DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-105 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  May  3,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  29,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The  applicant,  a  member  of  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve,  asked  the  Board  to 
promote him to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer -W4 (CWO4) and that his date of rank 
be  adjusted  retroactively  to  June  1,  2004,  which  he  alleged  would  have  been  the 
effective date had he been selected by the 2003 CWO4 promotion board,1 with back pay 
and  allowances.    The  applicant  was  not  selected  for  CWO4  by  the  2003  inactive  duty 
(Reserve) selection board that met on November 3, 2003.   
 
 
met on October 25, 2004. 
 

The applicant was selected for promotion by the 2004 CWO4 selection board that 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

                                                 
1      The  calendar  year  2003  CWO4  selection  board  is  also  referred  to  as  the  PY  [promotion  year]  2004 
selection board. 

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  military  record.      In  addition  to  the  two  absent  OERs,  he  also  alleged  that  the 
following documents were not reviewed by the selection board when it considered his 
record:  two Meritorious Team Commendation awards, 2002 Bachelor of Arts degree, 
2003 Expert Rifle and Pistol awards, 2000 Armed Forces Reserve Medal, documentation 
of  136  days  of  active  duty  performed  in  2003,  and  documentation  of  his  involuntary 
recall to active duty in 2003.  

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  annual/semi-annual  OER  covering  the  period 
from  2000  to  2002  was  forwarded  to  CGPC  approximately  10  months  prior  to  the 
convening of the selection board and was acknowledged by CGPC approximately six 
months prior to the convening of the selection board.   He alleged that the special OER 
was faxed to CGPC three days prior to the meeting of the promotion board.   

 
The applicant stated that his record would have appeared stronger if all of the 
alleged missing documents had been provided to the selection board.  He alleged the 
existence  of  a  nexus  between  the  fact  that  his  record  before  the  2003  CWO4  selection 
board was incomplete and his failure to be selected for promotion to that grade. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On September 28, 2004, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge 
 
Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard.  TJAG adopted the memorandum on the 
case  prepared  by  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  as  the 
advisory  opinion.    CGPC  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  alternative  relief  by 
removing  the  applicant's  2003  failure  of  selection  for  promotion  to  CWO4  from  his 
record and by placing the applicant's record before the next regularly scheduled CWO4 
selection  board.    CGPC  further  recommended  that  if  the  applicant  is  selected  for 
promotion,  he  should  be  assigned  a  date  of  rank  commensurate  with  the  date  his 
promotion  would  have  been  effective  if  he  had  been  selected  by  the  2003  selection 
board. 
 

In contrast to the applicant's contention, CGPC stated that the special OER was 
available for consideration by the 2003 CWO4 selection board because it was validated 
and placed in the applicant's record on October 31, 2003.  

 
CGPC admitted that the OER for the period June 1, 2000, to May 30, 2002, was 
misfiled and not available to the 2003 CWO4 selection board.  "This clear administrative 

error denied the selection board information on Applicant's first 24 months as a CWO3, 
and would likely undermine a board's ability to certify Applicant's qualification to as 
serve credibly as a CWO4." 

 
CGPC also determined that two other OERs covering the periods from May 31, 
2002,  to  May  16  2003,  and  June  5,  1999,  to  May  31,  2000,  were  missing  from  the 
applicant's record when the selection board considered it.  With respect to the OER for 
the  period  May  31  2002,  to  May  16,  2003,  CGPC  stated,  "While  any  gap  in  an  OER 
record can impact a selection board's decision, this gap covered 11 of the last 14 months 
of  the  OER  record  reporting  period  prescribed  for  PY  [promotion  year]  board 
candidates."  With respect to the period from June 5, 1999, to May 31, 2000, CGPC stated 
that  the  lack  of  an  OER  for  this  period  might  have  caused  the  selection  board  to 
question the applicant's qualification for promotion to CWO4.   

