DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2008-069 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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  on  February  8,  2008,  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare 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  August  14,  2008,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to remove from his record a Court Memorandum indicat-
ing that he was placed on report for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and 
awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on May 10, 2006.  He alleged that the entire document 
was a clerical error because no mast took place.  He was simply counseled about his conduct by 
the Executive Petty Officer (XPO) of the unit, since the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the unit was 
away on leave.  In addition, he was told that the charges were dismissed.  However, someone sent 
the  Court  Memorandum  to  the  Sector  Personnel  Office,  which  made  database  entries  in  his 
record as if he had been taken to mast and reprimanded.  He did not learn of these errors until he 
inquired  about  getting  a  Good  Conduct  Medal  and  was  told  that  the  NJP  had  terminated  his 
eligibility for one.  In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement signed by the 
OIC of his unit, a chief petty officer, who wrote the following: 
 

I endorse [his] request to have the Court Memorandum removed from his record.  I was the Officer 
in Charge during the dates in question and I was either TDY or on leave.  In my absence, I require 
the “Acting Officer in Charge” contact me if he/she has intentions to conduct a mast.  To the best 
of my knowledge, no mast was held.  In addition, we have no files onboard my unit to support that 
a mast ever took place.  I request the Court Memorandum be removed from his records. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
Print-outs from the Coast Guard’s database indicate that on May 10, 2006, the applicant 
received NJP for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being absent without leave (AWOL) when 

he failed to attend a physical therapy appointment on May 3, 2006, and Article 134 of the UCMJ 
by making a false statement to a watch stander.  Other database entries indicate that the pay grade 
of  the  member  conducting  the  mast  was  E-6  (first  class  petty  officer),  that  the  applicant  was 
advised of his right to counsel, and that he was issued a “reprimand/admonition letter.”  Another 
print-out indicates that the applicant did not receive an Enlisted Employee Review (EER) as a 
result of the recorded NJP. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 18, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant relief by removing all references to the May 
10, 2006, NJP from the applicant’s record.  In so doing, the JAG adopted the findings and analy-
sis in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC  stated that the applicant’s record contains a Court Memorandum reflecting viola-
tions of Articles 86 and 134 of the UCMJ.  CGPC further stated that although the Court Memo-
randum indicates that the applicant was issued a “reprimand/admonition letter,” no such letter 
appears in his record.  In addition, CGPC noted that when a member receives NJP, the unit is 
required by Article 10.B.5.b.3. of the Personnel Manual to prepare an EER, but no such EER is 
in the applicant’s record. 
 
 
CGPC stated that on May 10, 2006, the OIC was not at his unit because he was attending 
training in Petaluma, California, from April 22 to May 24, 2006.  Moreover, the OIC’s statement 
indicates that he was “unaware that a mast took place.”  CGPC stated that “[w]hile the Military 
Justice Manual (MJM) bestows NJP authority to successors, i.e., XPO acting as OIC, [the appli-
cant’s OIC] indicates that he required the XPO to brief him of any intentions to conduct a mast, 
and no such briefing occurred.”  Moreover, under Article 1.E.1.c. of the MJM, the “alleged pun-
ishment awarded, ‘reprimand/admonition’ is not an authorized punishment that can be imposed 
by  an  enlisted  officer-in-charge.  …  Therefore,  even  if  such  NJP  took  place,  the  punishment 
awarded was not within the scope of authority for an enlisted officer-in-charge or his successor to 
command.    Therefore,  it  is  recommended  that  all  references  to  the  May  10,  2006,  NJP  be 
removed from [the applicant’s] record as null and void.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 8, 2008, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion and stated that he agreed 

 

with the recommendation for relief therein.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Under  Article  15  of  the  UCMJ,  commanders,  at  their  discretion,  may  impose  NJP  for 
 
minor violations of the UCMJ to maintain good order and discipline when court-martial seems 
excessive.  Part V, paragraph 2, of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) states the following 
regarding NJP authority: 
 

Commander.  As provided by regulations of the Secretary concerned, a commander may 
a. 
impose nonjudicial punishment upon any military personnel of that command. … “Subject to sub-

paragraph 1d(2) and any regulations of the Secretary concerned, the authority of a commander to 
impose nonjudicial punishment as to certain types of offenses, certain categories of persons, or in 
specific cases, or to impose certain types of punishment, may be limited or withheld by a superior 
commander or by the Secretary concerned. 
 
b. 
charge may impose nonjudicial punishment upon enlisted persons assigned to that unit. 

Officer in charge.  If authorized by regulations of the Secretary concerned, an officer in 

 
Part V, paragraph 5.c.(1), of the Manual for Courts-Martial states that admonitions and 
 
reprimands are forms of censure that criticize a member’s conduct.  If imposed at NJP, they are 
considered “punitive” rather than administrative.  Admonitions or reprimands of enlisted mem-
bers may be made orally or in writing, unless the Secretary prescribes otherwise. 
 

Chapter 1 of the Military Justice Manual (MJM; COMDTINST M5810.1D) contains the 
Coast Guard’s regulations governing NJP.  Chapters 1.B., 1.C., 1.D., and 1.F. provide procedures 
for masts, including the investigation of the charges; the appointment of a representative to speak 
for the member; the required phases of a mast hearing; and the right to appeal.  Chapter 1.A.3.a. 
states the following: 

 
All commanding officers may impose NJP upon personnel assigned to their units.  All officers-in-
charge  may  impose  NJP  upon  enlisted  members  assigned  to  their  unit,  unless  their  authority  is 
limited  by  an  officer  exercising  general  court-martial  jurisdiction  [OEGCMJ].  Throughout  this 
chapter, references to commanding officers as NJP or mast authorities include officers-in-charge, 
except where specifically noted. The authority of a commanding officer to impose NJP for certain 
types of offenses, certain categories of members, in specific cases, or to impose certain types of 
punishment may be limited or withheld by a superior commanding officer or the Secretary con-
cerned. A Coast Guard unit is a separately identified Coast Guard organizational entity, under a 
duly assigned commanding officer or officer-in-charge, provided with personnel and material for 
the performance of a prescribed mission.  

Chapter 1.A.3.c. states the following regarding the delegation of  NJP authority: 

 

 

 

The power to impose NJP is inherent in the office and not in the individual.  Any officer who suc-
ceeds to command in the absence of the assigned commanding officer because of death, incapaci-
tation,  illness,  TAD,  or  leave  has  the  power  of  the  assigned  commanding  officer  to  impose 
punishment, but the maximum punishment is limited by the rank of the successor. For example, a 
LT who succeeds to command in the absence of the assigned commanding officer who is a LCDR, 
may impose the amount of punishment allowed a commanding officer in the grade of LT or below.  
 
Chapter  1.E.1.a.  states  that  the  “maximum  punishment  that  may  be  imposed  depends 
upon the rank of the authority imposing punishment, the rank or grade of the member being pun-
ished, and in some situations by the combination of punishments awarded … . The limitations 
shown  in  the  following  two  tables  apply  to  each  instance  of  NJP  and  not  to  each  offense.”  
Chapter 1.E.1.c. states that “[s]ubject to the limitations in subparagraph 1.E.1.d. below [which is 
inapplicable  to  this  case],  the  following  table  depicts  the  maximum  punishments  that  may  be 
awarded at mast to an enlisted member.”  The table shows that when NJP is being imposed by an 
enlisted OIC, the enlisted OIC may not punish the member with an admonition or reprimand.1   

                                                 
1 One of the Coast Guard’s on-line versions of the MJM (COMDTINST M5810.1D) shows in the table in Chapter 
1.E.1.c.  that  enlisted  OICs  are  authorized  to  impose  an  admonition  or  reprimand  at  NJP.    Upon  inquiry  by  the 
BCMR staff, the Coast Guard’s Office of Military Justice stated that this on-line version contains a typographical 

Article 8.E.2.a. of the Personnel Manual requires a copy of any punitive letter of censure 

 
 
to be entered in the recipient’s military record unless the NJP is successfully appealed. 
 

Chapter 1.G.1.d. of the MJM states the following: 
 
Nonpunitive  administrative  letters  of  censure  are  not  punitive  and  may  be  administered  either 
orally or in writing. Nonpunitive letters of censure are private in nature and, other than administra-
tive letters of censure issued by the Commandant, shall not be forwarded to the Chief of Personnel, 
quoted in, or appended to, performance reports, included as enclosures to investigative reports, or 
otherwise included in official Coast Guard records of the recipient.  
 
Chapter 1.G.3.a. of the MJM states the following regarding record entries made pursuant 

to an NJP:  

 
Chapter 1.E.2.a. states the following regarding punitive admonitions or reprimands: 
 
(1)  Punitive  admonition  and  reprimand  are  two  forms  of  censure  intended  to  express  adverse 
reflection upon or criticism of a person’s conduct. A reprimand is a more severe form of censure 
than an admonition. Punitive admonition and reprimand should not be confused with nonpunitive 
censure and other forms of administrative corrective measures.  
(2)  In  the  case  of  commissioned  officers  and  warrant  officers,  admonitions  and  reprimands 
awarded at NJP must be administered in writing. In other cases, they may be administered either 
orally  or  in  writing.  The  punitive  letter  of  admonition  or  reprimand  shall  be  similar  in  form  to 
enclosure (6b).  
(3) While punitive letters of admonition or reprimand are not considered generally appropriate in 
the case of enlisted personnel below the grade of E-7, their use against lower ranking personnel is 
not precluded.  
(4) If a punitive letter is appealed and not sustained on appeal, a copy of the letter will not be filed 
in the official record of the member concerned.  

 
The Court Memorandum provides input to the service records of officer and enlisted personnel for 
all  masts  resulting  in  the  imposition  of  punishment.  If  mast  was  held,  but  no  punishment  as 
described  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  was  awarded,  then  Article  15  punishment  (or NJP) was not 
awarded. No Court Memoranda shall be prepared if, instead of imposing punishment, the matter is 
dismissed, dismissed with a warning, dismissed with administrative action taken, referred to court-
martial, or results in recommendation for general court-martial because these actions are not con-
sidered the imposition of punishment. 

 
 
Article 5.A.1.a. of the Medals and Awards Manual states that it is “[a]warded for profi-
ciency in rating, sobriety, obedience, industry, courage, and neatness throughout such period of 
service. Effective 1 July 1983, the required period of service is 3 years.”  Article 5.A.1.a.(2)(c) 
states that “[w]hen an infraction of discipline results in non-judicial punishment, a new period 
will commence the day following the date non-judicial punishment is awarded.” 
 
Article 10.B.5.b.3.a. of the Personnel Manual states that a special EER must be prepared 
 
“on the date a member is awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP).”  Under Article 10.B.2.a.1., an 
EER documenting NJP must be accompanied by supporting comments for low marks. 
 

                                                                                                                                                             
error and that, as stated in the advisory opinion, the authorized MJM, which was issued in 2000 and has not been 
revised in the interim, does not authorize enlisted OICs to impose admonitions or reprimands at NJP. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

5. 

6. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

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

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and applicable law: 
 
 
The application was timely. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  a  Court  Memorandum  and  other  records  of  an  NJP 
dated May 10, 2006, were erroneously entered in his record.  The Officer in Charge (OIC) of the 
unit, a chief petty officer, was away at a Coast Guard training center at the time of the alleged 
offenses  on  May  3,  2006,  and  of  the  recorded  mast.    Therefore,  the  Executive  Petty  Officer 
(XPO), a first class petty officer, was serving as the OIC’s successor, or “Acting OIC.”  Under 33 
C.F.R.  §  52.24(b),  the  Board  begins  its  deliberations  presuming  that  the  applicant’s  military 
record is correct and that the XPO acted properly in taking the applicant to mast and awarding 
him NJP, and the applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the NJP is incor-
rect or unjust.   
 
The applicant failed to submit a statement by the XPO or anyone else who was 
 
present  at  the  unit  during  the  pertinent  period  (aside  from  himself)  to  support  his  allegation.  
However, he submitted a statement from the OIC, who wrote that when he is absent from his 
unit, he “require[s] the ‘Acting Officer in Charge’ [to] contact [him] if he/she has intentions to 
conduct a mast” and that “[t]o the best of [the OIC’s] knowledge, no mast was held.” 
 
 
Under paragraph 2.b. of Part V of the MCM and Chapter 1.A.3.a. of the MJM, the 
OIC of a unit has authority to award NJP.  Under Chapter 1.A.3.c. of the MJM, when an OIC is 
away from his unit on temporary duty orders, his successor inherits the OIC’s authority to impose 
NJP, although the maximum punishment may be limited by the rank of the successor.  However, 
Chapter 1.A.3.a. provides that “[t]he authority to impose NJP for certain types of offenses, cer-
tain categories of members, in specific cases, or to impose certain types of punishment may be 
limited  or  withheld  by  a  superior  commanding  officer.”    The  OIC’s  statement  indicates  that, 
although he had authorized the XPO to impose NJP on unit members, he had limited that author-
ity by requiring the XPO to consult him before exercising the authority.  Although this kind of 
limitation is not expressly mentioned in Chapter 1.A.3.a., the Board finds that it reasonably falls 
within the implied authority of a commanding officer or OIC to limit his successor’s authority to 
impose NJP under that chapter.   
 
 
In  light  of  the  OIC’s  statement,  the  Board  finds  that  the  XPO’s  authority  to 
impose NJP on the applicant during the OIC’s absence was limited, in accordance with Chapter 
1.A.3.a. of the MJM, in that the XPO was required to consult the OIC before holding the mast.  
In addition, the preponderance of the evidence in the record indicates that, if the XPO convened a 
mast for the applicant on May 10, 2006, he did so improperly because he had not consulted the 
OIC. 
 
 
As  the  Coast  Guard  stated,  there  are  other  indicia  of  improper  or  incomplete 
procedures with respect to the applicant’s NJP:  (1) According to the OIC, the unit files contain 
no  record  of  the  NJP;  (2)  no  EER  was  prepared  for  the  applicant,  as  required  by  Article 

10.B.5.b.3.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  for  an  enlisted  member  punished  at  mast;  and  (3)  the 
punitive reprimand that appears in the database was apparently not within the OIC’s authority to 
impose at mast, under Chapter 1.E.1.c. of the MJM,2 and thus also not within the XPO’s author-
ity. 
 
 
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that any Court Memorandum or other record of NJP dated May 10, 2006, in his record 
is erroneous and should be removed from his record as null and void.  In addition, because the 
applicant’s eligibility for a Good Conduct Medal was apparently terminated on May 10, 2006, 
because of the NJP, pursuant to Article 5.A.1. of the Medals and Awards Manual, such termina-
tion should be removed. 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

7. 

8. 
 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
2 But see footnote 1, above. 

ORDER 

 
 
The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted.  Any Court Memorandum of a mast dated May 10, 2006, and all other 
records  of  and  references  to  nonjudicial  punishment  on  that  date  shall  be  removed  from  his 
record  as  null  and  void.    In  addition,  his record shall not show that his eligibility for a Good 
Conduct Medal terminated on that date. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No copy of this decision shall be placed in his Personal Data Record. 
 
 
 
 

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray