DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2004-120 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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  18, 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, asked for "promotion with 
[his]  peers  [who  were  selected  by  the  2003  CWO41  selection  board]  based  on  [his] 
documented  performance."        The  applicant  was  not  selected  for  CWO4  by  the  2003 
inactive  duty  (Reserve)  selection  board  that  met  on  November  3,  2003.  2  The  Board 
interprets  the  applicant's  request  as  one  for  the  removal  of  his  failure  of  selection  for 
promotion to CWO3 and, if he is selected for promotion to CWO4 by the first selection 
board to consider him based on a corrected record that his date of rank be adjusted to 
the date he would have received if he had  been selected by the 2003 CWO4 selection 
board. 
 

                                                 
1    CWO4 is an abbreviation for Chief Warrant Officer -W4.   
2      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 CWO4 selection board that 

 
met on October 25, 2004. 
 
 
 
 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  selected  for  promotion  by  the  CWO4 
selection board because he did not have an officer evaluation report (OER) for the most 
recent year of the reporting period, which ended on June 30, 2003.  He stated that the 
Personnel  Manual  required  biennial  OERS  for  CWO3s  to  be  submitted  in  even 
numbered years.  He stated that a 2002 OER had been submitted and he was not sure 
whether he needed an additional OER prior to the selection board. Therefore, according 
to the applicant, he sought guidance from his commanding officer (CO) on whether he 
should have a current (2003) OER prepared and submitted.  The applicant stated that 
the CO told him, after conferring with the Coast Guard Personnel Command, that he 
did not need a 2003 OER.  The applicant further stated the following: 

 
I made every available effort to ensure that I was properly prepared for 
the  PY  (promotion  year).  However  due  to  ambiguous  guidance  in  the 
[Coast Guard] Personnel Manual, incorrect guidance from my supervisor 
and the Coast Guard Personnel Command, I was not given a fair chance 
for advancement due to the absence of an OER which should have been 
done in July 03. 
 
The  applicant's  CO  submitted  a  statement  on  the  applicant's  behalf.    The  CO 
verified that in May-June 2003, the applicant asked him whether the applicant needed 
to  submit  an  OER  ending  in  July  2003  for  consideration  by  the  2003  CWO4  selection 
board.  He stated that based on the Personnel Manual he did not believe an OER was 
required.  He stated however that he consulted CGPC about the matter, explaining the 
applicant's situation.  He said that CGPC agreed with his interpretation but told him to 
contact  the  Reserve  Division  within  CGPC  to  be  sure.    The  CO  stated  that  he  placed 
several phone calls to the Reserve office, but never received a reply to his request for 
clarification.  The CO stated that based on the above he believed that no additional OER 
was required. 

 
The CO also stated that after the CWO4 board adjourned, the applicant received 
a phone call telling him that he should have had a July 2003 OER and that an unusually 
high percentage of personnel considered by the board did not have a 2003 OER.  The 
CO  wrote  that  in  spite  of  a  96%  selection  opportunity,  more  than  27%  of  candidates 
considered by the 2003 board were not selected.   

 

The CO further stated that the message announcing the in-grade selection board 
was not published until October 23, 2003 and the board met on November 3, 2003.3  He 
alleged that if the message announcing the CWO4 selection board had been published 
well  before  the  Board's  convening  date,  there  would  have  been  sufficient  time  to 
prepare and submit an OER.   

 
The CO praised the applicant's performance, stating that the applicant had met 

or exceeded his most lofty expectations.   

 
The CO's supervisor wrote a statement agreeing with the CO that the applicant 
did all he could to determine whether he needed a 2003 OER.  He recommended that 
the applicant be granted relief. 
 

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.4  In the alternative, TJAG recommended that 
the Board remove the applicant's 2003 failure of selection for promotion to CWO4 from 
his  record  and  place  his  record  before  the  next  regularly  scheduled  CWO4  selection 
board and if that board selects him that his date of rank be adjusted retroactively to the 
promotion date he would have received if he had been selected by the 2003 selection 
board. 
 
