Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-153
Original file (2002-153.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2002-153 
 

  FINAL DECISION 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  22,  2003  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

 
ULMER, Chair: 
 
 
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 August 2, 2002, 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 asked the Board to adjust his lieutenant commander (LCDR) date 
of  rank  from  September  1,  2002  to  June  1,  2001  with  back  pay  and  allowances.  
Subsequently, he amended his application requesting an adjustment to his date of rank 
from September 1, 2002, to July 1, 2002, with back pay and allowances.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that he was not considered for promotion by the calendar 
year  (CY)  2001  LCDR  selection  board  because  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  submit  his 
military record to the selection board.   
 

Two years earlier in 1999, the applicant had been selected for promotion to LCDR 
by the 1999 selection board.  However, the applicant declined the promotion, when it 
was offered to him in June 2001.  He stated "I declined promotion   . . . as a result of the 
uncertainty  of  the  HU-25  Falcon  Jet  program  at  Coast  Guard  Air  Station  .  .  .  &  my 
unwillingness to accept additional obligated service due to the promotion."  He further 
stated as follows: 
 

My scheduled retirement date was 1 Nov 2002, but with terminal leave I was 
planning on separating on or about 1 July 2002.  I received a call from OPM-1, 
the office of officer promotions, in September 2001 to let me know that an error 
had  occurred.    I  was  not  included  in  the  next  promotion  board  for  selection 
again to LCDR.  They advised me that I would be looked at for promotion in 

August  2002  &  that  I  should  submit  the  paperwork  for  a  BCMR  to  get  my 
original date of rank & back pay as if I would have promoted off of the August 
2001 promotion board that I missed.   

 
After filing his application for correction of his record, the applicant notified the 
 
Board that the Coast Guard promoted him to LCDR on September 1, 2002.   He was told 
to amend his BCMR application to request a date of rank adjustment retroactive to July 
1, 2002, which he did.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
On November 29, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
 
Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard.    He  adopted  the  comments  of  the  Commander,  Coast 
Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  which  are  attached  as  Enclosure  (1)  to  the 
advisory opinion. 
 
 
CGPC concluded that the applicant "has basis to request that his date of rank be 
changed, to receive back pay and allowances from [September 1, 2002 to July 1, 2002]."  
He offered the following chronology of events: 
 

Applicant was originally selected for promotion to [LCDR] by the [1999] 
board.    Accordingly,  he  was  scheduled  to  promote  on  June  1,  2001.    At 
that time he declined promotion. 
 
Applicant's  promotion  status  should  have  changed  from  "Selected"  to 
"non-Selected"  once  he  declined  promotion.    He  was  then  eligible  to  be 
seen by the next promotion board as an above zone officer. 
 
The  [2001  LCDR]  selection  board  convened  on  August  20,  2001.    This 
selection  board  should  have  considered  him.    Due  to  an  administrative 
error  within  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command,  Officer  Personnel 
Management,  his  new  status  was  not  effected  until  after  [the  selection 
board  adjourned].    As  a  result,  the  [2001  LCDR  selection board] did not 
see [the applicant's record]. 
 
…. Had the [2001 LCDR selection board] chosen the applicant, he would 
have been promoted on July 1, 2002.   
 
Applicant was promoted to [LCDR] on September 1, 2002.1 

                                                 
1    The  Chair  had  several  conversations  with  Coast  Guard  personnel  about  the  applicant's 
promotion to LCDR.  The Chair was informed that when the applicant declined his promotion 
in  June  2001,  his  name  should  have  been  removed  from  the  promotion  list  and  his  record 
placed  before  the  next  LCDR  selection  board  as  an  above  zone  officer.  However,  the  Coast 
Guard neither removed his name from the promotion list nor placed his record before the 2001 
selection board.  After discovering that it had committed an administrative error by not placing 
the applicant's record before the 2001 LCDR selection board, the Coast Guard determined that 

 
Applicant’s Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On December 11, 2002, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views 
of the Coast Guard.  The applicant agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation for 
relief. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The BCMR has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 and 

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

 
 
applicant's record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
2. The applicant was promoted to LCDR on September 1, 2002.  The Board has 
some  concerns  about  the  manner  in  which  this  applicant  was  promoted,  particularly 
with  promoting  him  without  selection  by  a  subsequent  LCDR  selection  after  he 
declined an offer of promotion in June 2001. However that issue is not before this Board, 
as the applicant has already been promoted, and we do not address it. 
 

3. On the matter of adjusting the applicant's LCDR date of rank, the Board finds 
that he is entitled to relief.   The Coast Guard concedes it committed an administrative 
error  by  not  placing  the  applicant's  military  record  before  the  2001  LCDR  selection 
board. The Coast Guard stated that if the CY 2001 LCDR selection board had considered 
and  selected  the  applicant  for  promotion  to  LCDR,  he  would  have  been  promoted to 
that grade on July 1, 2002.   The Board has no basis to conclude that the applicant's date 
of rank, if considered and selected by the CY 2001, would have been otherwise.   
 
 
4.  Relying on the Coast Guard to have properly promoted this applicant and in 
an effort to cure the administrative error suffered by the applicant, the Board will direct 
that his LCDR date of rank be adjusted to July 1, 2002, as recommended by the Coast 
Guard. 
 
 
 
 

5.   Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be granted. 

                                                                                                                                                             
it could correct the administrative error by promoting the applicant without further selection 
board  consideration  because  his  name  had  never  been  removed  from  the  promotion list as a 
result  of  his  1999  selection,  even  though  he  declined  that  promotion.    The  Coast  Guard 
promoted  the  applicant  on  September  1,  2002.    Accordingly,  the  Coast  Guard  recommended 
that this Board correct the applicant's record to give him a July 1, 2002 date of rank, as if he had 
been selected by the 2001 LCDR selection board.   

 

ORDER 

 
 
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX USCG, for correction of his military 
record is granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to LCDR 
on July 1, 2002 rather than September 1, 2002, with back pay and allowances. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-078

    Original file (2004-078.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated January 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR; pay grade O-4) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant (LT; O- 3) from September 30, 1998, to March 27, 1997, which, he alleged, was the date he received his commission as a law specialist with the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) (LTJG; O-2). In 1999, he was selected for promotion, and on...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2005-058

    Original file (2005-058.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. However, the Board also found that in light of his niece’s recantation and the withdrawal of the criminal charge against him, he was entitled to substantial relief, including the following: • correction of his discharge form to show that he was released to inactive duty in the Coast Guard Reserve on December 15, 1999, by reason of Secretarial...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-023

    Original file (2006-023.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2004-179

    Original file (2004-179.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that in March 2003, she received an email from the Coast Guard Personnel Command stating that an OER was due for her for the period ending May 31, 2003. Moreover, she alleged, during those four months, LCDR X, who assumed LCDR K’s billet on July 1, 2003, acted as her supervisor on several occasions instead of CDR S. The applicant further argued that if the alteration of her rating chain was legiti- mate due to LCDR K’s alleged unavailability, then the end date of her...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-001

    Original file (2006-001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 2007-114

    Original file (2007-114.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2002-007

    Original file (2002-007.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated July 18, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant asked the Board to replace an officer evaluation report (OER) cov- ering his performance from June 1, 1998, to June 29, 1999, with a draft OER that had previously been prepared for him and that contained five marks that are higher than those in the disputed OER.1 He also asked the Board to remove his failure of selection for promotion. Moreover, according to CGPC, the...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-083

    Original file (2011-083.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2002-110

    Original file (2002-110.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Clearly the Coast Guard committed no error in taking the course of action it did at the time it did.” However, the Chief Counsel stated, in light of the xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx recantation and the decision of the State to dismiss the charges, “the Coast Guard agrees that the results of the Boards of Inquiry and Review, as well as the OERs in question and the Applicant’s eligibility to gain a security clearance, should be revisited and the Applicant’s BCMR petition for relief should be favorably...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2001-023

    Original file (2001-023.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that the LT failure of selection letter was removed from his record in April 1998, before the CDR selection board met that year. Memorandum of the Coast Guard Personnel Command CGPC pointed out that the applicant was selected for promotion to LT in 1986 and to LCDR in 1991 even though the February 10, 1986, form letter was in his record when it was reviewed by those selection boards. CGPC alleged that, with the comparison mark of 3 and no well developed...