DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-071 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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  Chair  docketed  the  application  on 
February  15,  2008,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  subsequently 
prepared the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 6, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  removing  an  Officer 
Evaluation Report (OER) for the period October 1, 2004, to July 31, 2005 (disputed OER).   She 
also requested promotion to the rank of lieutenant (LT) retroactive to the date of promotion she 
would have had if she had been selected by the calendar year 2006 LT selection board, with back 
pay and allowances.  The applicant was not selected for promotion by the calendar year 2006 or 
2007 LT selection boards. 1  She was released from active duty on June 30, 2008.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 
The applicant alleged that the officers who signed as members of her rating chain for the 
disputed OER were not designated and published as members of her OER rating chain by the 
commanding officer (CO), which constituted an error under the Personnel Manual.   
 
 
The applicant also alleged that the disputed OER did not accurately reflect the caliber of 
her  performance  during  the  period.    She  argued  that  the  below  average  marks  of  3  are  not 
supported by the OER comments.2  She stated that she disagreed with the OER content but did 
                                                 
1 The 2006 ADPL LT selection board met on September 25, 2006.  The 2007 ADPL LT selection board met on 
September 24, 2007.   
2 OER marks range from a low of 1 to a high of 7.  A 4 is considered to be an average mark as it represents the 
expected standard of performance. Article  10.A.4.c.4.g.  of the Personnel Manual.   

not  contest  it  at  the  time  of  receipt  because  she  was  told  by  her  then-supervisor  and  other 
command officers that it would not affect her career.  She notes however that in calendar years 
2006 and 2007 she was not selected for promotion to LT, which she attributes to the disputed 
OER. 

 

  
Disputed OER 
 

In  Block  4  (communications),  the  applicant  received  4s  in  speaking  and  listening  and 

The  applicant  was  assigned  as  a  Marine  Inspector  during  the  period  covered  by  the 
disputed OER.  It consists of three parts:  the supervisor’s portion, the reporting officer’s portion, 
and the reviewing officer’s portion.    
 
Supervisor’s Portion  
 
 
In Block 3 (performance of duties) of the disputed OER, the applicant received marks of 
4  in  planning  and  preparedness,  using  resources,  results/effectiveness,  adaptability  and 
professional competence.3   In the comments section, the supervisor described the applicant  as 
efficient, adaptable, obtaining typical results, and displaying average professional competence.    
 
 
writing.   
 
 
In  Block  5  (leadership  skills),  the  applicant  received  4s  in  looking  out  for  others, 
developing  others,  directing  others,  teamwork,  and  evaluations.    She  received  a  mark  of  3  in 
workplace  climate.    The  officer  who  signed  as  the  supervisor  wrote  that  the  applicant  was 
“[m]oderately tolerant of differing opinions; took responsibility for & able to express regret after 
being  counseled  on  improper  actions;  all  involved  confident  that  situation  was  adequately 
resolved.” 
 
Reporting Officer’s Portion  
 
 
In Block 8 of the reporting officer's section of the OER, the applicant received marks of 4 
in initiative, responsibility, professional presence, and health and well being, and a mark of  3 in 
judgment.  With  respect  to  her  judgment,  the  officer  signing  as  reporting  officer  made  the 
following  comment:    “Exhibited  sound  judgment;  offered  supporting  reasoning  in  decisions 
regarding the compliance of vessels w/US & International safety & security regulations.” 
 

                                                 
3 Article 10.A.2.b.4.b. 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.    Next,  the 
supervisor  shall  carefully  read  the  standards  and  compare  the  reported-on  officer’s  performance  to  the  level  of 
performance  described  by  the  standards.    After  determining  which  block  best  describes  the  reported  on  officer’s 
performance and qualities, the supervisor shall fill in the appropriate circle on the form.  Subsection e. states that 
comments  should  amplify  and  be  consistent  with  the  numerical  evaluations,  and  they  should  identify  specific 
strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance.    Further,  comments  must  be  sufficiently  specific  to  paint  a  succinct 
picture  of  the  officer’s  performance  and  qualities  which  compares  reasonably  with  the  picture  defined  by  the 
standards marked on the performance dimensions in the evaluation area. 

