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.  The case was dock-
eted  on  September  22,  1999,  upon  the  BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  com-
pleted application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  8,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-183 
 
  
   

The applicant, a xxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his 
military record by changing his date of rank to what it would have been had he 
been selected for promotion to the rank of xxxx by the selection board that met in 
xxxx 1998 rather than the board that met in xxxx 1999.  In addition, he asked that 
he be awarded back pay and allowances. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that when the xxxxx 1998 selection board met, his 
record  was  incomplete  because  it  did  not  include  documentation  of  a 
Meritorious  Service  Medal  which  had  been  awarded  to  him  on  April  10,  199x.  
He alleged that if his record had been complete, he would have been promote by 
the xxxx 1998 selection board.  He stated that “an award of the magnitude of a 
Meritorious  Service  Medal,  specifically  addressing  exceptional  leadership, 
organizational  and  partnering  skills,  provides  a  summary  of  high  performance 
and could sway a borderline decision in favor of selection.”  He further alleged 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant’s military record contains many excellent evaluation reports 

 
 
and two commendation medals. 
 
On April 10, 199x, the applicant was awarded a Meritorious Service Medal 
 
for “exceptionally meritorious achievement and superior performance of duties 
from July 199x to July 199x.”  The citation accompanying the medal praises the 
applicant’s “exceptional leadership” as the commanding officer of a marine safe-
ty office. 
 
 
selection board. 
 

In  Xxxx  1998,  the  applicant  was  not  selected  for  promotion  by  the  xxxx 

that the fact that he was selected for promotion by the Xxxx 1999 board, after the 
medal was included in his record, is evidence that he would have been promoted 
by the Xxxx 1998 board if his record had been complete. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Personnel  Records  Review  Board  (PRRB) 
has already granted him partial relief but does not have the authority to grant 
full relief. 
 

On September 15, 199x, a commander who served as Chief of the Officer 
Boards, Promotions and Separations Branch of the Coast Guard Personnel Com-
mand  (CGPC)  signed  a  sworn  statement on  behalf  of  the  applicant.    The  com-
mander stated that he met the applicant on Xxxxx 20, 1998, saw that the applicant 
was  wearing  a  Meritorious  Service  Medal,  and  remembered  that  the  applicant 
had recently failed of selection.  He considered the failure of selection “curious” 
in  light  of  the  medal.    Therefore,  he  checked  the  applicant’s  record  as  it  had 
appeared  before  the  selection  board  (the  records  were  still  on  a  cart  near  his 
office) and found that the documentation for the medal was not included.  The 
commander  stated  that  he  then  verified  with  the  Personnel  Records  Section  of 
CGPC  and  the  applicant’s  command  that  “the  award  was  approved  (and  pre-
sented) prior to the board.”  Therefore, he concluded that an administrative error 
had  caused  the  applicant’s  record  to  be  incomplete  before  the  Xxxx  1998  xxxx 
selection board. 

 
The applicant applied to the PRRB to have his failure of selection for xxxx 
removed  from  his  record  and  to  have  his  promotion  back  dated  if  he  were 
selected  by  the  1999  board  so that  he  would  receive  back  pay  and  allowances.  
On March 30, 1999, the PRRB recommended granting partial relief.  The PRRB 
found  that  the  applicant  had  a  “very  good  record  showing  that  he  routinely 
exceeded the expected high standard of performance and was consistently rec-

ommended for increasing positions of responsibility and for promotion” and also 
that his record “would have been much stronger with the inclusion of the award 
citation.”  Therefore, the PRRB recommended removal of the applicant’s failure 
of selection.  However, the PRRB noted that it has no authority to award back 
pay and allowances.  Therefore, the PRRB recommended that the applicant apply 
to the BCMR for further relief.  On April 1, 1999, the PRRB’s recommendations 
were approved by the Director of Personnel Management. 

 
On  August  5,  1999,  the  applicant’s  name  appeared  on  the  list  of  xxxxx 

selected for promotion to xxxx by the Xxxx 1999 selection board. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 22, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard issued an advi-

 
 
sory opinion recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request.   
 

The Chief Counsel adopted the PRRB’s decision.  He recommended that 
the  applicant’s  date  of  rank  to xxxx  be  changed  “to the  position  on  the  Active 
Duty  Promotion  List  (ADPL)  he  would  have  held  had  he  been  selected  by  the 
first Xxxx Promotion Board to review his record.”  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
On March 23, 2000, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On April 3, 2000, 
the applicant responded, stating that he had no objections to the Chief Counsel’s 
recommendation.   
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 
 
 

Title 14 U.S.C. § 271 states the following: 

(a)  When the report of a board convened to recommend officers for 
promotion has been approved by the President, the Secretary shall place 
the  names  of  all  officers  selected  and  approved  on  a  list  of  selectees  in 
order of their seniority on the active duty promotion list. 
 
Officers on the list of selectees may be promoted by appointment 
(b) 
in  the  next  higher  grade  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  authorized  active  duty 
strength of the grade as determined under section 42 of this title after offi-
cers on any previous list of selectees for that grade have been promoted.  
Officers shall be promoted in the order that their names appear on the list 
of selectees.  The date of rank of an officer promoted under this subsec-
tion shall be the date of his appointment in that grade. 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

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

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
his record was incomplete when it was reviewed by the xxxx selection board that 
met in Xxxx 1998.  Documentation of his recently awarded Meritorious Service 
Medal should have been in his record but was not.  The Coast Guard made an 
administrative error when it failed to include documentation of the medal in the 
applicant’s record before it was sent to the 1998 selection board. 
 

The  PRRB  found  that  a  nexus  existed  between  the  applicant’s 
incomplete record and his failure of selection by the Xxxx 1998 selection board.  
Therefore, it removed that failure of selection from his record.  The Board agrees 
with the PRRB that the applicant’s record without the medal was very strong and 
that his record appears even stronger with the inclusion of the Meritorious Serv-
ice Medal.  Therefore, the Board is convinced that if the medal had been docu-
mented in his record when it was reviewed by the Xxxx 1998 selection board, the 
applicant might well have been chosen for promotion to xxxx. 

3. 

 The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
an  administrative  error  by  the  Coast  Guard  caused  him  to  fail  of  selection  in 
Xxxx 1998.  Although he was chosen for promotion by the 1999 board, the appli-
cant may unjustly lose back pay and allowances as a result of the administrative 
error. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

1. 

2. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 

The application of XXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any back pay and allowances he 

is hereby granted. 
 
 
The  applicant’s  date  of  rank  to  xxxx  and  position  on  the  Active  Duty 
Promotion List shall be changed to the date of rank and position he would have 
had if he had been selected for promotion to xxxx by the selection board that met 
in Xxxx 1998. 
 
 
may be due as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

  

 

 
 
 Pamela M. Pelcovits