 
With  respect  to  the  applicant's  other  allegations,  CGPC  offered  the  following 

observations.   

 
a.  The Coast Guard's policy prohibits the attachment of awards to OERs, except 
for personal awards.  Therefore the applicant's two Meritorious Team Commendations, 
two Marksmanship awards, and his Armed Forces Reserve Medal would not have been 
attached to any OERs.  However, the applicant could have provided this information to 
the selection board through a written communication. 

 
b.    The Officer Education Reporting Program is a voluntary program and relies 
on the officer to submit a Record of Professional Development, Form CG-4082, to report 
educational accomplishments.  There is no CG-4082 in the applicant's record.  However, 
the  applicant  could  have  provided  this  information  to  the  selection  board  through  a 
written  communication.    Moreover,  CGPC  stated  that  the  applicant's  resume2  noted 
that he had earned a BA in 2002.  Therefore, the selection board was informed that the 
applicant had earned a college degree.   

 
c.    The  applicant  claimed  that  the  selection  board  did  not  have  the  documents 
showing that he was serving a one-year recall to active duty beginning in October 2003.  
CGPC stated that the applicant's resume appropriately cited this tour of duty and was 
available  for  the  selection  board's  consideration.    In  addition,  CGPC  stated  that  the 
applicant could have provided this information to the selection board through a written 
communication. 

 

                                                 
2   A summary of an officer's career that includes listing units to which assigned, primary and collateral 
duties  performed,  major  professional  accomplishments  achieved,  including  academic  achievements.   
Article 1.D. of the Personnel Manual. 

CGPC concluded that it committed an administrative error by not ensuring that 
the applicant's OER for the period ending May 30, 2002, was filed in his military record.  
He  also  determined  that  the  applicant's  rating  chains  for  the  periods  June  5,  1999,  to 
May 31, 2000, and May 31, 2002, to May 16, 2003, failed in their responsibilities by not 
completing OERs for these periods.   

 
CGPC further concluded that the applicant's failure to be selected for promotion 
by the 2003 CWO4 promotion board resulted directly from the fact that the applicant's 
OER  record  contained  a  period  of  approximately  four  years  in  which  there  were  no 
OERs documenting his performance.  "Such a significant gap in OERs prevented the . . . 
CWO4  . . . [s]election [b]oard from finding applicant fully qualified for promotion to 
CWO4."   
 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 5, 2004, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of the 
 
Coast Guard.  He stated that he accepted the Coast Guard's recommendation in his case, 
except  that  he  believed  his  date  of  rank  should  be  backdated  to  June  1,  2004,  if  he  is 
selected for promotion by the first selection board to consider him based on a corrected 
record.  He also asked for back pay and allowances, once promoted, if his date of rank is 
adjusted retroactively.    
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

1.    The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  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.  The Board finds that the 2003 Reserve CWO4 selection board did not have a 
 
complete record of the applicant's performance.  Specifically, OERs for the periods from 
June 5, 1999, to May 31, 2000, June 1, 2000, to May 30, 2002, and May 31, 2002, to May 
16, 2003, were missing from his military record.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the 
Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  not  ensuring  that  the  applicant  had  a  complete 
record before the 2003 Reserve CWO4 selection board.   
 
 
3.    The  Board  agrees  with  the  TJAG  that  the  applicant’s  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to CWO4 should be removed from his record.  In this regard, the Board finds 
that  the  applicant  was  prejudiced  by  not  having  a  complete  record  before  the  CWO4 
selection board and it is likely that he would have been selected for promotion to that 
grade if he had been evaluated based on complete record.   
 

4.  The Board further finds that the applicant having been selected for promotion 
by  the  2004  CWO4  selection  board  based  on  a  substantially  correct  record  should 
receive the date of rank he would have had, if the calendar year 2003 CWO4 selection 
board  had  selected  him.    The  Board  also  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  is  in  the  best 
position  to  determine  what  the  applicant's  adjusted  date  of  rank  should  be,  and 
therefore, refuses to direct the date requested by the applicant.   
 
 
Guard, it is unnecessary for the Board to rule on his other allegations of error. 
 
 
 

 
6.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant is entitled to partial relief. 
 

5.    Since  the  applicant  has  agreed  with  the  relief  recommended  by  the  Coast 

 
 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

All other requested relief is denied. 

The  application  of  ___________________________  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his 

 
 
military record is granted, in part.   
  
 
The  applicant’s  failure  of  selection  for  promotion  to  CWO4  before  the  2003 
CWO4 Reserve selection board shall be removed from his record.  The applicant was 
selected for promotion to CWO4 by the October 25, 2004 selection board.  Therefore, his 
CWO4 date of rank, once promoted, shall be adjusted retroactively to the date he would 
have  had  if  he  had  been  selected  by  the  2003  selection  board,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Suzanne L. Wilson 

 

 
 Richard Walter