 
CGPC also admitted that his department erred by not adequately responding to 
the  applicant's  CO's  requests  for  guidance  on  whether  to  submit  an  OER  on  the 
applicant's performance for consideration by the 2003 CWO4 selection board.  He stated 
that  providing  such  guidance  to  the  applicant  and  his  rating  chain  is  a  chief 
responsibility of CGPC OER personnel.  "Had CGPC . . . provided a timely response to 
the  supervisor's  inquiries,  it  is  likely  that  the  rating  chain  would  have  generated  the 
requisite special OER." 
 
 
CGPC admitted that the Coast Guard failed to give the applicant timely notice 
that he was to be considered by the 2003 CWO4 selection board.  CGPC stated that the 
selection procedures require the issuance of specific candidate announcements, which 
supplement  general  board  directives.    Such  specific  messages  identify  candidates  by 

                                                 
3    The  message  announcing  the  CWO  in-grade  selection  boards  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. 
4   TJAG stated that the Coast Guard does not have statutory authority to hold special selection boards. 

name, confirm board-convening dates, and provide additional instructions to members 
and their rating chains.  CGPC stated that while there is no legal or 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  announcement  message 
pertaining to the CWO4 selection board preceded the actual convening of the selection 
by  only  10  calendar  days.    He  stated,  "Notification  of  Applicant's  eligibility  for 
promotion  ten  days  before  the  board  [was  to  begin]  shortened  the  period  in  which 
Applicant's rating chain could confirm Applicant's status and to determine whether a 
special  OER  was  required."    CGPC  concluded  its  failure  to  adequately  advise  the 
applicant's  CO  coupled  with  the  short  notice  provided  as  to  the  convening  of  the 
selection board resulted in the rating chain's inability to prepare a special OER for the 
applicant's selection board.   
 

CGPC concluded that the missing special OER likely played a significant role in 
the applicant's failure to be selected for promotion by the 2003 CWO4 promotion board.   
He noted that the applicant record shows exceptional performance.  

 

 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 20, 2004, the Board received the applicant's reply to the views of 

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

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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.  
 

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

2.  The Coast Guard committed an injustice by failing to provide the applicant's 
rating chain with accurate and timely assistance in determining whether a special OER 
should have been prepared on the applicant's recent performance and submitted to the 
2003  selection  board.  The  advisory  opinion  asserted  that  such  advice  is  a  major 
responsibility  of  CGPC  OER  personnel.    In-fact,  such  personnel  should  have  told  the 
applicant's CO that Article 10.A.3.c.1.c of the Personnel Manual requires "the submittal 
of a Special OER in odd-numbered years for [inactive duty Reserve] officers who are on 
a biennial schedule and are in zone for promotion on the [inactive duty promotion list]."  
The  Coast  Guard  committed  a  further  injustice  by  not  publishing  the  message 
announcing  the  convening  date  for  the  board  and  identifying  the  applicant  as  a 
candidate  in  a  timely  manner.  CGPC  acknowledged  that  it  normally  publishes  such 
announcements  approximately  30  days  prior  to  the  convening  of  the  selection  board, 

but in this case the message was published only 10 days prior to the convening of the 
selection board. The late message announcing the selection board coupled with CGPC's 
failure to provide the applicant and his CO with correct and timely OER advice resulted 
in the applicant not having a current special OER in his record before the 2003 CWO4 
selection board. 
  
 
3.  Having  found  that  the  applicant's  record  before  the  2003  CWO4  selection 
board contained an injustice, the Board agrees with TJAG that the applicant’s failure of 
selection for promotion to CWO4 should be removed from his record.  In this regard, 
the Board finds, as CGPC admitted, that the applicant was prejudiced by not having the 
special  OER  in  his  record  when  the  CWO4  selection  board  considered  it.    The  Board 
further  finds  that  it  is  likely  that  he  would  have  been  selected  for  promotion  to  that 
grade if he had been evaluated based on a record that included a current OER.   
 

 
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 CWO4 selection board, should receive the date of rank he would have had if 
the  calendar  year  2003  CWO4  selection  board  had  selected  him,  with  back  pay  and 
allowances. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  __________________  USCGR,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 
 
record is granted.   
  
 
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.   
 
 
 

 

 
 Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn