DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for Correction of
Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BCMR Docket
No. 2001-085
FINAL DECISION
This final decision, dated March 21, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed
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 May 4, 2001, upon the
Board’s receipt of the applicant’s complete application for correction of his military
record.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
Application for Relief
The applicant, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to award him back
pay and allowances retroactive to June 1, 2000, which is his CWO3 date of rank.
Specifically, he requested that he receive back pay and allowances for any drills and
active duty training that he has performed since June 1, 2000.
The applicant stated that due to an administrative error, the 1999 CWO3 inactive
duty promotion list (IDPL) selection board did not consider his record. He was
subsequently selected for promotion to CWO3 by the 2000 IDPL CWO3 selection board.
He was promoted in January 2001, with an adjusted CWO3 date of rank retroactive to
June 1, 2000, the date he would have had if he had been selected for promotion to
CWO3 by the 1999 IDPL CWO3 selection board. In a letter from the Commander,
Coast Guard Personnel Command, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the applicant was told that
although the Coast Guard had adjusted his date of rank, he had to apply to the BCMR
to receive back pay and allowances.
Views of the Coast Guard
Counsel of the Coast Guard. He recommended that the Board grant relief.
The Chief Counsel stated that 14 U.S.C. § 739 (b) provides that “a reserve officer
is not considered to have failed of selection if the officer was not considered by a
selection board because of administrative error. If that officer is selected by the next
On September 25, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief
appropriate selection board after the error is discovered and is promoted, the same date
of rank and precedence shall be assigned that would have been assigned if the officer
had been recommended for promotion by the selection board that originally would
have considered the officer but for the error.” The Chief Counsel stated that the
applicant is entitled to relief because he has met the requirements of this statute.
Applicant’s Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard
the Coast Guard. He agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation for relief.
On October 17, 2001, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
1. The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10,
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law:
United States Code. The application was timely.
2. Due to an administrative error, the 1999 IDPL CWO3 selection board did not
consider the applicant’s record. Subsequently, the applicant was selected for promotion
by the 2000 IDPL CWO3 selection board. In January 2001, he was promoted to CWO3
and given the date of rank (June 1, 2000) he would have had if he had been selected by
the 1999 IDPL CWO3 selection board. The Coast Guard has conceded that it committed
an error in this case, and it has adjusted the applicant’s date of rank, pursuant to 14
U.S.C. § 739(b).
3. Although, the Coast Guard corrected the applicant’s date of rank, it did not
authorize back pay and allowances. Therefore, the applicant asked the Board to enter
an order directing that he receive back pay and allowances as a CWO3 retroactive to
June 1, 2000, his CWO3 date of rank. The Board finds that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. §
739(b) the applicant is entitled to back pay and allowances. The Coast Guard concurs in
this grant of relief.
4. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his
military record is granted. His record shall be corrected to show that he is entitled to
back pay and allowances as a CWO3 retroactive to June 1, 2000. Specifically this order
of back pay and allowances shall include any drills and active duty for training that he
performed from June 1, 2000.
Michael K. Nolan
Dorothy J. Ulmer
Kathryn Sinniger
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-023
The JAG stated that the applicant only requested to have his date of rank corrected, but the Reserve Policy Manual provides for other relief when an officer is not considered by a selection board due to administrative error. The Coast Guard admitted, and the Board finds, that it committed an error by assigning the applicant a November 22, 2002, LT date of rank in the Coast Guard Reserve. The Coast Guard stated that it could not award back pay and allowances because under Article 7.A.7.b.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-001
The JAG stated the following: Applicant's record should have been considered by the [2005] IDPL LCDR Promotion Board. The applicant's request for a special selection board cannot be granted since the Coast Guard does not have the statutory authority to convene such boards.2 However, the applicant is entitled to the relief normally granted in these situations, which is the removal of the 2005 failure of selection for promotion, if any, from her record, and if selected for promotion by the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-083
Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected by removing the disputed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was selected for promotion to LCDR by the promotion year (PY) 2011 Reserve LCDR selection board, which convened on August 16, 2010, now asks the Board to backdate his date of rank to lieutenant commander (LCDR) by one promotion year (PY 2010) because his record was prejudiced by the erroneous OER when it was reviewed by the PY 2010 selection board. 2009-071,...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-114
The date of appointment is that date the The JAG stated, however, that although the Coast Guard may not backdate the applicant’s date of rank or award him back pay and allowances because of the administrative error, the Board may do so pursuant to its authority under 10 U.S.C. However, the Secretary may adjust the date of appointment … for any other reason that equity requires.” Therefore, the JAG stated that, if the applicant is selected for promotion by the PY 2008 selection board,1 the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-147
Provided complete, well- documented evaluation; excellent input to CWO4 and GS-7s perform- ance.” The reporting officer’s comments indicated that the applicant was unexpectedly transferred to the U.S. Joint Forces Command and that he was “sorry to lose [the appli- cant’s] expertise.” The reviewer of the OER added an optional comment page stating the following: “I am disappointed by the amount of time that elapsed between [the applicant’s] departure from this command and his submission of...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-081
He alleged that Coast Guard regulations provide that when members are simultaneously selected for CWO and a temporary LT commission, they are first appointed to CWO2 (chief warrant officer, pay grade CWO2), followed by their appointment to temporary LT commission. § 214, entitled “Appointment of temporary officers,” provides that “[t]he President may appoint temporary commissioned officers in the Regular Coast Guard in a grade, not above lieutenant … from among the commissioned...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-023
The applicant alleged that a Coast Guard legal office has since advised him that “personnel being advanced under similar circumstances are advanced to CWO first.” The applicant alleged that if he had properly been appointed to CWO prior to accepting the appointment to temporary LT, he would have been selected for promotion to CWO3 on June 1, 2003. Therefore, CGPC recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he was appointed to CWO on June 1, 1999. CGPC stated,...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-105
The applicant alleged that he failed to be selected for promotion by the CWO4 selection board because of an incomplete military record. He claimed that an annual/semiannual OER (officer evaluation report) for the period June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002, and a special OER for the period May 17, 2003, to September 30, 2003, were absent from his record and not reviewed by the selection board, although they had been validated by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) for placement in his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-109
He stated that it was his understanding that the special OER would be submitted with the applicant's communication to the selection board once the message was published announcing the date the selection board was scheduled to convene and the candidates to be considered by the board. He further stated that the selection board convened before the unit's next drill date, which was November 15, 2003. The message announcing the CWO3 selection board was published only 10 days prior to the date...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2008-071
of the Personnel Manual states that for each evaluation area, the supervisor shall review the reported-on officer’s performance and qualities observed and noted during the reporting period. The Coast Guard recommends, and the Board agrees, that the disputed OER should be removed from the applicant's record and replaced with a report for “continuity purposes only” because the officers who signed as supervisor and reporting officer on the disputed OER were not designated members of the...