DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 1999-187 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR docketed 
this case on September 28, 1999, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed appli-
cation. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  8,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard Reserve, 
asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was commissioned at the 
rank of LTJG, rather than as an ensign, on July 22, 199x.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that due to a clerical error, he was commissioned as 
an  ensign  (pay  grade  O-1)  rather  than  as  an  LTJG.    He  alleged  that  he  should 
have  been  commissioned  as  an  LTJG  because  he  had  previously  served  in  the 
Army National Guard as a first lieutenant (grade O-2).  The  applicant alleged 
that because of this error, he received the pay of an ensign until his pay grade 
was corrected by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) on May 11, 199x.  
The applicant stated that although CGPC corrected his date of rank to July 22, 
199x, he did not receive any back pay or allowances.  He alleged that this back 
pay amounts to $6,083.55. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On July 22, 199x, the applicant signed an Acceptance and Oath of Office 

 
 
for an appointment as an ensign in the Coast Guard Reserve.   
 
 
On December 1, 199x, the applicant sent a letter to CGPC requesting that 
his date of rank be corrected “in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the 
U.S. Coast Guard Direct Commission Aviator Program.”  He stated that the error 
occurred  because  his  recruiter  failed  to  forward  his  promotion  orders  with  his 
application  for  a  commission.    The  applicant’s  commanding  officer  favorably 
endorsed his request, indicating that the applicant originally brought the prob-
lem to the attention of the command at his training center in August 199x. 
 
 
On April 2, 199x, CGPC responded to the applicant’s letter, approving the 
correction of his date of rank.  CGPC implemented the change by allowing him 
to  resign  his  commission  as  an  ensign  and  request  reappointment  as  an  LTJG.  
CGPC stated that although his date of rank would then be corrected to July 22, 
199x, pay and allowances would only begin to accrue as of the date he took the 
oath of office as an LTJG. 
 
 
On May 11, 199x, CGPC sent the applicant a memorandum indicating that 
the  President  appointed  him  to  the  rank  of  LTJG  effective  that  day  but  with  a 
date of rank of July 22, 199x.  The memorandum indicated that he would receive 
the pay and allowances of his new rank as soon as he took the oath of office.   
 

Also  on  May  11,  199x,  the  applicant  signed  an  Acceptance  and  Oath  of 
Office for a commission in the rank of LTJG.  The form indicates that his date of 
rank is July 22, 199x. 
 

 
The  applicant  submitted  with  his  application  a  memorandum  from  his 
commanding officer endorsing his request.  The commanding officer stated that 
on May 11, 1999, the applicant was “retroactively promoted to his present rank.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  April  17,  2000,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended 

 
 
that the Board grant the applicant’s request. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  made  an  administrative 
error when it appointed the applicant to the rank of ensign.  Under the Direct 
Commission  Aviator Program,  he  stated,  the  applicant  should  have  been  com-
missioned as an LTJG.   
 

 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s record should be corrected 
by changing the rank on the Acceptance and Oath of Office the applicant signed 
on July 22, 199x, to LTJG, and by voiding the Acceptance and Oath of Office he 
signed on May 11, 199x. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 21, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On May 2, 
2000, the applicant responded, stating that he concurred in the Chief Counsel’s 
recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Commandant  Instruction  1131.23  contains  the  provisions  for  the  Coast 
Guard’s  various  direct  commission  programs.    Chapter  5  contains  the  require-
ments for a direct commission as an aviator in the Coast Guard Reserve.  Under 
paragraph 5.a., aviators with prior military service who have the required quali-
fications  can  be  commissioned  either  as  an  LTJG  or  as  an  ensign.    Paragraph 
5.c.(3)(b)  states  that  “[f]or  appointment  to  lieutenant  (junior  grade),  [the  appli-
cant] must have served as a commissioned officer in pay grade O-2 or higher.” 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  the  Commander  of 
CGPC agreed that the Coast Guard committed an administrative error when it 
commissioned  the  applicant  as  an  ensign  (O-1)  on  July  22,  199x.    They  agreed 
that he should have been commissioned at the rank of LTJG (O-2) when he joined 
the Coast Guard Reserve under the Direct Commission Aviator Program.  

 
3. 

The applicant failed to submit to the Board direct evidence that he 
met the criterion for a direct commission in the rank of LTJG by having previ-
ously  served  as  an  officer  in  pay  grade  O-2  in  another  military  service.  
COMDTINST 1131.23, Paragraph 5.c.(3)(b).  No evidence of his prior service in 
the  Army  National  Guard  appears  in  his  Coast  Guard  personal  data  record.  
However,  because  both  CGPC  and  the  Chief  Counsel  are  convinced  that  the 

applicant has in fact met the requirement for a commission as an LTJG by serving 
as a first lieutenant (O-2) in the Army National Guard, the Board is convinced 
that he met the requirement.   

Although  CGPC  attempted  to  correct  the  administrative  error  by 
having  the  applicant  resign  and  by  back  dating  his  new  appointment,  those 
actions  did  not  entitle  the  applicant  to  the pay  and  allowances  he  would  have 
received if the Coast Guard had not erred.  Therefore, due to an administrative 
error  by  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  has  unjustly  been  denied  certain  back 
pay and allowances. 
 
 
 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  

 
4. 

5. 

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

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay him any back pay and allowances he is due as 

record is hereby granted as follows: 
 
 
The Acceptance and Oath of Office (CG-9556) dated 22 July 199x shall be 
corrected to show that he took the oath of office and accepted his appointment 
on that day in the rank of lieutenant junior grade (LTJG), pay grade O-2. 
 
 
The Acceptance and Oath of Office (CG-9556) dated 11 May 199x and any 
record  of  his  resignation  of  his  22  July  199x  commission  shall  be  voided  and 
removed from his record. 
 
 
a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

        

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

  

 

 
 
 Pamela M. Pelcovits