DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-129 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

 

 
 

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 April 
27,  2007,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and  military  records,  and 
subsequently prepared the final decision 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  January  24,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  her  military  record  by  removing  two 
administrative  remarks  pages1  (page  7s)  dated  December  8,  1997,  and  March  5,  2003.    The 
commanding officer (CO) and the applicant signed each page 7. 
 
First Disputed Page 7 
 
"Entry Type:  Performance and Discipline (P&D-8) 
"Reference:  Section 5-B. (pg. 5-1), COMDTINST M1020.8 series 
"Responsible Level:  Unit 
"Entry: 
 
“97DEC08:  On this date,  you were weighed and  you are in compliance with  your maximum 
allowance weight/body fat standard.  Your measurements are:  Height: 65.0 (inches, Wrist Size: 6 
3/8 (inches), and Weight: 186 (pounds).  Your age is: 28 and your percent body fat is 32%.  In 
accordance with COMDTINST M1020.8 (series), you are assigned a maximum allowable weight 
                                                 
1   An administrative remarks page provides a means of recording miscellaneous entries, which are not 
recorded  elsewhere  in  a  Personnel  Data  Record  (PDR).    Administrative  Remarks  entries  are  made  to 
document counseling or to record any other information required by current directives, or considered to 
be of historical value.  Section 10.A. of the Pay and Personnel Manual (HIRSICINST M1000.6A) 

for screening purposes[2] of 186 (pounds).  Should you exceed this maximum allowable weight 
in the future, you will be required to complete a body fat determination.  By signature below, you 
acknowledge  both  this  entry  and  that  you  have  been  afforded  the  opportunity  to  review 
COMDTINST M1020.8 (series).” 
 
Second Disputed Page 7 
 
The March 5, 2003 page 7 is the same as the above, except that it assigns the applicant a 
 
screening weight of 219 pounds.  It lists her height as 65”, her wrist size as 6 3/8”, her body fat 
as 33%, and her age as 35.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  stated  that  COMDTINST  M1020.8E  (Weight  and  Physical  Fitness 
Standards for the Coast Guard) then in effect, required that a page 7 be prepared and placed in 
the  military  record  to  document  the  assignment  of  a  new  maximum  allowable  weight  for  a 
member who exceeded his or her original maximum allowable weight but who was within their 
required  body  fat  percentage.    The  applicant  stated  that  under  the  current  regulation 
COMDTINST M1020.8F that became effective on April 27, 2006, page 7s are no longer used to 
document compliance with the weight and physical fitness program.  Instead, the information is 
entered in the U.S. Coast Guard’s “Direct Access” system.    

 
The applicant argued that having the page 7s in her record may have negatively impacted 
her opportunity for promotion.  She stated that she was considered by the July 31, 2006 CDR 
selection board but was not selected for promotion.  After failing to be selected for promotion, 
the applicant stated that several Coast Guard officers with selection board experience advised her 
that the page 7s may have created the false impression that she was not in compliance with the 
weight  and  physical  fitness  requirements.    The  applicant  argued  that  because  the  current 
instruction no longer requires page 7s to document the assignment of a new maximum allowable 
weight  and  since  they  do  not  represent  her  current  status,  they  should  be  removed  from  her 
record.   
 
The applicant submitted a statement from Rear Admiral B who was very complimentary 

of the applicant’s skills and performance.  The Admiral also wrote the following: 

 

                                                 
2      Article  4.C.1.  of  COMDTINST  M1020.8D  stated  the  following:    “Screening  Weight.  Some  member’s 
physical makeup, primarily due to high muscle mass, puts him or her in an overweight category even 
though  their  body  fat  percentage  is  within  limits.    In  cases  such  as  this,  upon  determination  that  the 
member’s  body  fat  is  within  standards,  the  member  will  be  assigned  a  screening  weight  equal  to  the 
member’s weight when the body fat determination is made.  This does not establish a new MAW.  It is 
designed to avoid requiring the member to have additional body fat determinations as long as he or she 
does  not  gain  additional  weight  .  .  .  If  the  member  exceeds  the  screening  weight,  he  or  she  will  be 
screened  for  a  new  body  fat  determination.    If  determined  to  be  overfat,  he  or  she  shall  be  placed  on 
probation [in accordance with] the standards outlined in . . . Article 3.C. with calculations based upon the 
member’s original MAW, not his or her screening weight.”    

[The page 7s] document [the applicant’s] compliance with weight and body  fat 
standards.  Based on my observations, having served on eleven promotion boards 
and  numerous  other  personnel  boards  and  panels,  such  documentation  has  not 
been consistent across the many records I have reviewed.  In this particular case, 
these entries might have influence on decisions about her record and performance, 
when  the  records  of  [the  applicant’s]  peers  under  consideration  by  the  same 
board(s)  might  not  contain  any  similar  recording  of  weight  and  body  fat 
compliance.  In fact, the use of [page 7s] for this purpose is no longer required; 
the  information  is  instead  annotated  through  the  Direct  Access  computerized 
human resource system.   
 
 
Captain  B  also  wrote  a  statement  on  behalf  of  the  applicant.    Captain  attested  to  the 
applicant’s skill as a Coast Guard officer.  The Captain also stated that she believed the page 7 
entries  may  be  detrimental  when  viewed  by  selection  board  members  even  though  they 
document compliance with the Commandant’s weight standards.  “I can only surmise that these 
screening  weight  page  7s  negatively  impacted  [the  applicant’s]  opportunity  for  selection  to 
promotion  where  I  imagine  any  discriminators  may  be  used  to  help  complete  the  challenging 
selection process.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 18, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    The  JAG 
adopted the comments provided by Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC), as 
the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion.    
 
 
CGPC noted that the applicant was not selected for promotion to CDR in 2006, but she 
was selected for promotion to CDR by the July 30, 2007 selection board.  In addition, CGPC 
noted that there are three page 7s in the applicant’s record that document the assignment of a new 
maximum allowable weight for screening purposes.  The earliest page 7 is dated September 12, 
1995.  
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  COMDTINST  M1020.8C  promulgated  on  September  1,  1994, 
implemented  the  use  of  screening  weights  and  the  requirement  for  such  information  to  be 
documented  on  a  page  7.    According  to  CGPC,  the  page  7  policy  continued  until  the 
promulgation of COMDTINST M1020.8F, which eliminated it. 
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  while  the  page  7  entries  regarding  adjusted  maximum  allowable 
screening weights reflect an outdated policy, they were accurate and appropriate at the time of 
submission to the record.  CGPC further stated that officers appearing before selection boards for 
promotion  with  records  containing  page  7s  regarding  adjusted  maximum  allowable  screening 
weights  are  routinely  found  amongst  those  officers  best  qualified  for  promotion  to  the  next 
higher grade.  “In fact, the record reflects the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade 
of lieutenant and lieutenant commander with such [page 7s] as part of her official record.” CGPC 
further stated that the applicant was selected for promotion to CDR in [calendar year 2007] with 

 

the page 7s in her record and available to the selection board.  CGPC did not recommend that the 
Board grant the applicant any relief.   

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  23,  2007,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard for a response.  The Board did not receive a response from the applicant.   
 

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 section 1552 of title 10 

of the United States Code.  The application was timely.    
 
 
2.    The  1997  and  2003  disputed  page  7s  were  placed  into  the  applicant’s  record  in 
accordance  with  the  instructions  in  effect  at  the  pertinent  times.    In  fact,  Article  3.D.2  of 
COMDTINST  M1020.8D  stated  that  page  7s  were  to  be  prepared  and  placed  in  the  military 
records of members who were assigned new screening weights because they were in compliance 
the body fat requirements, although they exceeded their maximum allowable weights.  According 
to  GCPC,  this  policy  was  in  effect  from  1994,  until  April  27,  2006,  when  COMDTINST 
M1020.8F was promulgated.  Under the current instruction, adjustments to maximum allowable 
weights are entered into Direct Access instead of being documented on page 7s.   
 
3.  While the current regulation, COMDTINST M1020.8F, no longer requires page 7s, 
 
there is nothing in the regulation that states this change in policy is to have any retroactive effect.  
Therefore, each of the disputed page 7s was prepared according to the instruction in effect at that 
time and was properly placed into the applicant’s military record.   
 
 
4.  Besides there being no error in the applicant’s military record, her recent selection for 
promotion to CDR by the calendar year 2007 selection board and her earlier promotions to LT 
and  LCDR  with  the  page  7s  in  her  record  are  persuasive  evidence  that  there  was  no  causal 
connection between the applicant’s 2006 failure of selection and the page 7s. 
 
 
record and her request for relief should be denied.  
 
 
 

5.   Accordingly,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  her  military 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall