DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                 BCMR Docket No. 2001-014 
 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a lieutenant (LT; pay grade O-3) in the Coast Guard, was selected 
for promotion to lieutenant commander (LCDR; pay grade O-4) by the LCDR selection 
board that met on         .  He asked the Board to backdate his LCDR date of rank to  
               , the date it would have been had he been selected for promotion by the board 
that met in               , and to award him back pay and allowances. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that when his military record was reviewed by the LCDR 
selection board in                  , one of the documents in it—the comments of a reviewer in 
an officer evaluation report (OER)—referred to him as an LCDR, even though he was 
still an LT hoping to be promoted to LCDR.  He alleged that the error must have caused 
his failure of selection in             because, after the Personnel Records Review Board 
(PRRB) corrected the reviewer’s comment page of the OER in July 2000, he was selected 
for promotion by the next LCDR selection board to consider his record. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on December 29, 2000, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  27,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 

 
 

 

On                 , the applicant was appointed a lieutenant junior grade in the 

 
On             , after serving in the            for more than five years, the applicant 
joined the Coast Guard Reserve to attend Officer Candidate School.  Upon graduation, 
he was appointed an ensign in the Reserve and served as a          and              for about 
two years.  He received five letters of appreciation from his district commander and an 
Achievement Medal for this work. 
 
regular Coast Guard.  In                , he began a two-year assignment as a           .  In            
, he became a          and was appointed                   .  On               , he was promoted to 
lieutenant.  From              , he served as an alternate compliance program manager, 
developing procedures and policies for the                      .  The OERs he received since his 
promotion to LT are numbered 1 through 6 in the table below.  In each of these OERs, 
he was very highly recommended for promotion to LCDR. 
 
 
                   .  While in school from                     , he received two DUINS OERs (OERs 7 
and 8 in the table below), which show only his courses and grades.  OER 7 lists four 
“A”s and two “B”s earned during his first two semesters, with a cumulative grade point 
average of 3.7 out of 4.  OER 8 lists three “A”s and four “B”s earned during his final 
three semesters, with a cumulative grade point average of 3.538.  Neither OER 7, which 
contains  no  comments,  nor  OER  8,  which  included  the  reviewer’s  comments  that 
erroneously  referred  to  the  applicant  as  an  LCDR,  contained  a  recommendation  for 
promotion to LCDR.  OER 8 was the last OER in his record when the selection board 
met in                .  The first page of OER 8 clearly shows his rank as O-3 (LT).  The 
comment page,                          , stated the following: 
 

In             , the applicant began serving on duty under instruction (DUINS),                              

LCDR [applicant] completed degree requirements                       and was awarded a 
Masters of Science in                      .  Demonstrating exceptional academic aptitude and 
diligence  in  studies,  LCDR  [applicant]  completed  this  program  and  graduated  with  a 
3.538 GPA on a 4.0 scale. 
 
LCDR [applicant]’s initiative and foresight to carefully select a highly technical course  of 
study shows a commitment to hard work.  This level of training has positioned him for 
increased levels of responsibility within the ever growing and important field of Informa-
tion Systems Management.  LCDR [applicant]’s successful completion of this highly chal-
lenging  graduate  program  should  provide  positive  contributions  to  the  Coast  Guard’s 
Information Technology infrastructure planning and management.  

During his final semester in school, the applicant voluntarily worked as              

 
 
         .  However, the concurrent OER (OER 9) that he received for this work was not 
submitted by him to his chain of command until               , after the LCDR selection 
board met.  Upon finishing school in               , he was assigned to continue working as a     
           .  On               , he received a second Achievement Medal for this work.  OER 10, 
which covers his work in the office from                , was the last OER entered in his 
record before                 , when the LCDR selection board selected him for promotion.   
 