On the comparison scale in Block 94 where the reporting officer compared the applicant 
 
to others of the same grade whom he has known in his career,  the applicant was marked in the 
third oval (of seven, with the seventh oval being the highest).  A mark in the third oval means 
that the reporting officer rated the applicant between that of a “qualified officer” (second oval) 
and  that  of  “one  of  the  many  competent  professionals  who  form  the  majority  of  this  grade” 
(fourth oval).    
 
 
future service as follows:5 
 

In  block  10,  the  reporting  officer  evaluated  and  described  the  applicant's  potential  for 

[The  applicant]  is  making  progress  to  become  a  well-rounded,  [junior  officer], 
shows  potential  to  acquire/develop  leadership  traits;  possesses  determination  & 
commitment  to  achieving.    Usually  reliable  to  quickly  adapt  to  the  many 
situations of a qual[ified] MI; possesses skills & traits desirable of a CG officer.  
Has taken on additional tasking/projects successfully w/some oversight; quick to 
perform; offers encouragement & assistance in attaining own/others personal and 
professional goals.  [Recommended] for positions of leadership within the Marine 
Safety  field  to  challenge  growth  abilities  &  continued  instruction  to  assist  in 
acquiring  MI  [qualifications].    With  continued  progress,  recommended  for 
promotion w/peers.      

The reviewer’s authentication section is dated December 12, 2006, but it appears not to 

 
Reviewer’s Authentication  
 
 
contain the reviewer’s signature.   
 
Applicant’s other OERs 
 
 
The applicant’s marks on her two ensign OERs were about evenly split between 4s and 
5s.  She received two marks of 6 on her last ensign OER.  She was given a 4 on the comparison 
scale mark on her first ensign OER,  and a 5 on the comparison scale on her second ensign OER. 
 
 
The disputed OER was her first as a LTJG and contained the lowest marks of any of her 
OERs at this rank.  Her other five LTJG OERs consisted mostly 4s and 5s with some 6s.  Her 
comparison scale marks for the five other LTJG OERs were 4, 4, 4, 5, & 4. 
 
 
                                                 
4  Article  10.A.2.b.8.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  the  reporting  officer  shall  fill  in  the  circle  that  most 
closely reflects the reporting  officer’s ranking of the reported-on officer relative to all  other officers of the same 
grade the reporting officer has known.  The provision further provides that Block 9 represents a relative ranking of 
the  reported-on  officer,  not  necessarily  a  trend  of  performance.    Thus  from  period  to  period,  an  officer  could 
improve in performance but drop a category on the comparison scale.   
5 Article 10.A.2.b.9.a. of the Personnel Manual states that  the reporting officer shall comment on the reported-of 
officer’s potential for greater leadership roles and responsibilities and shall limit such comments to the performance 
or conduct demonstrated during the reporting period.  Article 10.A.2.b.9.b. states that comments in Block 10 reflect 
the  judgment  of  the  reporting  officer,  and  the  reporting  officer  may  include  a  recommendation  for  or  against 
promotion to the next higher grade. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  was  commissioned  an  Ensign  in  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  on  June  23, 
2003.  She executed an active duty agreement on August 4, 2003 and began serving on active 
duty that date.  Under the agreement, the applicant’s period of active duty terminated on August 
3, 2006.  On June 20, 2006, she and the Coast Guard agreed to extend her active duty agreement 
for  approximately  one  year  and  eleven  months  from August  4,  2006  through  June  30,  2007.6  
During  this  period,  the  applicant  was  considered  but  not  selected  for  promotion  to  LT  by  the 
calendar  year  2006  and  2007  active  duty  promotion  list  (ADPL)7  selection  boards.    She  was 
released from active duty on June 30, 2008.  The date of her release from active duty coincided 
with  the  termination  date  of  her  active  duty  contract.    The  DD  Form  214  obtained  from  her 
electronic record states that she was honorably released from active duty due to the “maximum 
time in service or grade” with an LGB (non-selection, permanent promotion) separation code.  
The  applicant  was  subsequently  selected  for  promotion  by  the  inactive  duty  promotion  list 
(IDPL)8 board that met in September 2008. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 18, 2008, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion recommending that the Board grant relief to the applicant.  The JAG recommended that 
the Board correct the applicant’s record as follows: 
 

a. Replace the disputed [OER] for the period 1 October 2004 to 31 March 2005 
with  an  OER  for  Continuity  Purposes  Only  in  accordance  with  [Article 
10.A.3.5.c. of the Personnel Manual]."   
 
b. Expunge both non-selections by the Promotion Years [calendar years 2006 and 
2007  LT]  Selections  Boards,  and  allow  [the]  applicant  to  compete  before  the 
[calendar year 2008] LT selection board.  If selected, she should be granted back 
date  of  rank,  pay  and  allowances  as  if  she  were  selected  by  the  [calendar  year 
2006] Board.   

 

The  JAG  adopted  the  facts  and  analysis  provided  by  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC) that were attached as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion and 

                                                 
6   Under the active duty agreement of June 20, 2006, the term of service was stated as follows:  

(a)  Officer  shall  remain  on  active  duty  for  a  term  of  service  of  approximately  one-year(s)  and 
eleven months(s) commencing on the fourth day of August 2006, and terminating on the thirtieth 
day of June 2008 both dates inclusive, unless the Coast Guard agrees to a request by the Officer 
to be released from the active duty obligation, or the Officer is involuntarily released as provided 
[for in this agreement].   

  The  agreement  also  stated  that  neither  the  Coast  Guard  nor  the  applicant  was  obligated  to  enter  into  a  new 
agreement after the expiration of the term of service agreed to in the agreement.   
7      The  ADPL  is  a  single  list  of  officers  of  the  Coast  Guard,  regular  and  reserve,  on  active  duty,  not  otherwise 
excluded.  Article 5.A.2. of the Personnel Manual.   
8   The IDPL is a single list of officers in the Coast Guard Reserve in an active status.  Article 7.A.3. of the Reserve 
Policy Manual.   

asked  the  Board  to  accept  CGPC’s  comments  as  the  Coast  Guard’s  advisory  opinion.  CGPC 
stated the following: 

 
[I]t is the [CO’s] responsibility to ensure accurate, fair and objective evaluations 
of  officers  under  their  command  .  .  .  Also,  it  is  the  CO’s  responsibility  to 
designate and publish the unit’s rating chains.  Any deviation from the established 
rating  chain  must  be  processed  in  accordance  with  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Manual, Chapter 10.A.  Based on the record, it is clear that an error exists with 
respect to the rating chain in the applicant’s disputed OER. 

During the period of the disputed OER, the applicant answered to her designated 
supervisor,  LT  [B]  and  not  LT  [V]  who  assumed  the  role  after  the  end  of  the 
reporting period.  Based on the executive officer’s declaration, LT [V] should not 
have signed the applicant’s disputed OER as the supervisor.  [The CO] states, “I 
cannot explain why LT [V] who was [the applicant’s] supervisor after the end of 
the reporting period, signed her OER.  This is supported by the CO who states, 
“Neither of the actual supervisors from the period in question signed the OER.”  
[The  CO]  also  states  “I  believe  that  the  correct  rating  chain  was  involved  in 
counseling the officer during the period in question, but that the officers signing 
the OER as supervisor and reporting officer were not appropriate or in accordance 
with OER guidance and policy.  These statements support the conclusion that both 
the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer  were  incorrect  for  the  applicant’s  disputed 
OER.  Since LT [B] transferred to the Response Department during the middle of 
the reporting period; it was his responsibility to provide the new supervisor with a 
draft OER and the applicant’s rating chain should have been adjusted.  This did 
not occur in the applicant’s case and ultimately, the wrong rating chain signed the 
disputed OER. 

 

 

In summary, the rating chain did not carry out its responsibilities in accordance 
with the Coast Guard Personnel Manual.  The record supports expunging it from 
the applicant’s official record.   
 
 
CGPC  obtained  statements  from  the  executive  officer  and  the  CO,  both  of  whom 
admitted  that  the  supervisor  who  signed  the  applicant’s  disputed  OER  was  not  a  designated 
member of her rating chain.   In his statement, the reviewer also stated that the XO should not 
have signed the OER as the reporting officer.   
 
The Executive Officer’s (XO’s) Statement  
 
 
In  addition  to  admitting  that  the  supervisor  who  signed  the  disputed  OER  was  not  a 
proper member of the applicant’s rating chain, the reporting officer, who was also the XO, stated 
that  the  applicant’s  contention  concerning  the  imbalance  between  the  comments  and  marks  is 
partially true.  He stated that the comments in the OER do not provide enough support for the 
two 3s in the workplace climate and judgment dimensions, but he noted that after subsequent 
consultation  with  officers  aware  of  the  applicant’s  performance  and  based  upon  his  own 
recollections  he  stood  by  the  marks.    The  XO  stated  that  during  the  reporting  period,  the 

applicant was counseled by LT B for inappropriate professional demeanor with mariners during 
her assigned duties as a vessel inspector and for her failure to meet the supervisor’s deadlines.  
The XO stated that the mark of 3 on the comparison scale in block 9 was justified.   
 
The CO’s Statement 
 

The CO who was also the reviewer for the disputed OER admitted that the supervisor 
who  signed  the  disputed  OER  was  not  a  proper  member  of  the  applicant’s  rating  chain.  
Moreover,  the  reviewer  admitted  that  a  LT  M  should  have  signed  as  the  applicant’s  reporting 
officer rather than the XO.  The CO further stated: 
 

[The  applicant]  was  assigned  a  mark  of  3  in Workplace  Climate  and  Judgment 
performance  dimensions.    Whether  the  low  marks  “accurately”  reflect  her 
performance cannot be ascertained.  The workplace climate supporting verbiage 
does reflect that counseling was conducted for improper actions.  However, it isn’t 
made clear what the improper actions were or how those actions affected the work 
place.  The 3 assigned in judgment is even less supported, as the verbiage leads 
with  “exhibited  sound  judgment”,  and  cites  positive  actions  and  impacts.  
Therefore, I concur with the allegation that both marks of 3 were not proper in 
that they are not properly supported by verbiage in the OER.  [The applicant] was 
marked  “one  left  of  center”  or  “3”  on  the  Block  9  Comparison  Scale.   As  the 
marks of 3 are not supported by the verbiage, it follows that this low comparison 
scale mark is also not supported.   
 
[The  applicant]  stated  that  the  Reviewer’s  signature  was  stamped  (not  hand 
written) on the OER.  . . .  If in fact the OER is stamped, I would like to comment 
that this was not a normal or authorized practice . . . I do have a memory of a 
discussion  with  LT  M  earlier  in  the  period  regarding  his  concerns  with  [the 
applicant’s] performance and potential OER impacts . . . I do not have a memory 
of reviewing this particular OER.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
 

 

 

On June 26, 2008, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard and agreed 

 
 
with the recommended relief.  She emphasized the following: 
 

As a direct result of being passed over twice, I am being involuntarily released 
from active duty.  My RELAD date is 30 June 2008, at which time I will be a 
selected reservist.  However, upon approval of my [BCMR] appeal, I respectfully 
request  that  I  be  reinstated  to  active  duty  and  permitted  to  compete  before  the 
calendar year 2008 LT selection board with a corrected record, as stipulated in the 
Coast Guard’s Advisory Opinion . . .  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

1. 

10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 

 
2.  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  applicant’s  rating  chain.   Article  10.A.2.b.2.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual  states  that  commanding  officers  are  to  designate  and  publish  the  command’s  rating 
chains.  The reviewer for the disputed OER, who was also the CO, confirmed that the officers 
who  signed  as  the  supervisor  and  reporting  officer  on  the  disputed  OER  were  not  designated 
members of the applicant’s rating chain.  The significance of the error is sufficient to justify the 
removal of the disputed OER from the applicant’s record, and the Board will direct that it be 
removed and replaced with an OER for continuity purposes only.  In light of this finding it is not 
necessary for the Board to address the applicant’s other basis for removal of the disputed OER.    

 
3.      The  Coast  Guard  also  recommends,  and  the  Board  agrees,  that  the  applicant’s 
calendar year 2006 and 2007 failures of selection for promotion to LT should be removed from 
her record due to the erroneous OER.  In deciding whether to remove a failure, the Board must 
determine whether a nexus exists between the error and the applicant’s failures to be selected for 
promotion on the ADPL.  To make this determination, the Board applies the standard in Engels 
v. United States, 678 F.2d 173, 175-76 (Ct. Cl. 1982).  In Engels, the Court of Claims held that, 
if the Board finds that an officer’s record contained an error when it was reviewed by a selection 
board, the Board should decide whether the officer’s failure of selection for promotion should be 
removed  by  answering  two  questions:    “First,  was  [the  applicant’s]  record  prejudiced  by  the 
errors  in  the  sense  that  the  record  appears  worse  than  it  would  in  the  absence  of  the  errors?  
Second, even if there was some such prejudice, is it unlikely that [the applicant] would have been 
promoted in any event?”  With respect to the first question, the Board finds that the applicant’s 
record appears worse with the disputed OER than it would have without it, particularly in light of 
the fact that the applicant had several below average marks on the disputed OER, including a 
below average mark on the comparison scale.  On the second question, the Board finds that it is 
not unlikely that the applicant would have been promoted with a corrected record, particularly 
since all of her other OERs have average to above average marks, no below average marks on 
the comparison scale, and clear affirmative recommendations for promotion to the next higher 
grade.    Therefore,  the  applicant’s  calendar  year  2006  and  2007  failures  of  selection  for 
promotion to LT should be removed from her record.9   

 

                                                 
9   The applicant requested to be promoted to LT retroactively.  However, this Board does not promote but leaves 
that decision up to the Coast Guard which is better suited to determine whether an officer is among the best qualified 
for  promotion.    The  removal  of  her  failures  will  allow  the  applicant  to  compete  before  the  ADPL  board  with  a 
corrected record and is the relief normally granted by the Board in such situations.   

4.  The applicant is a Reserve officer who was serving on active duty under an active duty 
agreement with a June 30, 2008 termination date.  She was on the ADPL when she competed for 
and failed of selection for promotion to LT.   After twice failing of selection for promotion to LT 
on the ADPL, she was released from active duty on June 30, 2008 back into the Reserve.  Under 
the law and regulation, a LTJG on the ADPL who fails twice for promotion to the next grade is 
normally released or discharged from active duty.  However, the date of the applicant’s release is 
the same date on which her active duty agreement terminated.  Although the Coast Guard was 
under no obligation to further extend the applicant’s active duty contract past June 30, 2008, it 
had to be aware that releasing her on June 30, 2008, after recommending correction of her record 
to include the removal of her ADPL failures, would entail more extensive corrective measures 
than  if  she  had  been  allowed  to  remain  on  active  duty.    The  fact  the  Coast  Guard  was  not 
required to offer the applicant an extension of her active duty agreement after June 30, 2008 does 
not cure the  errors and injustices she suffered  while serving on active duty.   This situation is 
further complicated by the fact that the applicant was selected by the LT IDPL board that met in 
September 2008.  Therefore, the question is how to fashion a remedy to cure the errors suffered 
by the applicant while on the ADPL that would make her whole under the circumstances of this 
case.10   
 
5.  Often the Board reinstates an applicant to active duty whose discharge was based on 
having twice failed of selection for promotion due to an erroneous record.  Since the applicant’s 
active  duty  failures  were  based  on  an  erroneous  record,  she  is  entitled  to  two  additional 
opportunities to compete on the ADPL with a corrected record.  As stated above, the situation is 
complicated by the fact that after her release from active duty, the applicant was considered and 
selected for promotion by the most recent LT IDPL selection board.  If she is promoted to LT 
from the IDPL list, she could not compete for the same grade before an ADPL board.  In light of 
the above, the applicant should be offered the following options: 

 
(a)  The option of immediately accepting her promotion from the 2008 IDPL LT selection 
board.  If she chooses to be promoted from the 2008 LT IDPL promotion list she is not entitled 
to return to active duty, to any back pay and allowances, or to an adjustment of her LT date of 
rank.   
 

(b)  The opportunity to decline her promotion to LT from the IDPL list (which promotion 
shall be held in abeyance by not removing her name from that list),11  and to return to active duty 
on the ADPL as a LTJG retroactive to July 1, 2008, without a break in service, for the minimum 
period  necessary  to  allow  her  to  have  two  opportunities  to  be  considered  by  the  ADPL  LT 

                                                 
10  The Court stated in Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285, 301 (1979), citing Debow v. Unites States, 193 Ct. 
Cl. 499, 434 F.2d 1333 (1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 846 (1971) that where an applicant has convinced a correction 
board to correct his record, it must not grant him “half-a-loaf” of relief.  He must be made “whole.”  Ray v. United 
States, 197 Ct. Cl. 1, 453 F2d 754 (1972).  Further, the Sanders court restated the principle that military corrections 
boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to 
take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.   
 
11    In  docket  no.  2002-153,  the  Coast  Guard  informed  the  Board  that  that  applicant  could  be  advanced  from  a 
promotion  list  even  though  he  declined  the  promotion  two  years  earlier  because  his  name  was  never  actually 
removed from that list.   

selection  board.  If  selected  by  the  first  ADPL  LT  board  to  consider  her  based  on  a  corrected 
record,  her  date  of  rank  would  be  adjusted  to  the  date  she  would  have  had  if  she  had  been 
selected by the 2006 ADPL selection board.  If selected by the second LT ADPL selection board, 
her date of rank shall not be adjusted and shall be the date of rank she is entitled to as a result of 
that selection board.  If the applicant accepts this offer and returns to active duty, she would be 
paid back pay and allowances, subject to appropriate set-offs.  If she twice fails of selection for 
promotion before the LT ADPL selection board after reinstatement to active duty, she shall be 
promoted to lieutenant from the calendar year 2008 IDPL list and she shall have the IDPL LT 
date  of  rank  she  would  have  received  had  she  been  timely  promoted  from  the  2008  IDPL 
promotion list.    If she selects this option, she shall return to active duty within 90 days of the 
date of this decision.   
 

(c)    The option of accepting her LT IDPL promotion and returning to active duty on an 
active duty contract for the length of time necessary for her to compete before the  first ADPL 
LCDR selection board.  If she is selected by that Board for promotion, she would be provided 
with the opportunity to apply for integration into the regular Coast Guard.  Under this option, the 
active duty contract would be prospective and not retroactive.12   
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

6. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted as discussed above.    

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

                                                 
12   After the applicant was selected for promotion by the IDPL LT selection board, the Board consulted with the 
Coast Guard on how best to correct the applicant’s record.  The options for relief discussed in this decision were 
developed as a result of that consultation.  Subsequently, the Board informed the applicant of the options for relief 
that would be available for correcting of her record.  The applicant indicated that she would make a choice after 
receiving the final decision.   

The application of XXXXXXXXXXX USCGR, for correction of her military record is 

granted as follows:  

 
 The OER for the period October 1, 2004, to July 31, 2005, shall be removed from her 

record and replaced with a report prepared for continuity purposes only.   

 
Her calendar year 2006 and 2007 ADPL failures of selection for promotion to lieutenant 

shall be removed from her record.   

 
She  shall  be  offered  the  following  three  options  and  allowed  to  choose  one  within  30 

 
 

 

ORDER 

days of the date of this final decision: 

 

 
(b) 

(a) 

She  may  accept  her  promotion  from  the  calendar  year  2008  LT 
IDPL selection board.  Under this option there is no entitlement to return to active 
duty, no adjustment to her date of rank, and no back pay. 

She may be reinstated to active duty retroactive to July 1, 2008, as 
a  lieutenant  junior  grade,  without  a  break  in  service,  for  the  minimum  period 
necessary to allow her two additional opportunities to be considered by the ADPL 
LT selection board.  If selected by the first LT ADPL selection board to consider 
her for promotion based on a corrected record, her date of rank shall be adjusted 
to the date she would have had if she had been selected in calendar year 2006 and 
she  shall  receive  corresponding  back  pay  and  allowances.   If  selected  by  the 
second LT ADPL selection board, her date of rank shall not be adjusted and shall 
be the date of rank she  is entitled to as a result of that selection board.    If she 
accepts this offer and returns to active duty, she must decline her promotion from 
the IDPL LT selection board (but her name shall not be removed from that list) 
and  she  shall  be  paid  back  pay  and  allowances,  subject  to  appropriate  set-offs, 
retroactive to July 1, 2008.  If she twice fails of selection for promotion before the 
LT  ADPL  selection  board  after  reinstatement  to  active  duty,  she  shall  be 
promoted to lieutenant from the calendar year 2008 IDPL list and she shall have 
the IDPL LT date of rank she would have received had she been timely promoted 
from the 2008 IDPL promotion list.  If she selects this option, she shall return to 
active duty within 90 days of the date of this decision. 

 
(c)  She may accept her LT IDPL promotion and return to active duty on 
an  extended  active  duty  contract  for  the  length  of  time  necessary  for  her  to 
compete before the first ADPL LCDR selection board.  If she is selected by that 
selection  board  for  promotion  to  LCDR,  she  shall  be  provided  with  the 
opportunity to apply for integration into the regular Coast Guard.   Under this   

option,  the  active  duty  contract  shall  be  prospective  and  not  retroactive.   If  she 
selects this option, her extended active duty contract shall begin within 60 to 90 
days of the date of this final decision. 

No further relief is granted under this order. 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr.