, and 2004.   

 
CGPC  stated  that  in  discussions  with  the  Chief,  Office  Promotions  Branch,  the 
 
applicant indicated that he agreed with the resolution of this case "by implementing the 
proposed  alternative  remedy  that  allows  the  Applicant  to  compete  in  the  upcoming 
[June 2004] board for appointment to CWO (INV) and if selected, receive a retroactive 
appointment date of January 1, 2004."   CGPC indicated that if the BCMR had not acted 
to correct the applicant's record by the June 2004 appointment board that a subsequent 
special board would be convened to consider the applicant's record.   
 
                                                 
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.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  May  12,  2004,  the  Board  received  the  applicant's  reply  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.  The applicant stated that he agreed with the advisory opinion, except for 
the recommendation that a new Page 7  should be prepared and  placed in his record.  
He  stated  that  it  should  be  left  up  to  the  command  to  determine  what,  if  any,  action 
should be taken to document his failure to secure a firearm once the special evaluation 
and  accompanying  page  7s  are  removed.      The  applicant  also  submitted  a  very 
favorable letter from his current CO recommending that the applicant be appointed a 
CWO.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article 1.D.2.a.9 (Minimum Eligibility Requirements for Appointment to Warrant 
Officer) states to be eligible for appointment to warrant officer, a member must have no 
court-martial or civil conviction, or unsatisfactory mark in conduct for the three years 
immediately  prior  to  the  1  January  application  deadline  through  the  actual  warrant 
officer  appointment.    This  provision  requires  COs  to  submit  a  message  to  CGPC  to 
remove  any  person  from  the  warrant  officer  appointment  eligibility  lists  who  has 
received  a  court-martial  conviction,  civil  conviction,  NJP,  or  unsatisfactory  mark  in 
conduct any time prior to being appointed to warrant grade.     
 
 
Article 1.D.10.a.1. (Procedure for Removal from the Preboard or Final Eligibility 
List) of the Personnel  Manual provides that a candidate may be removed from either 
the Preboard or Final Eligibility List if information is discovered which casts doubt on 
the candidate's moral or professional qualifications for appointment to warrant grade.  
This provision further states that the name of any candidate who has received a court-
martial, civil conviction, non-judicial punishment, or unsatisfactory mark in conduct at 
any time after the candidate has been recommended for appointment may be removed 
from the Preboard or Final Eligibility Lists.  The removal action may be initiated by the 
commanding officer or CGPC without conducting a special board.  This provision also 
states that a commanding officer or superior in the chain of command may recommend 
the removal of a member's name by submitting a letter to CGPC explaining the reason 
for withdrawing the recommendation for appointment to CWO. 
 

Article  1.D.10.a.2  states  that  the  candidate  shall  have  an  opportunity  to review 
the  recommendation  and  shall  be  permitted  the  opportunity  to  reply  to  the 
recommendation.    "If  [CGPC]  initiates  the  action,  the  candidate  shall  be  advised  in 
writing  of  the  contemplated  actions  and  the  reasons  therefore  and  given  the 
opportunity to communicate to the special board in writing via the chain of command." 

 

Article  1.D.10.a.3.  states  the  recommendation  for  removal  shall  be  reviewed  at  
the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  by  a  special  board  of  senior  officers.    "After  a 
thorough  review  of  the  candidate's  record,  the  special  board  shall  recommend  to 
[CGPC]  that  the  candidate  be  reinstated  on  the  Final  Eligibility  List  or  that  the 
candidate not be reinstated on the Eligibility List."     
 

Article 10.B.5.b. (Special Evaluations) of the Personnel Manual states, in pertinent 
part,  that  special  performance  evaluations  shall  be  prepared  on  the  date  a  member  is 
awarded NJP, convicted by court-martial, convicted in a civil court, or reduced in rate.   
 

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 applicant's CO concluded that the applicant failed to adequately secure 
his government issued pistol resulting in theft of the weapon.  He chose to document 
the applicant's failure by giving him a special evaluation with an unsatisfactory conduct 
mark and a mark of "not recommended" for advancement.  The CO did not impose any 
disciplinary  measures  against  the  applicant.    Under  Article  1.A.2.a.9  of  the  Personnel 
Manual,  the  applicant's  name  had  to  be  removed  from  the  Preboard  Eligibility  List 
because of the unsatisfactory mark in conduct on the June 11, 2001 special evaluation.  
On  June  21,  2001,  the  applicant's  CO  informed  CGPC  that  he  had  withdrawn  his 
recommendation that the applicant be considered for a CWO appointment because of 
the unsatisfactory conduct mark. CGPC informed the applicant that his name would be 
removed from the Preboard Eligibility list because of the unsatisfactory conduct mark.  
 

4.  The Coast Guard conceded, and the Board finds, that the CO committed an 
error  by  causing  a  special  evaluation  to  be  placed  in  the  applicant's  record  with  an 
unsatisfactory conduct mark. Under Article 10.B.5.b. of the  Personnel Manual,  special 
performance  evaluations  are  prepared  to  document  an  NJP,  court-martial  conviction, 
civil conviction, reduction in rate (resulting from disciplinary action), or reduction for 
incompetence.  The applicant met none of these circumstances because his CO chose not 
to punish him for failure to secure his weapon. The placement of the special evaluation 
in  the  applicant's  military  record  constituted  error.  The  page  7s  documenting  the 

unsatisfactory conduct mark, the mark of "not recommended" for advancement, and the 
termination of the applicant's Good Conduct award eligibility period are also in error as 
they were prepared in support of the special evaluation.  Because the special evaluation 
and the page 7s were improperly placed in the applicant's record, using them as a basis 
to remove the applicant's name from the Preboard Eligibility List was also improper. 

 
5.  Since the CO did not impose any disciplinary measures against the applicant, 
he  should  not  have  prepared  a  special  evaluation,  but  rather  he  should  have 
recommended  that  CGPC  remove  the  applicant's  name  from  the  Preboard  Eligibility 
List because of his failure to secure his government weapon which resulted in it being 
stolen.  Removal of the applicant's name by CGPC in this manner would have triggered 
certain  rights  for  the  applicant,  such  as  reviewing  the  CO's  recommendation, 
commenting  on  it,  and  having  a  special  board  review  his  record  and  make  a 
recommendation  to  CGPC  whether  the  applicant's  name  should  be  reinstated  on  the 
list, if CGPC had acted to remove it. None of these rights were afforded to the applicant 
because  the  Personnel  Manual  mandated  the  removal  of  his  name  without  a  special 
board based solely on the unsatisfactory conduct mark on the erroneous June 11, 2001 
special evaluation.   

 
6.  In an effort to cure the error of having erroneously removed the applicant's 
name  from  the  PreBoard  Eligibility  List,  the  Coast  Guard  recommended,  and  the 
applicant  agreed,  that  the  special  evaluation  and  the  three  related  page  7s  would  be 
removed  from  the  applicant's  record.    The  Board  will  direct  this  relief  based  on  the 
agreement between the parties and the fact that the special evaluation did not comport 
with the Personnel Manual, resulting in prejudice to the applicant. The parties further 
agreed that if the applicant's CO recommended him for a current CWO appointment, 
the Coast Guard would recommend that the BCMR direct that the applicant's record be 
placed before the next CWO (INV (investigative specialty)) appointment board, and if 
the  applicant  is  selected  by  that  board  he will  receive  a  January  1,  2004  date  of  rank, 
which  is  the  date  of  rank  for  all  of  those  who  were  selected  for  CWO  in  the  INV 
specialty by the 2003 CWO appointment board.  

 
7.  It is unclear to the Board whether the applicant has been certified as having 
met  the  requirements  for  a  CWO  (INV)  appointment  since  the  INV  specialty  was 
recently created in 2003 and held its first CWO appointment board in that specialty the 
same year.  The applicant has not competed for a CWO appointment since 2001.  The 
Board  notes  that  in  2001,  the  applicant  competed  for  a  CWO  appointment  in  the 
engineering  specialty,  which  was  the  normal  path  of  progression  for  an  enlisted 
member  in  the  machinery  technician  rating.    In  making  the  recommendation  to  the 
BCMR  that  the  applicant  be  considered  for  an  appointment  in  the  INV  specialty,  the 
Board  presumes  that the  Coast  Guard  has  verified  the  applicant's  qualification  for  an 
appointment  in  this  specialty.    Therefore,  the  Board  will  direct  that  the  applicant's 
record be placed before the next duly convened CWO (INV) appointment board, and if 

he is selected, his date of rank shall be the date he would have received if he had been 
selected by the 2003 Warrant Officer (INV) Appointment Board (a date of rank agreed 
to by the applicant and the Coast Guard). 
 

8. The Coast Guard further recommended that if the applicant's record was not 
corrected by the June 2004 CWO appointment selection board, that his record be placed 
before  a  subsequent  "special  board"  to  consider  him  for  appointment  to  CWO  (INV).  
The  Coast  Guard  failed  to  explain  what  it  meant  by  "special  board."    However,  the 
Board  has  never  directed  the  convening  of  a  special  selection  board  under  any 
circumstance  because  the  Coast  Guard  has  always  taken  the  position  that  it  does  not 
have  authority  to  convene  special  selection  boards.    The  Coast  Guard  provided  no 
authority in the advisory opinion for its recommendation that the applicant be given a 
special board.  Nor did it give a reason for changing its policy.  

 
The  applicant  indicated  that  based  upon  his  discussion  with  Headquarters' 
personnel, such authority for holding a special board is Article 1.D.8.a. of the Personnel 
Manual,  which  states  that  "[a]t  such  times  as  the  needs  of  the  Service  require, 
Commander,  CGPC  shall  convene  a  board  to  consider  eligible  candidates  for 
appointment  to  warrant  grade."    However,  this  provision  never  speaks  of  convening 
special  CWO  appointment  boards.  A  special  selection  board,  by  its  nature,  is  not 
convened to consider all eligible candidates, but rather, it is held to consider only one or 
two individuals either who were not considered or who failed to be selected for a CWO 
appointment by an earlier board due to administrative error.4  In addition, the Board is 
persuaded  this  provision  does  not  authorize  the  convening  of  special  appointment 
boards  because  it  provides  no  guidance  or  procedures  for  holding  such  boards.  The 
Coast Guard has failed to provide the BCMR with sufficient evidence for it to conclude 
that  the  Coast  Guard  has  the  authority  to  hold  a  special  CWO  appointment  board  in 
this case.   Therefore, the Board will direct the relief normally given when an applicant 
is not considered by a selection board due to a prejudicial administrative error, which is 
to  direct  the  Coast  Guard  to  place  the  applicant's  corrected  record  before  the  next 
selection to consider members for appointment to warrant officer, and if he is selected 
by the first board to consider him based on a corrected record, his date of rank shall be 
the date he would have received if he had  been selected by the 2003 Warrant Officer 
(INV) Appointment Board.  

 
9.  The applicant disagreed with the Coast Guard's recommendation that a new 
page  7  be  placed  in  his  record  documenting  his  misconduct  and  the  CO's 
recommendation  that  his  name  be  removed  from  the  Preboard  Eligibility  List.    The 
applicant  argues  that  this  should  be  a  command  decision  and  not  directed  by  the 
BCMR.  This  Board  is  persuaded  that  it  was  the  CO's  intention  to  document  the 

                                                 
4   See 10 U.S.C. § 628 for the definition of special selection boards as it applies to the other branches of the 
Armed Forces. 

applicant's failure to secure his weapon, resulting in the weapon being stolen.  Whether 
the CO would have withdrawn his recommendation for the applicant's selection for a 
CWO Appointment had he not prepared the special evaluation with the unsatisfactory 
conduct mark is unclear.  If the removal of the applicant's name had been proper, the 
applicant  would  have  been  eligible  to  compete  for  a  CWO  appointment  in  one  year 
(2002)5 and he would have been entitled to limited due process in the form of a special 
board to consider whether his name should have been reinstated on the Eligibility List.  
In light of these errors and the fact that the applicant has already missed three CWO 
appointment boards as a result of the errors, this Board finds that placing a page 7 in 
the  applicant's  record  at  this  point  serves  little  purpose  and  could  create  confusion.  
Moreover, the Board's policy is not to direct the placement of adverse documents into a 
record.  Therefore,  the  Board  will  not  direct  that  a  new  page  7  be  placed  in  the 
applicant's record.  The Board agrees with the applicant that this should be a command 
decision. 

 
9.  The Board notes that the applicant initially requested that the Board promote 
him to CWO.  However, this Board does not act as a selection board and finds that a 
CWO selection board is the proper avenue to determine if the applicant is indeed suited 
for a CWO appointment.   

 
10.  Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to limited relief.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                 
5  See, Article 1.D.10.a.5.c. of the Personnel Manual. 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military 

record is granted.  His record shall be corrected as follows: 

 
Remove the special performance evaluation marks for the period ending June 11, 

2001. 

 
Remove the negative Page 7 dated June 11, 2001 documenting the unsatisfactory 

conduct mark on the June 11, 2001 evaluation. 

 
Remove the negative Page 7 date June 11, 2001, documenting the  mark of "not 

recommended for advancement" on the June 11, 2001 evaluation. 

 
Remove the negative Page 7 dated June 11, 2001, documenting the termination of 

the period of eligibility for a Coast Guard Good Conduct award.   

 
Restore the applicant's eligibility period for a Good Conduct Award retroactive 

to June 11, 2001. 

 
 

 
Place the applicant's corrected record before the next duly convened CWO (INV) 
appointment board and if he is selected for an appointment, his CWO date of rank shall 
be January 1, 2004, with back pay and allowances.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Marc J. Weinberger 

 
 James E. McLeod 

        

 
 Julia Andrews