DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

  

_____________________________________________________________________________                                                               
 
Application for the Correction of           
the Coast Guard Record of:  
                    
 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

BCMR Docket No. 2006-171 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL DECISION                                                                                     

 
AUTHOR:  Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This is a proceeding under 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 September 1, 2006, upon 
receipt of the applicant's complete application and military records.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.  
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  11,  2007,  is  approved  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he received a Meritorious 
 
Service Medal with an operational distinguishing device instead of the Coast Guard Achievement 
Medal that he received for accomplishments during the period from July 2004 to July 2005.   The 
citation for the applicant’s Coast Guard Achievement Medal read in part as follows: 
 

LCDR  [applicant]  is  cited  for  superior  performance  of  duty  while  serving  at 
Sector  Los  Angeles-long  beach,  California,  from  July  2004  to  July  2005.  
Demonstrating  exceptional  initiative  and  superior  professional  performance,  he 
researched, developed, and led new initiatives in the Enforcement Division of the 
Response  Department,  culminating  in  many  successful  multi-agency  operations.  
His intelligence gathering, surveillance, and dive operations led to the seizure of 
over 100 kilos of cocaine off the M/T REYMAR and the M/T CHIMBORAZO 
which were the largest amounts ever seized by a shore unit within Coast Guard 
Pacific Area.  He developed and led compliance through boardings of hundreds of 
vessels within the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.  In the precedent-setting 
OPERATION  GATEKEEPER,  [the  applicant]  created  a  comprehensive  inter-
agency  Living  Marine  Resource  and  commercial  fishing  vessel  enforcement 
operation.  He brilliantly led efforts in collecting and disseminating information 
for OPERATION BAJA in which hundreds of vessels were inspected for safety 
and  law  enforcement  purposes  while  enroute  to  the  United  States.    His  superb 
investigative skills and outstanding efforts in interagency operations planning led 
to the discovery and interdiction of 50 illegal migrants and two smugglers aboard 
the s/V C’EST LA VIE.  Superior follow-on efforts interdicted record numbers of 

illegal  aliens  off  recreational,  passenger  ferry,  and  commercial  fishing  vessels.  
His diligence, perseverance, and devotion to duty are most heartily commended 
and are in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Coast Guard.   

 
The  applicant  requested  an  objective  review  of  his  accomplishments  and  meritorious 
 
service  for  the  period  under  review  so  that  he  can  receive  an  award  that  “recognizes  and  is 
commensurate with my accomplishments and service.” 
 
 
After thirteen years and nine months in the Coast Guard, the applicant transferred to the 
Army.  His last Coast Guard duty station was MSO/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach (Group LA-
LB) in which he served as the operations officer.  Subsequently the Group was reorganized into a 
Sector where the applicant served as the enforcement division chief.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Achievement  Medal  is  not  adequate  for  recognizing  his 
record-setting accomplishments and service and that it was issued to snub him.    In this regard, 
he  stated  that  some  of  the  officers  at  his  unit,  who  were  motivated  by  jealously, 
unprofessionalism,  and  selfishness,  tried  to  undermine  his  accomplishments  and  authority 
through the awards process.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  unit’s  awards  process  was  the  worst  he  had  seen  in  his 
twenty-three  years  of  military  service.    He  stated  that  the  process  was  slow  and  unfair.    He 
asserted  that  there  were  complaints  about  officers  receiving  awards  when  deserving  enlisted 
people did not.  In addition, he alleged that District 11 and his CO added eligibility requirements 
for awards that were not included in the regulations.     The applicant argued that such additional 
standards  were  inappropriate  and  contributed  to  a  process  characterized  by  personal  bias  or 
discrimination.   
 
 
The applicant also stated that he was snubbed by his command because he chose to leave 
the Coast Guard and transfer to the Army.  He stated that people in his command were displeased 
by  his  transfer  and  downgraded  his  accomplishments  to  a  level  that  justified  only  an 
Achievement Medal.  He stated that “the officers of Group and Sector LA-LB had no measurable 
operational successes in the previous four years before I arrived and have had none since.”  He 
stated that as the last operations officer, he obliterated all previously held expectations, goals, and 
results for these positions, and proved himself to be the preeminent operator in the Coast Guard 
during that period.  He provided the Board with a summary of the interdictions, operations, and 
successes  that  he  planned  and  executed  along  with  some  statistics,  that  according  to  the 
applicant,  show  an  increase  in  the  unit’s  successful  operations  during  the  year  that  he  was 
assigned  to  the  unit.    The  following  sampling  of  the  applicant’s  successful  operations  at  the 
Sector is taken from his statement: 
 

-Initiated, planned, and supervised an operation that resulted in the interdiction of 
fifty smuggled Mexicans and two alien smugglers. 
 
-Coordinated  and  executed  the  interdiction  of  thirty-two  illegal  Chinese  aliens 
smuggled  on  board  the  NYK  ATHENA  in  January  2005  and  twenty-nine  more 
smuggled on board the NYK ARTEMIS in April 2005. 
 
-Coordinated a multi-agency boarding with several Coast Guard units, the Drug 
Enforcement  Agency  (DEA),  and  Immigration  and  Customs  Enforcement  upon 

receiving information from the DEA that cocaine and/or heroin had been shipped 
on board a cutter from Esmeraldas Ecuador to Long Beach.   

  
 
The applicant submitted a copy of his annual OER for the period July 6, 2004, to April 
30, 2005, for which he submitted nineteen pages of information for use by the rating chain in 
preparing his OER.  For this reporting period, the applicant received no mark lower than 5.  In 
fact, the marks in the performance categories were mostly 6s with several 7s.  He was marked the 
equivalent  of  5  on  the  comparison  scale  as  an  excellent  performer,  who  should  be  given  the 
toughest,  most  challenging  leadership  assignments.    Attached  to  the  OER  was  the  applicant’s 
Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal  for  distinguishing  himself  by  exceptionally  meritorious 
service as Coast Guard Attaché, United States Defense Attaché Office Quito, Ecuador and La 
Paz Bolivia, Directorate for Human Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, from July 2002 to 
July 2004.   
 
 
The applicant  also submitted several citations that he helped to write for other officers 
who were awarded the Coast Guard Commendation and Achievements Medals.  He submitted 
these  citations  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  Board  compare  his  accomplishments  with  those 
mentioned in these citations.   
 
 
displeasure with the Achievement Medal.  The applicant wrote: 
 

On  October  1,  2005,  the  applicant  wrote  to  the  CO  expressing  his  disagreement  and 

There  are  several  reasons  for  returning  this  achievement  medal.    This  was  my 
separation from the Coast Guard after over 13 years of service improving every 
unit  to  which  I  was  assigned  and  increasing  the  productivity  and  operational 
results of all of them.  Therefore, this award should have been processed just as a 
retirement  award  reflecting  my  entire  time  of  service.    Additionally,  this  award 
does  not  approach  accuracy  or  specificity  in  recording  what  I  accomplished  at 
your unit, setting numerous Coast Guard, PACAREA, District, and unit historical, 
operational  records  in  just  my  first  seven  months  in  Los  Angeles,  interdicting 
drugs and illegal aliens, enforcing fisheries laws, and in coordinating, planning, 
and supervising record setting operations of cutters and small boat stations.  After 
all, Achievement Medals are what we award to junior petty officers for individual 
actions  and  ensigns  and  lieutenant  junior  grades  for  exercises  or  for  merely 
completing one or two-years in noncomplex office assignments. 

 
 
On April 25, 2006, the CO responded to the applicant’s letter.  He told the applicant that 
the  award  was  given  for  his  approximately  one  year  of  service  at  that  unit,  not  for  his  entire 
thirteen-year plus career in the Coast Guard.  The CO also told the applicant that based on his 
rank,  “I  believe  you  clearly  meet  the  criteria  to  receive  this  award  by  achieving  significant 
operational results.  By limitation to 15 lines of text, the citation unfortunately cannot include all 
performance that contributed to the recommendation for a personal award.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 12, 2007, the Board received an advisory opinion from the office of the Judge 
Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard, recommending that the Board deny relief.  He 
adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC).   CGPC stated the following: 
 

Upon  completion  of  a  one-year  tour  at  sector  LA-LB,  the  applicant  received  a 
[Coast  Guard]  Achievement  Medal  recognizing  his  sustained  performance  and 
achievement  .  .  .    The  commanding  officer  of  Sector  LA-LB  is  the  approving 
authority for both the Coast Guard Achievement Medal and the next senior award, 
the  Coast  Guard  Commendation  Medal    .  .  .    there  is  no  indication  that  the 
applicant  was  recommended  for  a  higher  award  and  the  commanding  officer 
determined that the applicant’s performance and leadership met the criteria for the 
Coast Guard Achievement Medal and not a higher award.   
 
The applicant contested the award with the issuing authority presenting numerous 
arguments  that  demonstrate  a  lack  of  understanding  of the Coast Guard awards 
processes  .  .  .    The  commanding  officer  reviewed  the  applicant’s  concerns  and 
maintained  that  the  award  of  the  Coast  Guard  Achievement  Medal  was 
appropriate given the applicant’s service . . .  This authority is delegated directly 
to the commanding officer through the Medals and Awards Manual  . . .   Further, 
there is no specific requirement that an individual receive an award upon transfer 
or termination of service, rather the provisions state that an individual “may” be 
recommended  for  an  award.    Pursuant  to  [the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual] 
approval  authorities  shall  employ  an  internal  command  screening  to  consider 
awards for approval/disapproval.  There is no indication that the command did not 
employ a process, and the applicant’s statement to the BCMR affirms that there 
was a screening process within the command and the district.   
 
The applicant presents numerous allegations of bias and jealousy within his chain 
of  command  and  that  his  superiors  initiated  a  substandard  award  to  spite  him.  
There is nothing to support these allegations in the applicant’s record other than 
the  applicant’s  own  statement  to  the  BCMR.    The  applicant  declares  that  his 
award should be elevated to that of the Meritorious Service Medal since personnel 
junior to him received awards to the level of Coast Guard Commendation Medal.  
Pursuant to the Medals and Awards Manual, individual awards take into account 
expected performance given an individual’s grade, rate, training and experience.  
Accomplishments must exceed that which is normally required or expected.  The 
determination  was  made  within  the  applicant’s  chain  of  command  that  his 
performance merited the award of the Coast Guard Achievement medal.   
 
The  applicant  is  convinced  that  his  actions  warrant  a  much  higher  award.  
However, there is no evidence of an error or injustice with regard to the assigning 
of the applicant’s award.  The applicant’s record supports the award of the Coast 
Guard Achievement Medal.   
 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO COAST GUARD VIEWS 

 
 
On  January  17,  2003,  the  Board  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 
applicant together with an invitation to submit a response within 30 days. The BCMR did not 
receive a response from the applicant. 
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, United 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions 

 
 
of the applicant and the Coast Guard, the military record of the applicant, and applicable law. 
 
 
States Code.  The application was timely.  
 
 
2.  The applicant alleged that the award’s process at his then unit was biased against him.  
However, he offered no proof on this point, except for his own allegations.  The applicant’s mere 
allegation is insufficient to prove that his CO ignored his accomplishments or permitted them to 
be  downgraded  to  support  awarding the applicant the Coast Guard Achievement  Medal rather 
than a Meritorious Service Medal.  The applicant has failed to prove that the CO or other officers 
of his then-unit were biased against him. 
 
 
3.   The applicant also has failed to prove that his achievements and performance while at 
Sector LA earned the Meritorious Service Medal rather than the Achievement Medal.  While the 
applicant  was  very  successful  in  the  performance  of  his  duties  at  the  Sector,  which  the  CO 
described  in  the  citation  as  superior  and,  in  one  instance,  brilliant,  the  CO  determined,  as 
authorized  by  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  that  the  applicant’s  accomplishments  and 
performance merited the Coast Guard Achievement Award.  There is no evidence in the record 
that the applicant was ever considered for anything other than a Coast Guard Achievement Medal 
upon his departure from the unit and Coast Guard; nor is there evidence that the CO abused his 
discretion in processing and awarding the Achievement Medal to the applicant.     
 
  
4.   The applicant’s opinion that he should have been awarded the Meritorious Service 
Award  does  not  establish  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the  awarding  of  the  Coast  Guard 
Achievement Medal.   The Board notes that he failed to submit any statements from officers or 
others  with  knowledge  of  or  experience  in  the  awards  process  that  his  performance  and 
accomplishments  while  at  Sector  LA-LB  were  “distinguished  .  .  .    by  outstanding  noncombat 
meritorious achievement or service to the United States” and therefore justified his receipt of the 
Meritorious  Service  Medal.1  Nor  are  there  any  supporting  statements  that  the  Achievement 
Medal awarded for his superior performance of duty was of insufficient stature to recognize his 
accomplishments.2   The Board will not substitute its judgment for that of the CO in the absence 
of clear error or injustice.  The Board finds that neither was proven in this case.   
                                                 
1 Article2.7. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to persons who 
have distinguished themselves by outstanding noncombat achievement or service to the United States.  To justify this 
decoration, the acts or service rendered must have been comparable to that required for the Legion of Merit but in a 
duty of lesser though considerable responsibility.  This provision also states that the Meritorious Service Medal is the 
noncombat  counterpart  of  the  Bronze  Star  Medal for recognition of meritorious service and is parallel to the Air 
Medal.   
2   Article 2.10 of the Medals and Awards Manual also states that to merit the Coast Guard Achievement Medal  a 
member must meet the following eligibility requirements:   

 
 
 
 

 

5.  Accordingly, the applicant's request should be denied.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURE S ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                                                                                                                             
 

“(1) Professional Achievement.  To merit the award, professional achievement must clearly exceed 
that which is normally required or expected, considering the individual grade or rate, training and 
experience, and must be an important contribution that is beneficial to the United States and the 
United States Coast Guard.   
 
“(2) Leadership Achievement.  To merit this award, leadership achievement must be noteworthy; 
be sustained so as to demonstrate a high state of development or, if for a specific achievement, be 
of  such  merit  as  to  earn  singular  recognition  for  the  act(s);  and  reflect  most  creditably  on  the 
efforts of the individual toward the accomplishments of the mission.”    

 

 

ORDER 

The application of former xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG for correction of 

 
 

 
 
his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 Toby Bishop 

 

 

 
 James E. McLeod 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier