DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-118 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case  upon receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  March  4,  2011,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated December 22, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant,  a  Reserve  captain  (CAPT;  O-6)  with  over  26  years  of  service,  asked  the 
Board to correct his record to show that in 2010 he was selected for retention in active service by 
the inactive duty promotion  list  (IDPL) CAPT retention  board and that he has been retained in 
the  active  Reserve.    He  also  asked  the  Board  to  reinstate  him  in  a  paid  billet  in  the  Selected 
Reserve.   

 
The applicant alleged that when his record was reviewed by the retention board on July 7, 
2010, a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) he had been awarded by the Navy on June 22, 2010, 
was  not  in  his  record.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Navy  mailed  the  documentation  for  the 
medal on June 22, 2010, but that the Coast Guard failed to enter it in his record before the reten-
tion board convened.  The applicant stated that he did not learn of the Coast Guard’s error until 
August 2010. 

 
The applicant argued that because the Coast Guard’s erroneous delay caused his perfor-
mance  record  to  be  incomplete—missing  a  significant  medal—when  it  was  reviewed  by  the 
retention  board,  the  result  of  the  retention  board—his  non-selection  for  retention—should  be 
vacated and he should be returned to active service in the Selected Reserve.  In support of these 
allegations, the applicant submitted several documents and emails, including the following: 
 

 

  ALCGRSV  029/10,  issued  on  June  7,  2010,  announced  that  the  CAPT  retention  board 
would convene on July 7, 2010, “to consider all CAPTS in an active status who have 18 
years  or  more  of  service  for  retirement. …    All  captains  who  are  not  recommended  for 
retention will be given the opportunity to retire by 30 JUN 2011 or will be transferred to 
the Stand-by Reserve, Inactive Status List (ISL).  The OOS [opportunity of selection] is 
88 percent. … IDPL officers are encouraged to submit a communication to the board. … 
Submissions must arrive at CG PSC-RPM [no later than] the day before the board con-
venes. … All officers in-zone are encouraged to review their official record.” 

  The  precept  for  the  CAPT  retention  board  stated  inter  alia  that  the  board  “should  give 
particular consideration to officers that stepped forward to take on the most difficult and 
challenging  high-responsibility  high-visibility  assignments  and  leadership  positions.  
Whether in mission execution—particularly those commanding operational units, in criti-
cal mission support assignments, or serving in high visibility details outside of the Coast 
Guard,  these  officers  assumed  increased  risk,  took  on  additional  burdens  and  distin-
guished themselves as representatives of our service.” 

  The U.S. Navy awarded the applicant a Meritorious Service Medal on June 22, 2010, for 
“outstanding  meritorious  service  as  Senior  Coast  Guard  Officer  at  xxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  from  June  2008  to  August  2010.    [The  applicant’s]  distin-
guished  leadership  made  an  enduring  contribution  to  the  entire  reserve  community  of 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. …” 

  ALCGPSC 069/10, issued on August 10, 2010, announced the names of 36 Reserve cap-
tains (out of 41) who had been selected for retention.  The applicant’s name is not on the 
list. 
 

  On August 11, 2010, a Navy commander, the Chief Staff Officer of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  sent  the  applicant  an  email  responding  to  an  email  from  the 
applicant with the subject line “End of Tour Award.”  The applicant’s email is not pro-
vided, but the Navy commander’s reply states, “CAPT, you were approved for an MSM 
on 22 JUN.  xxxxxxx forwarded it to your USCG cmd.” 

  On  August  12,  2010,  the  applicant  forwarded  the  Navy  commander’s  email  to  the 
Reserve  Program  Management  (RPM)  division  of  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC) 
stating,  “Award  and  citation  was  sent  to  RPM.    Please  forward  all  to  me.    Also  ensure 
copy  of  citation  is  scanned  into  my  service  record,  and  proper  entries  have  been  made 
into Direct Access [database].” 

  On August 18, 2010, the chief of RPM advised the applicant in an email that the award 
had  not  been  received.    On  August  27,  2010,  the  applicant  advised  the  chief  that 
“xxxxxxx reports it sent the award to RPM on 22 JUN.  In an email to you OOA [on or 
about] 14 AUG I asked you to  forward both the award and citation to me.  I’ve not  yet 
received either, nor an acknowledgment of my request.”   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  On August 29, 2010, the Navy commander confirmed in an email to the applicant that the 
award  had  been  mailed  to  RPM’s  correct  address.    On  August  30,  2010,  the  applicant 
advised RPM in an email that he had received the “award and certificate were received at 
my home today.  Attached is the citation and certificate.  Please insert both into my ser-
vice  record,  make  appropriate  entries  in  [Direct  Access].”    On  November  1,  2010,  the 
applicant requested confirmation that the award had been entered in his record.  The chief 
of RPM replied, “your award was scanned and created in [Direct Access] on 9/21.”  On 
February 19, 2011, the applicant advised the chief that he had checked Direct Access and 
the award was not  present.   He requested  corrective  action.  On  February 22, 2011, the 
chief noted that the problem had been fixed. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Reserve in 1984 and was commissioned an officer in 1986.  
On July 1, 2003, when he was promoted to commander (O-5), he was serving on active duty as a 
District staff officer.  On his OER for the period May 1, 2002, though March 31, 2004, the appli-
cant received one mark of 4, eleven marks of 5, five marks of 6, and one mark of 7 in the various 
performance categories1 and a mark in the fourth spot on the comparison scale.2  The applicant 
continued serving on active duty and on his next OER, covering his service through March 31, 
2005, the applicant received four marks of 5, ten marks of 6, and four marks of 7 in the perfor-
mance categories and a mark in the fifth spot on the comparison, denoting an “excellent perfor-
mer;  give  toughest,  most  challenging  leadership  assignments.”    On  September  12,  2005,  the 
applicant transferred and received an OER with one mark of 4, three marks of 5, twelve marks of 
6, two marks of 7 in the performance categories and a mark in the fifth spot on the comparison 
scale. 
 
 
In September and October 2005, the applicant served as a visiting faculty member at the 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  after  which  he  became  a  staff  officer  on  inactive  duty  for  an  Area 
Response  Enforcement  Branch.    On  his  OER  for  the  period  ending  December  14,  2006,  the 
applicant received one mark of 4, three marks of 5, eleven marks of 6, and four marks of 7 in the 
performance categories.  He also received a mark in the fifth spot on the comparison scale and a 
mark of “definitely promote” on the new promotion scale.3  He was “strongly recommended for 
promotion  with  his  peers,”  and  he  received  a  Commendation  Medal  for  his  prior  work  as  a 
District staff officer from 1999 through 2005. 
 
 
In December 2006, the applicant was transferred to a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 
serve on inactive duty as the head of communications.  On his  OER dated March 31, 2007, he 

                                                 
1  In  OERs,  officers  are  evaluated  in  18  different  performance  categories,  such  as  “Professional  Competence,” 
“Teamwork,” and “Initiative,” on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being best.   

2 On an OER comparison scale, the reporting officer assigns a mark by comparing the reported-on officer to all other 
officers of the same grade whom the reporting officer has known throughout his career.  Although the marks on the 
scale are  not  numbered, there are 7 possible  marks,  which  range  from a low of  “unsatisfactory” for a  mark in  the 
first spot to a high of “Best officer in this grade” for a mark in the seventh spot.  A mark in the fourth (middle) spot 
on the scale denotes the officer as a “good performer; give tough, challenging assignments.” 

3 The new promotion scale has six possible marks: “recently promoted to O-5”; “already selected to O-6”; “do not 
promote”; “promotion potential”; “definitely promote”; and “accelerated promotion/in-zone reordering.” 

 

 

received  one  mark  of  4,  five  marks  of  5,  eight  marks  of  6,  and  four  marks  of  7  in  the  perfor-
mance categories; a mark in the sixth spot on the comparison scale, describing him as “one of the 
few distinguished performers”; and a mark of “accelerated promotion/in-zone reordering” on the 
promotion scale.  Because the applicant’s reporting officer was a Navy captain, the Coast Guard 
reviewer on the applicant’s rating chain was required to complete a separate page with a promo-
tion  scale  mark  and  a  comparison  scale  mark.    The  reviewer  assigned  the  applicant  a  mark  of 
“definitely  promote”  on  the  promotion  scale  and  a  comparison  scale  mark  in  the  fourth  spot, 
noting that he was “considering performance compared to peers.” 
 
 
In July 2007, the applicant was selected for promotion to captain (O-6) and became the 
Senior  Reserve  Officer  at  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.    On  his  OER  dated  June  7,  2008, 
the applicant received eleven marks of 6 and seven marks of 7 in the performance categories,  a 
mark in the sixth spot on the comparison scale, describing him as “one of the few distinguished 
performers”;  and  a  mark  of  “already  selected  to  O-6”  on  the  promotion  scale.    He  received  a 
Navy Commendation Medal for this work. 
 
 
In July 2008, the applicant became the Senior Reserve Officer at xxxxxxx.  On his OER 
dated April 30, 2009, he received one mark of 5, fourteen marks of 6, and 3 marks of 7 in the 
various performance categories and, on the comparison scale, a mark in the fifth spot, indicating 
that he “has flag potential; should be given challenging assignments and considered with peers.”  
On his OER dated April 30, 2010, he received one mark of 5, thirteen marks of 6, and four marks 
of 7 in the various performance categories and another mark in the fifth spot on the comparison 
scale. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 23, 2011, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted an advisory 
opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief and adopted the findings and analy-
sis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the PSC. 
 
 
The PSC  stated that there is  no evidence that the applicant  pursued verification that the 
MSM had been entered in his record before August 12, 2010, more than a month after the reten-
tion  board  convened.    The  PSC  pointed  out  that  under  COMDTINST  1410.2,  “Coast  Guard 
officers are responsible for their career development and maintenance of their records” and that 
ALCGRSV  029/10  advised  in-zone  officers  (candidates  for  retention)  to  review  their  records.  
The PSC stated that “[a]lthough the applicant asserts that the Navy mailed the MSM to the CG 
PSC on June 22, 2010, no award for the applicant was received.  CG PSC had no knowledge of 
the applicant’s award until August 12, 2010, when the applicant sent an email to CG PSC-rpm.”  
Therefore, the PSC concluded that the applicant “has failed to substantiate any error or injustice” 
in his record. 
 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  July  30,  2011,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard.    He  stated 
that  he  made  every  effort  to  ensure  that  his  record  was  complete  when  it  was  reviewed  by  the 
retention board in July 2010.  To support this allegation, the applicant submitted the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  On May 7, 2010, the applicant sent an email to a member at RPM requesting a copy of 

his record.   

  On June 11, 2010, the applicant responded to an email regarding ALCGRSV 029/10 and 
noted  that  because  of  the  endorsement  requirement,  he  would  not  be  able  to  submit  his 
letter  to  the  retention  board  until  June  20,  2010.    In  reply,  a  Coast  Guard  officer  noted 
that it was unclear whether an endorsement was required.  The applicant  replied that he 
would follow the instructions and get the endorsement of the Group Commander. 

  Also on June 11, 2010, the applicant sent an email to the same person at RPM and cc’ed 
the  chief  of  RPM  stating  that  he  needed  his  record  as  soon  as  possible  because  of  the 
upcoming retention board.  On June 16, 2010, the member at RPM responded and stated 
that he was creating the record and would be uploading it shortly.  On June 18, 2010, the 
member sent the applicant an email with copies of his officer evaluation reports (OERs) 
and noted that other records would be attached to subsequent emails. 

  On June 22, the Navy xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx approved a recommendation that the applicant 
be awarded an MSM.  The approved recommendation form shows that it was initiated on 
June  1,  2010;  that  the  applicant  was  transferring  to  another  unit;  and  that  xxxxxxx  had 
RPM’s correct address as the applicant’s new duty station. 

  On June 30, 2010, at 6:44 p.m., the applicant sent the xxxxxxxxxx an email with a copy 
of his letter to the retention board and his Record of Professional Development attached.  
He  asked  the  xxxxxxxxxxxxx  to  endorse  the  letter  and  forward  it  to  the  RPM  no  later 
than July 6, 2010.  He did not mention a medal. 

  On  June  30,  2010,  6:59  p.m.,  the  applicant  also  sent  an  email  to  the  chief  of  RPM  and 
attached  to  it  his  letter  to  the  retention  board  and  his  Record  of  Professional  Develop-
ment.  He asked the chief to ensure that they were entered in his record for consideration 
by  the  retention  board.    He  did  not  mention  any  medal.    He  noted  that  he  expected  the 
xxxxxxxx would submit an endorsement separately. 

  The applicant’s letter to the retention board, dated June 30, 2010, outlines his career and 
excellent OERs.  The  applicant  noted in  the  first  paragraph  of his  letter to the retention 
board that he had recently been nominated for an MSM. 

  The  applicant  submitted  copies  of  pages  of  COMDTINST  M1080.10I  the  manual  for 
Military Personnel Data Records (PDRs) showing that the PSC is responsible for main-
taining  members  records,  including  “electronically  imaged  documents  necessary  to 
support  board  and  panel  reviews,”  and  that  “[w]hen  PSC-PSD-MR  receives  authorized 
documents to image, they shall complete the imaging process.” 

The applicant  concluded that he has proved by  a preponderance of the evidence that he 
worked actively to ensure that his record was complete before the retention board convened, that 
the Navy mailed the MSM to the Coast Guard on June 22, 2010, and that the Coast Guard erro-

 

 

neously  failed  to  include  the  MSM  in  his  record  before  the  retention  board  reviewed  it.    The 
applicant argued that his evidence also proves that although the Coast Guard received the MSM 
from the Navy on or about June 22, 2010, the Coast Guard failed to forward a copy of it to him, 
as it should have, and therefore deprived him of the opportunity to  contact RPM to ensure that 
the MSM was entered in his record before the retention board convened.  The applicant argued 
that the PSC’s lateness  in  emailing him his  own  record  and in  entering the MSM in  his  record 
after he provided it to them in August 2010 supports his claim that the PSC received the MSM 
that the Navy mailed on June 22, 2010, but failed to enter it in his record. 
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  The appli-

cation was timely. 

 
2. 

The applicant alleged that the Meritorious Service Medal awarded to him by the 
Navy was erroneously absent from his record when it was reviewed by the CAPT retention board 
on July 7, 2010, even though, he  alleged, the MSM was in the Coast Guard’s possession.  The 
Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information in the appli-
cant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the burden of 
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or unjust.4  
Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Gov-
ernment employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”5  

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that an August 11, 2010, email to him from a Navy officer 
stating,  “CAPT,  you  were  approved  for  an  MSM  on  22  JUN.    xxxxxxx  forwarded  it  to  your 
USCG cmd,” proves that the Navy mailed the MSM to the Coast Guard on June 22, 2010.  The 
Board disagrees.  The email, like the award recommendation form and the citation for the MSM, 
shows that the medal was approved on June 22, 2010.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the 
Navy sent the medal to the Coast Guard on that date or in time for it to be entered in his record 
before  the  retention  board  convened  on  July  7,  2010.    In  fact,  the  evidence  of  record  indicates 
that the PSC had no knowledge that the MSM had been awarded until more than a month after 
the retention board convened. 

 
4. 

The applicant’s own letter to the retention board shows that as of June 30, 2010, 
he  knew  that  he  had  been  nominated  for  the  MSM  but  had  not  discovered  that  it  had  been 
awarded.  He submitted evidence showing that in early August 2010, he sent the Navy an email 
entitled “End of Tour Award” and was then advised that an MSM had been approved on June 22, 

                                                 
4 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
5 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

2010.    The  Coast  Guard  announced  in  ALCGRSV  029/10  that  it  would  accept  submissions 
through July 6, 2010, and accepted the applicant’s submissions on June 30, 2010.  The applicant 
was able, through his letter to the retention board, to inform that board that he had been nomi-
nated  for  the  MSM.    It  is  unfortunate  that  the  communications  that  the  applicant  initiated  in 
August 2010, when he emailed the Navy inquiring about whether he had received an end of tour 
award, did not occur in late June or early July 2010.  However, the Board finds that the applicant 
has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error or 
injustice when it presented his record to the retention board without the MSM on July 7, 2010. 

 
5. 

Accordingly, no relief should be granted because the applicant has not proved that 
his  non-selection  for  retention  in  July  2010  resulted  from  an  error  or  injustice  in  his  military 
record.   
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his military 

record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 Bruce D. Burkley 

 

 

 

 
 
 Christopher M. Dunne 

 

 

 
 Barbara Walthers