 
On             , the PRRB ordered that the reviewer’s comments be corrected to 
reflect the applicant’s correct rank.  On the same day, the order was signed by the chief 
warrant officer (CWO) responsible for executing corrections with the notation “correc-
tions made.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 

OER 

OER 

OER 

MARKS IN ALL LT OERs FROM 8/5/94 THROUGH 5/31/00 
OER 
8b 
NO 
NO 
NO 

OER 
7b  
NO 
NO 
NO 

OER 

OER 

OER 

1 
6 
5 
6 
6 
4 
 
5 

2 
6 
6 
7 
6 
4 
 
6 

3 
6 
6 
6 
5 
5 
 
6 

4 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
 
6 

5 
6 
5 
6 
7 
5 
 
6 

6 
6 
6 
7 
6 
5 
 
6 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 

4 
5 
5 
6 
5 
5 
6 
4 
6 
5.1 
5 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 

5 
6 
5 
6 
5 
5 
6 
4 
6 
5.3 
5 

5 
5 
6 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 

5 
7 
6 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 
6 
5.7 
5 

5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
6 
5 
5 

5 
6 
5 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 
6 
5.6 
5 

5 
6 
5 
6 
5 
5 
6 
5 

5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 
6 
5.6 
5 

5 
7 
5 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 

6 
6 
6 
6 
5 
6 
6 
5 
6 
5.8 
5 

PERFORMANCE 
CATEGORYa 

Being Prepared 

Using Resources 

Getting Results 
Responsivenessd 
Work-Life Sensitivityd 
Adaptabilityd 
Specialty Expertise/ 
Competence 
Collateral Dutyd 
Speaking & Listening 

Writing 

Looking Out for Others 

Developing Subordinates 

Directing Others 

Teamwork 

Human Relations/  
Workplace Climate 
Evaluations 

Initiative 

Judgment 

Respons bility 
Staminad 
Military Bearingd 
Professional Presence 

Health & Well-Being 
Dealing with the Publicd 
Average Mark in OER 
Comparison Scalee 

OER 
9c 
6 
6 
6 
 
 
7 
6 

OER 
10c 
6 
6 
6 
 
 
7 
6 

 
4 
6 
5 
6 
5 
6 
5 

4 
7 
5 
6 
 
 
5 
5 
 

 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
7 
6 

4 
6 
5 
5 
 
 
5 
5 
 

5.6 
5 

5.7 
5 

 
 

NO 
NO 

 

NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 

NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 

 
 

NO 
NO 

 
 

 
 

NO 
NO 

 

NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 

NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 

 
 

NO 
NO 

 
 

NO 

NO 

Prepared” to “Evaluations.”  Reporting officers complete the remaining blocks. 

when it was reviewed by the          selection board, which selected him for promotion to LCDR. 

a Some categories’ names have changed slightly over the years. Supervisors fill in the marks for the first 16 categories, from “Being 
b  When an officer is in school, all categories are marked “NO” for “not observed.  Instead, the officer’s grades are listed.   
c  Shaded OERs were not in the applicant’s record when it was reviewed by the          LCDR selection board but were in his record 
d The category was discontinued or nonexistent until later years. 
e The comparison scale is not actually numbered. However, as with the performance categories, there are seven possible marks. 
Officers are supposed to be marked in comparison with all other officers of the same rank known to the reporting officer. 
In this row, a “5” means the applicant was rated to be an “distinguished performer; give tough, challenging, visible leader-
ship  assignments”  or  (after  the  OER  redesign)  an  “excellent  performer;  give  toughest,  most  challenging  leadership 
assignments.”  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
Advisory Opinion of the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On April 6, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  relief  in  this  case  for  lack  of 
proof.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that although the paper copy of the reviewer’s com-
ments in the applicant’s military record was corrected before the LCDR selection board 
met in               , the electronic copy was not.  Because selection boards rely solely on 
officers’  electronic  records,  he  alleged,  the  record  reviewed  by  the  LCDR  selection 
board  that  finally  selected  the  applicant  for  promotion  still  included  the  reviewer’s 
comment page that erroneously referred to the applicant as an LCDR.  Therefore, the 
Chief  Counsel  argued,  the  applicant’s  claim  that  his  selection  for  promotion  in             
after  his  record  was  corrected  proves  that  the  erroneous  comment  page  caused  his 
failure of selection in            is specious since the comment page seen by the selection 
board in            
    had not, in fact, been corrected.  
 

The Chief Counsel argued that because the erroneous comment page was still in 
the  applicant’s  record  when  it  was  reviewed  by  the              LCDR  selection  board,  the 
applicant  “cannot  prove  a  nexus  between  the  error  contained  in  his  record  and  his 
failure  of  selection  before  the                  LCDR  Selection  Board.”    He  argued  that  the 
applicant’s case fails both of the test questions for the existence of a nexus set forth in 
Engels  v.  United  States,  678 F.2d 173 (Ct. Cl. 1982): “First, was [the applicant’s] record 
prejudiced by the errors in the sense that the record appears worse than it would in the 
absence of the errors?  Second, even if there was some such prejudice, is it unlikely that 
[the applicant] would have been promoted in any event?”  Id. at 176.  The Chief Counsel 
argued that, “assuming arguendo Applicant could prove the first prong of the test, he is 
unable to prove the second prong by a preponderance of the evidence” because he was 

selected  for  promotion  by  the  next  selection  board  with  the  error  still  in  his  military 
record.  
 
The  Chief  Counsel  included  with  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the 
case by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  The memorandum, he alleged, 
“provides some compelling rationale” for the applicant’s failure of selection              . 
 
Memorandum of the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
 
 
CGPC stated that upon receiving a copy of the application in this case, the appli-
cant’s electronic record was reviewed, and it was discovered that the erroneous com-
ment page had never been corrected in his record even though an immediate correction 
had been ordered in         in accordance with the PRRB’s decision.1 Therefore, CGPC 
concluded that the electronic copy still contained the error when it was reviewed by the 
LCDR  selection  board  that  selected  the  applicant  for  promotion  in                .    However, 
because selection boards are instructed not to construe such errors against the officers, 
since they do not write their own OERs, the error would not have been held against the 
applicant. 
 
 
ing the decisions of the PRRB: 
 

CGPC submitted the following statement from the CWO responsible for execut-

There is no formal written standard procedure for record correction; however, standard 
procedure  for  requesting  records  from  CGPC  (adm-3),  records  branch was followed.  I 
pulled the Reviewer Comments page from the subject OER and replaced it with the cor-
rected page submitted with [the applicant’s] original [PRRB] application.  A copy of the 
substituted page was submitted to the staff of adm-3 with a request for re-imaging into 
the electronic database record for OER maintenance.  This is done to ensure the electronic 
copy of the member’s record mirrors the member’s paper record.  Upon completion of the 
correction, the paper record was sent back to adm-3 for filing. 

 
 
CGPC  opined  that  the  applicant’s  success  before  the                      selection  board, 
following his previous failure, may be explained by (1) the fact that the applicant “sub-
mitted a comprehensive ‘Communication to the LCDR Selection Board’ for the         
    LCDR board,” endorsed by an admiral, the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and  Environmental  Protection,  in  which  he  “highlight[ed]  his  qualifications  and  per-
formance,  and  [made]  a  compelling  argument  for  selection”  (see  below);  (2)  the  very 
favorable OER he received just before the board met (OER 10); and (3) a four-percent 
increase in the overall opportunity for selection between           .   
 
 
CGPC  submitted  a  copy of a report indicating that the overall opportunity for 
selection by the            LCDR selection board was 88.7 percent (calculated as the number 
                                                 
1    CGPC  stated  that  the  procedural  problem  that  resulted  in  the  failure  to  enter  the  PRRB’s  ordered 
correction into the applicant’s electronic record has been corrected. 

of LCDR promotions the board was allowed to make divided by the number of LTs “in 
the  zone”—those  who  were  being  considered  for  promotion  to  LCDR  the  first  time).  
The report also showed that the selection board ultimately chose 79 percent of all LTs 
“in the zone”;  33 percent of all LTs “above the zone”—those, like the applicant, who 
had already failed of selection once and were being considered for promotion to LCDR 
a second and final time; and 7 LTs “below the zone”—those who had not served long 
enough as an LT to normally be considered ready for promotion. 
 
Applicant’s Letter to the August 2000 LCDR Selection Board 
 
 
CGPC  included  with  its  memorandum  a  copy  of  the  applicant’s  letter  to  the 
August 2000 selection board.  In the letter, he summarized his significant accomplish-
ments  and  quoted  three  recent  statements  by  the                           emphasizing the Coast 
Guard’s critical need for                     who can “[l]everage emerging technology ... to 
ensur[e] a safe and efficient                 system and keep[] American industry globally 
competitive.”  The applicant pointed out that as a qualified                 with a master’s 
degree in information resources and experience in supervising civilian and military per-
sonnel and in handling large budgets, he was one of the best qualified officers to lead 
the Coast Guard into the future.  The letter was accompanied by three highly laudatory 
endorsements from the                    , and the             .  They emphasized his past 
significant contributions in applying advanced technology in the              field and his 
exceptional potential value to the Coast Guard in this field. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On April 9, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s views 

and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant responded on May 2, 2001. 

 
The applicant stated that the Coast Guard’s claim that his electronic record had 
not been corrected prior to the meeting of the LCDR selection board in       was untrue.  
In  support  of  this  allegation,  he  submitted  a  photocopy  of  an  “Image  Coversheet” 
signed by the CWO who executes PRRB decisions.  A corrected copy of the reviewer’s 
comment  page  is  attached  to  the  coversheet.    The coversheet indicates that the CWO 
ordered  the  comment  page  to  be  imaged  and  entered  in  the  applicant’s  electronic 
record.    The  coversheet  is  stamped  “COMPLETED”  with  the  date              handwritten 
underneath the stamp. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  stamped  and  dated  coversheet  proves  that  the 
 
corrected reviewer’s comment page was entered into the electronic copy of his record 
on                         , at least one month before the selection board met.  He pointed out 
that the CWO’s statement does not contradict this fact.  The applicant further alleged 
that he himself reviewed his electronically imaged record on              , and again on            

     ,  to  verify  that  it  was  correct  before  the  selection  board  met,  and  the  corrected 
reviewer’s page was in his record at that time.  He submitted a copy of a “Disclosure 
Log” page showing that he reviewed his entire record on these dates.  He stated that he 
reviewed  it  because  he  “was  not  about  to  take  any  chances  of  my  electronic  record 
being incorrect a second time, especially since my 16-year career was being held in the 
balance.” 
 
 
The applicant argued that because his electronic record was corrected prior to the 
meeting of the selection board that resulted in his promotion, the “logical inference” is 
that the error caused his previous failure of selection.  He alleged that the references to 
him  as  an  LCDR in his record before the      board may have led board members to 
believe that he had been an LCDR but had recently been demoted to LT and so was eli-
gible for promotion to LCDR again. 
 
 
On May 3, 2001, the BCMR sent the Chief Counsel’s office a copy of the addi-
tional material and information received from the applicant.  The Chief Counsel did not 
respond. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Under the schedule for OER submission in Article 10.A.3. of the Personnel Man-
 
ual, LTs are supposed to receive semi-annual OERs for reporting periods that end May 
31st and November 30th.  Article 10.A.2.c.2.b. states that officers are expected to submit 
draft OERs to their supervisors, with only biographical and administrative information 
filled in, at least three weeks before the end of each reporting period. 
 
 
Article  10.A.5.  governs  the  preparation  of  OERs  for  officers  assigned  to  duty 
under instruction (DUINS).  Article 10.A.5.a.1.a. provides that the submission schedule 
for  DUINS  OERs  “will  be  coordinated  with  routine  breaks  in  the  school’s  academic 
schedule. ...  For lieutenants and above, at a minimum OERs shall be submitted once a 
year.” 
 
 
Article 10.A.5.d. states that “[w]hen a Reported-on Officer is assigned PCS duty 
under  instruction  and  performing  duty  as  an  intern  or  trainee  at  a  Coast  Guard  unit 
(e.g., law student, legal staff intern), a concurrent OER may be submitted for a period of 
greater  than  14  days.    This  concurrent  OER  provides  an  opportunity  for  DUINS 
students to document performance and is an exception to the guidelines provided in --> 
Article 10.A.3.c.2.” 
                   
 
Under  Article  10.A.5.c.,  only  the  name  of  the  school,  the  program  or  degree 
sought  or  earned,  course  titles,  grades,  and  grade  point  averages  may  appear  on  a 
DUINS OER.  All performance categories must be marked “not observed” and no writ-

ten comments are permitted on the form itself.  However, the reviewer of the OER may 
add a comments page.  
        
In a non-DUINS OER, some recommendation for promotion or comment about 
 
the officer’s ability to handle greater responsibility must be included by the reporting 
officer.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  10.A.4.c.9.    No such comments are permitted on a 
DUINS OER.  However, under Article 10.A.4.c.11.g., the reviewer may add a comment 
page assessing “the Reported-on Officer's performance, qualities, potential, or value to 
the Coast Guard if these areas need to be expanded or explained further. ...  Additional-
ly, the Reviewer shall limit comments to performance or behavior observed during the 
reporting period and/or discussion of the Reported-on Officer's potential.”  
 
 
Article 10.A.2.f.1.a. provides that “[t]he Reviewer is normally the Supervisor of 
the  Reporting  Officer.    While  the  Supervisor  and  Reporting  Officer  are  specific  indi-
viduals, the Reviewer is a position.  The officer occupying that position has a definite 
OES administrative function and may perform an evaluative function.”  However, Arti-
cle 10.A.5.b. states that for officers serving on DUINS at a civilian university, the “rating 
officials will be individuals within the appropriate program managing office.” 
 

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 submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

The applicant alleged that a reviewer’s comment page erroneously refer-

  
1. 

2. 

ring to him as an LCDR was in his record when he failed to be selected for promotion in       

 and that his record had been corrected upon the order of the PRRB by the time 
he was selected for promotion in      .  The PRRB decision requiring the correction was 
approved  on              .    On  the  same  day,  it  was  signed  by  the  CWO  responsible  for 
executing such corrections with the notation “corrections made.”  The coversheet used 
by the CWO to order the imaging of the corrected page for inclusion in the electronic 
record was stamped “COMPLETED” and hand dated     .  Moreover, the applicant, who 
had already failed of selection once with an erroneous record and applied for the PRRB 
correction,  reviewed  his  electronic  record  twice  during  the  week  before  the  selection 
board met in     .  He has signed a sworn statement indicating that the electronic record 
included  a  corrected  comment  page,  and  it  is  certainly  likely  that  he  would  have 
complained loudly if the PRRB’s correction had not been properly executed.  Although 
CGPC alleged that the electronic record still contained the uncorrected comment page 
long  after  the                selection  board  met,  no  explanation  was  provided  as  to  how  the 

correction could not have been executed when the coversheet ordering the correction 
was stamped “COMPLETED.”  Therefore, and in light of the Coast Guard’s failure to 
even  attempt  to  explain  how  the  coversheet  could  be  stamped  “COMPLETED”  and 
dated if the comment page was not actually entered in the electronic record, the Board 
finds that the applicant has proved not just by a preponderance of the evidence but by 
clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  a  corrected  copy  of  the  reviewer’s  comment  page 
attached to his last DUINS OER was entered into his electronic record before the       

 LCDR selection board met and reviewed his record.  
 
3. 

The applicant alleged that the fact that he was selected for promotion after 
the comment page was corrected proves that his failure of selection by the      board was 
caused  by  the  erroneous  comment  page.    To  determine  if  he  is  entitled  to  relief,  the 
Board must answer two questions:  First, was his record prejudiced by the error in the 
sense that it appeared worse than it would have in the absence of the error?  Second, 
even if there was some such prejudice, is it unlikely that he would have been selected 
for promotion in August 1999 in any event?  Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 176 
(Ct. Cl. 1982).   

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  failed  of  selection  in              because  the 
erroneous LCDR references on the comment page led the selection board to believe that 
he had already been promoted or selected for promotion or that he had been previously 
promoted and demoted.  However, LCDR selection boards are only given the records of 
qualified LTs to review, so any selection board member who saw the “LCDR”s on the 
comment page would know nevertheless that the applicant was an LT, especially since 
the first page of the OER to which the erroneous comment page was attached clearly 
listed the applicant’s rank as O-3 (LT).  Moreover, with no negative entries in his record 
whatsoever,  the  applicant’s  allegation  that  a  selection  board  member  might  have 
assumed  he  had  been  demoted  because  of  the  four  “LCDR”s  is  both  unproven  and 
incredible.    If  anything,  a  selection  board  member  might  draw  a  positive  conclusion 
from the error by assuming that the reviewer knew the applicant and thought of him as 
an LCDR because of his excellent military bearing and performance.   

Hypothetically,  the  reviewer  might  have  omitted  a  recommendation  for 
promotion  on  the  comment  page  because  he  thought  the  applicant  was  already  an 
LCDR,  and  the  absence  of  such  a  recommendation  might  have  caused  his  failure  of 
selection.  Reviewers’ comment pages sometimes include such recommendations, espe-
cially when the other members of the rating chain are civilians or when the reviewer’s 
assessment of the officer differs from that of the other rating chain members. Personnel 
Manual, Articles 10.A.4.c.11.g. and 10.A.5.c.  However, the applicant did not mention 
this possibility or submit any evidence to prove that the reviewer would have included 
a recommendation for promotion if he had known that the applicant was not an LCDR.  
Nor  did  the  Coast  Guard  address  this  issue.    Moreover,  OER  reviewers,  especially 
DUINS OER reviewers, often have no personal knowledge of the officer’s performance 

and  serve  on  a  rating  chain  only  because  of  their  position,  not  because  the  officer  is 
under  their  command.    Personnel  Manual,  Articles  10.A.2.f.1.a.  and  10.A.5.b.    The 
reviewer who signed the erroneous comment page, the                 , had not previously 
served on the applicant’s rating chain.  In addition, the comments on the disputed page 
are not personal in nature, as they would be appropriate for any officer who received a 
master’s degree in the applicant’s field with a similar grade point average.  There is no 
evidence  in  the  record  that  the  reviewer  was  personally  familiar  with  the  applicant’s 
performance and would have included a recommendation for promotion if he knew the 
applicant  was  still  an  LT.    Therefore,  the  Board  cannot  find  that  the  reviewer’s 
misunderstanding caused the lack of a recommendation for promotion or that that lack 
caused the applicant’s failure of selection by the        LCDR selection board. 

In light of the above, the Board finds that the applicant’s record was not 
“prejudiced by the error in the sense that it appeared worse than it would have in the 
absence of the error.” Engels v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 176 (Ct. Cl. 1982).  The four 
“LCDR”s in his record did not cause his failure of selection by the          LCDR selection 
board. 
 
7. 

It is possible that the applicant might have been selected for promotion if 
the concurrent OER for his volunteer work during his last semester in school had been 
entered in his record before the         selection board met.  Such OERs are not required, 
however, and the applicant did not initiate the preparation of the concurrent OER until         
,       long after the selection board met.  Therefore, its absence from his record in        
       was not an error or injustice committed by the Coast Guard. 

 
6. 

 
8. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

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

ORDER 

 
 
denied. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 
David M. Wiegand