DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-073 
 
XXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXX   
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 Chair docketed the case on January 29, 
2007, upon receipt of the completed application, and subsequently prepared the final decision for 
the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.   
 

This  final  decision,  dated  October  4,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by reinstating him on the 

 
 
May 2006 chief machinist mate (MKC; pay grade E-7) active duty advancement list.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant is a machinist mate first class (E-6) in the Reserve with over twenty years 
of Coast Guard service.  Prior to his release from active duty (RELAD) on September 14, 2006, 
he was serving in the active duty Coast Guard.  During this period of active duty, he took the 
service wide examination (SWE) for advancement to MKC.  According to the Coast Guard, he 
placed number 51 on the active duty advancement list, which was above the cut1 that was set at 
number 74.   

 
The applicant alleged that prior to his release from active duty, he had several counseling 
sessions with his command enlisted advisor and that he would have a made a different decision 
about leaving active duty if he had known that his request to transfer from the active duty MKC 
advancement list to the Reserve MKC advancement list would probably not be approved.   

 

                                                 
1  Members above the cut on the advancement are those who are guaranteed advancement and are not required to 
recompete for advancement.    

The applicant alleged that in January 2006, YNC H of the in Service Transfer Team told 
him  that  upon  his  release  from  active  duty,  “your  unit  will  request  that  you  be  placed  on  the 
Reserve Advancement List based on your [active duty] results – that’s your incentive.” 

 
 
The applicant further stated that YNC H and SKSC N (Seattle Reserve Career Develop-
ment Advisor) told him that all he had to do was to have his Reserve Unit send a message to 
have his name transferred from the active duty advancement list to the Reserve advancement list.  
He stated there was no mention that such a request would be approved only if there was a severe 
shortage of E-7s in the Reserve for a particular rate.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On  June  19,  2007,  the  Board  received  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  from  the  Judge 
Advocate General (JAG), recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant.  The JAG 
adopted the analysis provided by the Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) as 
the advisory opinion. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the cutoff for the active duty May 2006 MKC advancement list was 74 
and  the  applicant  was  ranked  as  number  51  on  that  list.    CGPC  noted  that  the  applicant  was 
considering whether to RELAD as early as January 2006, which was approximately 3 months 
before  he  took  the  May  2006  active  duty  SWE.    CGPC  stated  that  in  February  2006,  the 
applicant’s supervisor notified the MK detailer that the applicant planned to leave active duty in 
September 2006.   
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  only  19  candidates  were  advanced  from  the  2006  MKC  Reserve 
eligibility list, with over 30 candidates still on the list when it expired.  Therefore, the Reserve 
MKC rate was not viewed as critical at that time.  CGPC further stated that only 4 candidates had 
been advanced from the 2007 Reserve MKC eligibility list and that over 50 were still on the list 
waiting for advancement.   
 
 
CGPC stated that Article 7.C.7.b. of the Reserve Policy Manual governs the advancement 
of RELADS.  This provision states that “Recommendations for advancement to pay grades E-7, 
E-8, or E-9 under this section will not normally be approved unless there is a severe shortage in 
the requested rate in the Coast Guard Reserve.”  CGPC further stated the following: 
 

With 12 years of affiliation, and seven as an E-6, applicant is not new to the Coast 
Guard Reserve.  As an E-6 and a seasoned reservist, he should be aware of the 
policies that govern the Reserve component.  The policy is explicit in the justifi-
cation  needed  to  advance  RELADs  to  pay  grade  E-7.    Additionally,  applicant 
clearly states in the application that in an email to [District 13 command master 
chief]  that  he  left  active  duty  for  geographical  stability,  not  for  [a]  chance  to 
advance off of the Reserve eligibility list.   
 
The policy is clear on this matter and applicant has suffered no injustice.  In fact, 
it would be an injustice to the members currently on the Reserve MKC eligibility 
list to now give the applicant exceptional access to that list.   

 

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 23, 2007, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 

 
 
Guard.  He disagreed with them.  The applicant also stated the following:    
 

The  [advisory]  opinion  states  that  “an  E-6  and  a  seasoned  reservist”  should  be 
aware of the policies that govern the reserve component.  As a seasoned reservist 
Machinist Mate, I consulted YNC [H], a seasoned active duty E-7 who was tasked 
with  assisting  RELADS  with  transition  paperwork  and  assignment  in  the 
SELRES.  If the [BCMR] expects that I should have been aware of the policies 
that govern the reserve component, it stands to reason that I expected someone of 
YNC [H’s] position and Job Description to be a credible source on the policies 
governing the reserve component.   

 

YN [H] . . . referred me to SKSC [N], the Reserve Career development Advisor at 
ISC  Seattle  for  additional  information.    SKSC  [N]  not  only  agreed  with  YNC 
[H’s]  assessment  and  advice,  he  also  provided  me  with  specific  instructions  on 
how to have PSC Topeka reconstruct my final multiple so that my AD SWE could 
then be transferred to the Reserve list.  
 
The  applicant  submitted  an  undated,  unsigned  letter  from  SKSC  N  informing  the 
applicant  that  his  Reserve  unit  is  responsible  for  drafting  and  sending  the  message  to  PSC 
(Personnel  Support  Center)  and  CGPC  for  a  transfer,  and  that  PSC  would  reconstruct  the 
applicant’s final SWE multiple. SKSC N told the applicant that the MKC cut for 2006 was 0 (no 
guarantees for advancement) and the cut for 2005 was 3.  According to the applicant, SKSC N 
told him that usually an active duty final multiple transfers over quite high to the Reserve SWE.  
SKSC N also told the applicant to “[t]ake a look at the RSWE lists off the advancement link of 
the PSC homepage  . . . the MKC cut for 2006 is zero & was three for 2005.”    

 
 
The applicant stated that contrary to the advisory opinion, geographical stability was not 
his main concern, but rather his main concern was advancing to MKC.  He argued that he used 
prudent  judgment  in  consulting  with  senior  staff  personnel  at  the  Headquarters  and  District 
levels, and they were in agreement that not only would his active duty  SWE transfer but that 
such a transfer would likely increase the likelihood of his making MKC.  He asserted that the 
incomplete  and  inaccurate  advice  provided  to  him  from  official  Coast  Guard  sources  was  the 
basis for his ultimate decision to RELAD.   
 

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:  
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

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

 
2.    The  applicant  has  not  proven  that  he  was  provided  inaccurate  and/or  incomplete 
advice  about  transferring  from  the  active  duty  MKC  advancement  list  to  the  Reserve 
advancement list if he chose to RELAD.  He presented evidence that YNC H told him that his 
Reserve unit would request that his name be placed on the Reserve Advancement list once he 
was released from active duty into the Reserve.  He further presented evidence that SKSC N told 
him that his unit had to submit a request to PSC and CGPC, that PSC would reconstruct his final 
SWE  multiple,  and  that  active  duty  final  multiples  usually  transfer  over  quite  high  on  the 
Reserve  SWE.    However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  either  of  these  individuals  promised  or 
guaranteed to the applicant that his request to transfer from the active duty MKC advancement 
list  to  the  Reserve  MKC  advancement  list  would  be  approved  by  CGPC.    In  contrast  to  the 
applicant’s  argument,  the  evidence  is  that  each  of  these  individuals  told  the  applicant  that  his 
Reserve  unit  had  to  request  the  transfer  on  his  behalf  and  that  PSC  would  be  required  to 
reconstruct  his  active  duty  SWE  multiple;  however  he  has  not  shown  that  either  individual 
promised him that CGPC would approve his request to transfer to the Reserve advancement list.  
Subsequent  to  his  RELAD,  the  applicant’s  Reserve  unit  requested  his  transfer  to  the  Reserve 
advancement  list,  but  CGPC  disapproved  it  because  the  Reserve  did  not  have  a  shortage  of 
MKCs at that time.  It appears to the Board that the applicant read more into the comments and 
advice provided by YNC H and SKSC N than was actually stated.  
 
 
3.  Moreover, SKSC N told the applicant that the cut for the 2006 Reserve advancement 
list was 0 which meant that no E-7 vacancies had been expected for that year.  SKSC N also told 
the applicant that  the cut for the 2005  advancement list had been 3, which meant that only 3 
MK1s were guaranteed advancement to MKC from that list.  The applicant was on notice, based 
on  the  historical  figures  provided  by  SKSC  N  that  few,  if  any,  vacancies  had  been  projected 
within the Reserve for MKCs.    The applicant having been advanced from MK3 through MK1 
should have known that with so few MKC vacancies predicted for the two earlier advancement 
cycles, it was questionable whether he would have been advanced, even if he had been allowed 
to  transfer  to  a  Reserve  advancement  list.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  had 
sufficient  information  to  make  an  informed  decision  whether  it  was  in  his  best  interest  to 
RELAD.   
 
 
4.  CGPC’s disapproval of the applicant’s request was in accordance with Article 7.C.7.b. 
of the Reserve Policy Manual, which states that recommendations for advancement to E-7 for 
RELADs will not normally be approved unless there is a severe shortage in the requested rate in 
the Reserve.  As the advisory opinion states, there was no shortage of MKCs in the Reserve at 
the pertinent time.   
 
 
5.  Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard provided him with 
incomplete or inaccurate advice about RELADS transferring from the active duty advancement 
list to the Reserve advancement list.  The Coast Guard Reserve did not have a shortage  MKCs at 
the time of the applicant’s RELAD, and therefore acted in accordance with the Reserve Policy 
Manual  in  disapproving  his  request  to  transfer  from  the  active  duty  advancement  list  to  the 
Reserve advancement list.   
 
 
 

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

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXX,  XXXXXXX,  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.