DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-109 
 
 

 

 
 

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  7,  2004,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant, a member of the Coast Guard Reserve, "requested to be reinstated 
to the correct precedence on the PY [promotion year] 04 Reserve Chief Warrant Officer 
[CWO] In-Grade Selection [Board list]." The applicant was not selected for CWO3 by the 
2003 inactive duty (Reserve) selection board that met on November 3, 2003. 1  Therefore, 
the  Board  interprets  the  applicant's  request  as  one  for  the  removal  of  her  failure  of 
selection for promotion to CWO3 and if she is selected for promotion to that grade by 
the  first  selection  board  to  consider  her  based  on  a  corrected  record,  that  her  date  of 
rank be adjusted to the date she would have received if she had been selected by the 
2003 CWO3 selection board. 
 
 
met on October 25, 2004. 
 
                                                 
1      The  calendar  year  2003  CWO4  selection  board  is  also  referred  to  as  the  PY  [promotion  year]  2004 
selection board. 

The applicant was selected for promotion by the 2004 CWO3 selection board that 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  publish  the  message 
announcing the selection board in a timely manner.  The short notice provided by the 
message denied the applicant sufficient time to prepare and submit a communication to 
the  selection  board,  which  would  have  included  a  special  officer  evaluation  report 
(OER) for the period from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, and her resume.2   In this regard 
she stated the following: 
 

I  am  assigned  to  a  joint  Navy/Coast  Guard  expeditionary  reserve  unit 
that does not have full time support for its Coast Guard members.  I live 
approximately  350  miles  from  this  unit.    I  do  not  have  access  to  the  CG 
Message System while not at my drill site, and therefore, I was not aware 
of the Inactive Duty Promotion List message . . . in time to communicate 
with the Promotion Board.  The message was posted four days after our 
unit  drilled  on  19  October  2003,  and  11  days  later,  the  [Selection]  Board 
convened on November 3, 2003, which was before our next month's unit 
drilling date of November 15, 2003.   
 

* 

 

 

* 

* 
 

to  submit  all 

totally  prepared 

I  was 
the  enclosed  supporting 
documentation [including the missing special OER] had I been notified in 
a timely manner.   
 
The applicant's commanding officer (CO) corroborated the applicant's allegation.  
He stated that his command has no full-time Coast Guard support or remote access to 
the  Coast  Guard  message  system.    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. In this regard 
he stated that the message announcing the CWO3 selection board was posted four days 
after  his  unit's  October  drill  terminated  and  only  eleven  days  prior  to  the  date  the 
selection  board  was  scheduled  to  convene.  He  further  stated  that  the  selection  board 
convened  before  the  unit's  next  drill  date,  which  was  November  15,  2003.  The  CO 
asserted that the short notice provided by the message did not allow sufficient time for 
the applicant to communicate with the selection board and provide it with the special 
OER.  He  concluded  by  stating  that  service  members  attached  to  his  unit  "are  at  a 
distinct disadvantage to remain cognizant of all message traffic in a timely fashion." 

                                                 
2      The  message  announcing  the  CWO  in-grade  selection  board  also  advised  members  and  OER  rating 
chains  to  expedite  submission  of  OERs  for  those  individuals  whose  "OER[s]  may  not  extend  past  their 
regular submission month."  OERs for CWOs are normally due biennially on even numbered years.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On September 10, 2004, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Judge 
 
Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard recommending relief.  TJAG adopted the 
memorandum on the case prepared by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC)  as  the  advisory  opinion,  except  for  that  portion  of  the  memorandum 
recommending a special selection board.3  In the alternative, TJAG recommended that 
the Board remove the applicant's 2003 failure of selection for promotion to CWO3 from 
her  record  and  place  her  record  before  the  next  regularly  scheduled  CWO3  selection 
board, and if  selected  by that board that her date of rank be adjusted to the date she 
would have received if she had been selected by the 2003 board. 
 

CGPC  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  in  its  responsibility  to  publish  the 
selection board announcement in a timely manner. CGPC stated that the selection board 
procedures  require  the 
issuance  of  specific  candidate  announcements,  which 
supplement  general  board  directives,  identifying  the  candidates  by  name,  confirming 
board  convening  dates,  and  providing  additional  instructions  to  members  and  their 
rating chains.  CGPC stated that while there is no legal or (written) policy standard on 
when  candidate  notification  announcements  are  promulgated,  CGPC  staffs  apply  a 
standard of 30 days prior to a board's convening date.   The message announcing the 
CWO3 selection board was published only 10 days prior to the date the selection board 
was  to  convene  and  the  message  was  not  received  by  the  applicant's  command  until 
four days after that unit's October drill weekend had concluded.  CGPC recognized that 
neither the applicant nor the members of her rating chain were in a position to read or 
act on the contents of the message until the November 15, 2003, drill weekend, which 
commenced after the CWO3 selection board had adjourned. 

 
CGPC further concluded that the missing special OER for the period ending June 
30,  2003  likely  played  a  significant  role  in  the  applicant's  failure  to  be  selected  for 
promotion by the 2003 CWO3 promotion board.   He noted that the applicant has an 
excellent performance record. 
 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 23, 2004, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of 

 
 
the Coast Guard, stating that she did not object to the advisory opinion.    
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

                                                 
3   The Coast Guard does not have statutory authority to convene special selection boards. 

1.    The  BCMR  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  pursuant  to  section  1552  of  title  10, 

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: 
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely.  
 
 
2. The Board finds that the applicant suffered an injustice by the Coast Guard's 
failure  to  give  timely  notice  of  the  convening  of  the  2003  CWO  selection  board.  The 
Coast  Guard's  failure  to  provide  the  customary  30-day  notice  announcing  the 
convening of the CWO3 selection denied the applicant the opportunity to communicate 
with the selection board and provide it with a highly favorable special OER covering 
the year of her most recent performance, as well as her resume.  CGPC acknowledged 
that  it  normally  publishes  such  messages,  announcing  the  date  of  the  board  and 
identifying the candidates, approximately 30 days prior to the date the selection board 
is to convene.  However, in this case the message was published only 10 days prior to 
the date the selection board was to convene and was not received by the applicant's unit 
until four days after it had concluded its October drill.  Therefore, the applicant and her 
CO  probably  were  not  aware  of  the  message  until  November  15,  2003,  well  after  the 
November  3  convening  date.    The  CO  confirmed  that  his  command  had  no  remote 
access to the Coast Guard messaging system and that he and the applicant were waiting 
for  confirmation  of  her  eligibility  for  promotion  to  communicate  with  the  selection 
board and provide it with the special OER and resume.  
 
3.  Having  found  that  the  applicant's  record  before  the  2003  CWO3  selection 
 
board contained an injustice, the Board agrees with TJAG that the applicant’s failure of 
selection for promotion to CWO3 should be removed from her record.  In this regard, 
the Board finds, as CGPC admitted, that the applicant was prejudiced by not having the 
special OER and her resume in her record when the CWO3 selection board considered 
it.    The  Board  further  finds  that  it  is  likely  that  she  would  have  been  selected  for 
promotion to that grade if she had been evaluated based on a record that included the 
special OER and resume.   
 

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

4.  The Board also finds that the applicant, having been selected for promotion by 
the 2004 CWO3 selection board, should receive the date of rank she would have had, if 
the  calendar  year  2003  CWO3  selection  board  had  selected  her,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber  

The  application  of  ________________________  USCGR,  for  correction  of  her 

 
 
military record is granted.   
  
 
The  applicant’s  failure  of  selection  for  promotion  to  CWO3  before  the  2003 
CWO3 Reserve selection board shall be removed from her record.  The applicant was 
selected for promotion to CWO3 by the October 25, 2004 selection board.  Therefore, her 
CWO3  date  of  rank,  once  promoted,  shall  be  adjusted  retroactively  to  the  date  she 
would have had if she had been selected by the 2003 selection board, with back pay and 
allowances.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier