DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2012-088 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  March  6,  2012,  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  January  18,  2013,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
The applicant, a storekeeper, first  class (SK1/E-6), asked the Board to  remove from her 
record a Page 7 (CG-3307)1 dated May 20, 2011, documenting counseling about improper use of 
a  Government  Travel  Charge  Card  (GTCC); to  change the conduct  mark of “unsatisfactory” to 
“satisfactory”  on  her  July  2011  enlisted  performance  evaluation  (EPE);  to  make  her  eligible  to 
compete for advancement in the May 2012 service-wide examination (SWE); and to restore her 
eligibility for a Good Conduct Medal “to the pre-NJP status.”   
 
 
The  applicant  explained  that  in  January  2011,  when  she  was  assigned to  a Washington, 
D.C., xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, her command began an investigation into her use of the GTCC after it 
was  canceled.    As  a  result  of  the  investigation,  in  May  2011  she  was  flown  to  xxxxxxx  for  a 
captain’s mast before her commanding officer (CO) for allegedly misusing the card.  However, 
she alleged, the CO found her not guilty on all charges.  She asked the CO at the end of the mast 
if  she  would  be  eligible  to  compete  for  advancement  in  May  2012,  and  he  told  her she would.  
Furthermore,  the  CO  said  that  he  was  dismissing  the  charges2  because  she  had  already  been 

                                                 
1 A Page 7 (form CG-3307, “Administrative Remarks”) is used to document counseling provided to a member or any 
other positive or negative noteworthy event that occurs.  HRSICINST M1000.2A, Encl. (6). 
2  Chapter  1.D.17.  of  COMDTINST  M5810.1E  states  that  at  mast,  “[t]he  commanding  officer  may  decide  not  to 
punish a member and dismiss the matter with a warning. Such a decision may be based on either a lack of proof or a 
determination that punishment is not appropriate even though the member committed the offense(s). Dismissal with a 
warning is not considered NJP, and no entry shall be made in the member’s service record.” 

 

 

sufficiently punished because she had not been able to execute orders to an overseas assignment 
she had requested and received.  The CO told her that there would be no non-judicial punishment 
(NJP) in her record and that she should “put this behind [her] and move forward.” 
 
 
and gave her a Page 7 dated May 20, 2011, which states the following: 
 

Upon returning to her Detachment, however, her Division Chief called her into his office 

[Applicant’s name], this CG-3307 documents your failure to comply with the general orders pro-
vided in CI 4600.14 regarding use of the Government Travel Charge Card (GTCC).  Specifically, 
you  attempted  to  pay  the  account  balance  with  insufficient  funds  on  four  occasions  during  a  12 
month  period  and  you  utilized  the  card  to  pay  for  expenses  not  directly  associated  with  official 
government travel on two occasions. 
 
It  is  your  responsibility  to  be  familiar  with  all  general  orders  and  ensure  your  compliance.    You 
completed remedial DHS GTCC Training on 06 JAN 11.  You are to read CI 4600.14 and ensure 
you comply with its provisions in the future.  The issuing agent has suspended your GTCC.  This 
command will not seek reinstatement.  You can expect that any failure to comply with this policy 
in the future will result in further disciplinary action. 

 

The applicant stated that the Division Chief told her that the Page 7 was “the administra-
tive result of [her] Captain’s mast.”  Because the charges against her had been dismissed, she was 
confused about why he thought documentation was required.  She asked him to confirm that she 
would  be  eligible  to  compete  for  advancement,  and  he  said  she  would.    Therefore,  she  began 
studying and preparing to take the SWE in May 2012. 

 
 
When the applicant received her EPE from her supervisor on July 7, 2011, she saw that 
she had been assigned average to superior marks in all of the performance categories and she was 
recommended for advancement.  However, she received an “unsatisfactory” conduct mark.  Her 
supervisor told her that the unsatisfactory conduct mark was required because of the Page 7 dated 
May  20,  2011.3    The  applicant  told  her  supervisor  that  she  was  “very  relieved  with  the  high 
marks  and  the  recommendation  for  advancement  because  [she]  knew  [she]  needed  continuing 
good marks to compete for E-7” in the May 2012 SWE. 
 

 
The  disputed  EPE,  which  covers  the  applicant’s  performance  from  December  1,  2010, 
through May 31, 2011, but was signed on July 7, 2011, contains two “average” marks of 4 for the 
performance categories Responsibility and Evaluations, two “above average” marks of 5 for Set-
ting an  Example and Judgment, eighteen “excellent” marks of 6, and three “superior” (highest) 
marks of 7 for Professional/Specialty Knowledge, Professional Development, and Working with 
Others.    The  applicant  was recommended for advancement but  the conduct  mark was “unsatis-
factory.”    The  comment  supporting  the  conduct  mark  states  that  she  had  “received  an  adverse 
CG-3307 this evaluation period.” 
 
In August 2011, the applicant was transferred to a new command.  She continued study-
 
ing for the SWE.  In a conversation with a chief warrant officer (CWO) about why she did not 
execute the overseas orders she had received in October 2010, she told him what had happened, 

                                                 
3  Article  10.B.8.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  2011  states  that  a  member’s  “rating  chain  must  assign  an 
unsatisfactory mark in conduct whenever an individual meets any of the criteria listed in Article 10.B.2.a.”  The list 
in Article 10.B.2.a. includes a Page 7 documenting financial irresponsibility. 

 

 

and he told her that because of the unsatisfactory conduct mark, she was not eligible to compete 
for  advancement4  and  her  eligibility  period  for  her  fifth  Good  Conduct  Medal  would  be  termi-
nated and restarted.5  The CWO also told her that despite her otherwise excellent record, the Page 
7 would make it very difficult for her to get selected for appointment to chief warrant officer, to 
get an overseas assignment, or to get any kind of training billet in the future.  She had not previ-
ously been told any of this by her CO at mast, the Division Chief who gave her the Page 7, or her 
supervisor in discussing her EPE. 
 
 
The applicant stated that she strongly objects to the long-term effects of the Page 7 since 
her CO had expressly dismissed the charges alleged in the Page 7 at mast, deemed the cancela-
tion of her overseas orders sufficient punishment, and told her she could put it all behind her.  In 
support  of  her  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  documents  from  her  military  record  and  the 
following: 
 

  A  lieutenant  wrote  on behalf of the applicant  that the disputed Page 7 is  preventing her 
promotion.  He said that he personally attended the applicant’s mast and because she was 
found  not  guilty,  the  Page  7  should  be  removed  from  her  record.    The  lieutenant  stated 
that during the mast, the CO said that the cancellation of the applicant’s overseas orders 
constituted punishment and that no other punishment was needed.  The lieutenant stated 
that the applicant’s ineligibility for promotion constitutes additional punishment in excess 
of what the CO ordered.  The lieutenant also stated that he has worked with the applicant 
on numerous supply and procurement processes and that she is a very knowledgeable and 
responsible storekeeper. 

 

 

 

  A senior chief petty officer (SCPO) wrote on behalf of the applicant that he served as her 
representative at mast on May 17, 2011, and remembers that the applicant asked the CO if 
she would be eligible to take the SWE in May 2012, and the CO said that she would.  Her 
Department  Head  and  supervisor  were  present  at  the  mast  by  video  conference  and  so 
knew what  the CO had said.   He also  stated that since the charges against the applicant 
were dismissed, there was no reason to give her an unsatisfactory conduct mark.  There-
fore, the SCPO concluded, the applicant should be eligible for advancement, her conduct 
mark should be corrected to “satisfactory,” and her eligibility period for a Good Conduct 
Medal should not be terminated.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  July  27,  2012,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief and adopted the findings 
and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC). 

 

                                                 
4 Article 3.A.5.b.(3) of COMDTINST M1000.2 states that to be eligible for advancement to chief petty officer (E-7) 
a member must, “[f]or 24 months prior to the terminal eligibility date (1 January following the May exam), and for 
the entire period from recommendation to advancement, have no unsatisfactory conduct mark, court martial (CM) or 
civil convictions, or non-judicial punishments (NJP).”  
5 Article 10.B.8.a. of the Personnel Manual in effect in May 2011 states that a “new period of eligibility for the Good 
Conduct award begins any time a member receives an unsatisfactory mark in conduct.” 

 

 

PSC recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.  PSC noted that under Chapter 
 
1.E.3.l. of COMDTINST M4600.18, which contains the Coast Guard’s GTCC policies and pro-
cedures, the applicant’s CO was required to take certain actions to hold her accountable for mis-
using  her  GTCC.6    PSC  alleged  that  the  applicant  received  the  disputed  Page  7  in  accordance 
with this policy.  Chapter 1.E.3.l. of COMDTINST M4600.18 states that the CO must  
 

[e]nsure the appropriate level of action is taken for any GTCC holder identified as not fully com-
plying with the Coast Guard’s GTCC policies and procedures.  Specifically, commanding officers 
shall ensure appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary actions are taken for both categories of 
misuse per tables 3-1 and 3-2; when accounts are past due and/or when accounts are found to have 
unauthorized  charges.    These  tables  provide  the  minimum  actions  to  be  taken  by  the  chain  of 
command to ensure fair and consistent treatment of GTCC holders.  A key element of each coun-
seling session and documentation shall include language that failure to make full payment of any 
delinquent balances or unauthorized charges will lead to further administrative and/or disciplinary 
actions. … For instances where the supervisor initiating the action determines the minimum action 
required for appropriated fund personnel for misuse is too severe, s/he shall contact CG-1214 who 
will review all aspects of the incident(s) to determine whether or not a lesser penalty than what this 
Manual requires is warranted. … 
 
(1) Minimum action required for undisputed GTCC balances overdue: 

Days Account Past Due[7] 

Military Personnel 

Step 1 – 1 day 

Informal Counseling 

Step 2 – 31 days 

Step 3 – 61 days 

Step 4 – 91 days 

Documented Counseling 

Page 7 entry 

[Note 3: Inquire into UCMJ accountability after 
discussing with legal officer.] 

(2) Minimum action required for unauthorized GTCC use: 

Number/Total Value of Charges  Military Personnel 

Not more than 3 charges or $100 

Documented Counseling 

Not more than 5 charges or $200 

Page 7 entry 

More than 5 charges or $200 

[Note 3: Inquire into UCMJ accountability after 
discussing with legal officer.] 

[Other 
columns 
not 
shown.] 

[Other 
columns 
not 
shown.] 

 

 

 

                                                 
6 Chapter 1.A.4. of COMDTINST M4600.18 states that “[t]he GTCC is issued with the express intent of providing 
personnel with a mechanism to pay for travel expenses associated with official government TDY and/or military PCS 
orders  that  are  exclusively  funded  by  the  Coast  Guard.  Use  of  the  GTCC  for  an  expense  that  is  not  directly 
associated with official government travel in accordance with the JFTR/FTR or non-payment of a GTCC bill by the 
statement due date are considered misuse.” 
7 According to Chapter 1.I.2. of COMDTINST M4600.18, a GTCC billing period runs from the 12th or 13th of one 
month to the 12th or 13th of another month and may be adjusted for weekends or holidays.  According to Chapter 1.L. 

1. The  payment  due  date  of  a  statement  is  approximately  25  calendar  days  from  the  statement 
billing cycle end date.  
2. A GTCC account is classified as Past Due if the GTCC bank has not received payment by the 
first day after the account due date indicated on the GTCC statement.  
3. A GTCC account is classified as Delinquent if the GTCC bank has not received payment by the 
31st day after the account due date indicated on the original GTCC statement.  
4. A GTCC account is classified as Suspended if the GTCC bank has not received payment by the 
61st day after the account due date indicated on the original GTCC statement.  

 

 

 

PSC noted that the applicant submitted nothing to show that the Page 7 is inaccurate.  In 
addition, PSC noted that Article 10.B.8.b. of the Personnel Manual in effect in July 2011 requires 
a member’s rating chain to assign a member an unsatisfactory conduct mark whenever the indi-
vidual meets any of the criteria for misconduct listed in Article 10.B.8.a. and that the list includes 
financial  irresponsibility.  PSC  concluded  that  the  disputed  Page  7  and  unsatisfactory  conduct 
mark were prepared in accordance with Coast Guard policy.   

 
PSC stated that the applicant’s apparent belief that because the disciplinary action taken 
by  her  command—mast—ended  with  no  NJP  being  awarded,  no  further  administrative  action 
could be taken by the command is erroneous.  “Dismissal of a disciplinary action does not pre-
vent  the applicant’s supervisor from  taking administrative action.”  Therefore, PSC argued that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or  injustice  in  her  record  and  her  request  for 
relief should be denied. 
 

 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
In  response  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  disagreed  with  the  Coast 
Guard’s recommendation and submitted a series of emails she exchanged with the CO who dis-
missed the charges against her at mast on May 11, 2011.  She initiated the exchange on July 26, 
2012,  by  asking  him  whether  he  intended  that  she  receive  the  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark and 
resulting  adverse  administrative  consequences  after  he  dismissed  the  charges  against  her.    She 
did not mention the Page 7.  The CO, who had retired on October 1, 2011, replied as follows: 
 

[Applicant], my job was to sort out if NJP action was appropriate in your case.  I decided  it was 
not appropriate and dismissed the formal charges against you. 
 
The marks assigned by your chain of command are a separate issue.  There are specific Personnel 
Manual rules about marking unsat in conduct.  I don’t think that mark is wholly dependent on one 
NJP outcome, but as I said at the mast, a dismissed NJP is not grounds alone for unsat in conduct.  
In other words, there would have to be some reason for unsat other than the NJP dismissal. 

 
 
On  August  1,  2012,  the  applicant  asked  the  CO  to  clarify  whether  he  intended  her  to 
receive an unsatisfactory conduct mark based on the dismissed charges or whether he intended to 
limit her “punishment” to the cancelation of her overseas orders.  The CO replied that he 
 

dismissed your charges because I saw no value to you or the CG in my awarding you NJP.  It was 
not my intention to have you receive an unsat in conduct mark due to that mast.  It sounds to me 
like  you  have  a  legitimate  question  about  how  the  mark  was  determined  so  I  have  pushed  your 
concern to [the Division Chief and current CO of that command]. 

The applicant did not submit any responses by the Division Chief or the current CO to the 

 
 
CO’s inquiry. 
 

Regarding the events that led up to the mast, the applicant explained that four weeks after 
her  mother  died  on  April  9,  2010,  she  was  asked  to  deploy  as  the  xxxxxxxxxx  for  the 
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx.  Because she had just recently been away for an extended period 
to  care  for  her  mother,  her  supervisor  tried  to  block  the  orders  but  she  received  the  orders 
anyway,  which  damaged  her  relationship  with  her  supervisor.    While  she  was  deployed,  her 

 

 

supervisor,  who  resented  her  deployment,  improperly  continued  to  assign  her  tasks  daily.    Her 
supervisors  at  the  NIC  repeatedly  advised  her  supervisor  that the applicant could  not  be tasked 
with other duties while working at the NIC, where she worked 20+ hour days seven days a week 
for many months.  She also served as the Administrative Assistant to the xxxxxxxxxxxxx and as 
such  traveled  frequently  back  and  forth  between  Headquarters  and  xxxxxxxx.    On  October  6, 
2010, the applicant received a Commendation Medal for her work during this deployment from 
May  3  through  October  1,  2010.    The  citation  for  the  award  states  that  as  the  xxxxxxxxx,  she 
filled a position normally filled by a CWO and was responsible for all property, purchasing, and 
reconciling  for  xxxxxxxx.    The  citation  also  states  that  “she  provided  detailed  and  timely 
logistics  planning  for  multiple  short-notice  deployments  and  travel  claim  processing”  for  the 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.     
 

The applicant stated that she usually paid the bills in her household but in the winter of 
2010,  because  she  was  overwhelmed  with  traveling  and  her  mother’s  terminal  illness,  her  hus-
band  took  over  paying  the  bills.    When  her  husband  attempted  to  pay  her  GTCC  bill  over  the 
phone  on  two  occasions  in  2010,  he  accidentally  used  their  savings  account  number  instead  of 
their  checking  account  number.    Both  accounts  were  at  the  same  bank,  and  their  checking 
account had ample funds to make the payments, but the savings account did not.  The applicant 
stated that in February 2010, her husband authorized a payment of $272.70 to pay off her GTCC 
balance over the telephone but used the wrong account number so the payment was returned due 
to  insufficient  funds.    He  made  the  same  mistake  in  November  2010  by  authorizing  a  $268.05 
payment to  pay the balance on her GTCC, and that payment “attempted to post 3 more times,” 
resulting in three insufficient fund reports.   
 

In support of these allegations, the applicant provided documents from the investigation 
and her bank account statements for February, November, and December 2010, which show that 
her  checking  account  maintained  a  balance  of  about  $2,500  in  late  January  and  early  February 
2010;  a  balance  of  about  $1,100  in  late  October  and  early  November  2010;  and  a  balance  of 
between  $4,000  and  $6,000  in  late  November  and  early  December  2010.    A  print-out  of  her 
GTCC  account  for  the  period  June  2009  through  December 2010 shows that she used the card 
throughout  that  period  for  purchases  in  the  Washington,  D.C.  area,8  xxxxxxx,  xxxxxxxx, 
xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxx and made payments as follows:9 
 

                                                 
8 Chapter 1.D. of COMDTINST M4600.18 states that the following uses of a GTCC are prohibited: 

1.  Use  by  members  while  assigned  local  travel  orders.  Coast  Guard  defines  local  travel  as 
authorized travel within the local commuting area (50 miles from the permanent duty station).  
2.  Payment  of  lodging  expenses  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Permanent  Duty  Station  (PDS),  except 

when the lodging is in conjunction with TLA or TLE on official travel orders.  

3.  Use  at  eating  establishments  in  the  vicinity  of  the  PDS,  except  when  the  meals  are  in 

conjunction with TLA or TLE.  

4.  Any  other  use  in  the  vicinity  of  the  PDS  not  directly  associated  with  official  travel  or  in 

conjunction with [temporary lodging allowance or temporary lodging expense].  

•  •  • 

11.  Any expense associated with local travel orders, which may include, but is not limited to, 

parking, tolls, ferries or water taxis.  

9 Chapter 1.J. of COMDTINST M4600.18 states that a “GTCC statement must be paid in full on or before the due 
date  printed  on  the  monthly  statement  regardless  of  whether  the  travel  voucher  reimbursement  has  been  received. 
Partial payments are not authorized.” 

 

 

  On July 15, 2009, a payment of $1,800.00 was received. 
  On September 15, 2009, a payment of $2,900.00 was received. 
  On September 25, 2009, a payment of $2,083.55 was received. 
  On December 2, 2009, a payment of $707.16 was received. 
  On January 20, 2010, a payment of $1,995.64 was received, but the payment was reversed 

with the notation “payment check return.” 

  On February 2, 2010, the applicant was charged a “returned check fee” of $25.00.   
  Also on February 2, 2010,  the account shows both a charge and credit in the amount of 

$272.70 attributed to American Airlines. 

  On February 4, 2010, a payment of $2,000.00 was received. 
  On March 1, 2010, a payment of $3,965.72 was received. 
  On March 26, 2010, a payment of $58.00 was received. 
  On June 18, 2010, a payment of $3,500.00 was received. 
  On August 23, 2010, a payment of $3,745.88 was received. 
  On October 21, 2010, a payment of $36.00 was received, but the payment was reversed 

with the notation “payment reversal.” 

  On November 5, 2010, the applicant was charged a “returned check fee” of $25.00. 
  On  November  22,  2010,  a  payment  of  $268.05  was  received,  but  the  payment  was 

reversed with the notation “payment reversal.” 

  On November 26, 2010, the applicant was charged a “returned check fee” of $25.00. 
  On December 8, 2010, a payment of $268.05 was received, but the payment was reversed 

with the notation “payment reversal.” 

  On December 23, 2010, the applicant was charged a “returned check fee” of $25.00. 
  On December 29, 2010, a payment of $318.05 was received. 

 
 
The applicant stated that the very first time the payment failed, she and/or her supervisor 
should have been notified.10  If she had been notified, the error would not have happened more 
than once, and she would have resumed paying the bills.  When she was learned of the problem, 
she  fully  disclosed  the  situation  to  her  supervisors,  learned  about  an  annual  GTCC  training 
requirement  that  she  had  never  been  told  about,  took  the  training,  and  applied  to  get  her  card 
reactivated.  She submitted documents showing that in January 2011 she underwent GTCC train-
ing and financial counseling.  She also submitted a copy of ALCOAST 110/10, issued on March 
8,  2010,  which  notes  that  annual  GTCC  training  had  become  a  requirement  for  members  with 
GTCCs. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard’s failure to inform her about the required and 
available GTCC training and refusal to give her a chance to correct her husband’s mistaken use 
of  the  wrong  account  when  he  first  made  the  mistake  in  February  2010  are  errors  that  have 
created huge injustices that will affect the remainder of her career and possible cause her invol-
untary  retirement  if  she  is  selected  for  separation  by  the  Career  Retention  Screening  Panel 
because she has not been advanced or selected for appointment to CWO.  Because she does not 

                                                 
10 Chapter 1.E.2.c(17) of COMDTINST M4600.18 requires designated Travel Mangers to “[a]t a minimum, notify 
the cardholder and command in writing when an account is delinquent at 31, 61, and 91 days past due.” 

 

 

have a GTCC, she will not be able to deploy overseas or remain on the Coast Guard’s Incident 
Management Assessment Team although she is highly qualified. 
 
 
The applicant stated that the allegations that she had misused her GTCC for expenses not 
related to official duties because they thought she was not on orders or in a travel status were dis-
proved and dismissed at mast because she was able to submit official orders and travel claims for 
all of the listed dates as well as orders authorizing her to rent a car.11 
 
 
investigation: 
 

In support of her claims, the applicant also submitted the following documents from the 

  An  email  from  a  Coast  Guard  Transportation  Assistant  who  served  as  the  applicant’s 
command’s  GTCC  coordinator  to  the  officer  investigating  the  applicant’s  GTCC  usage 
states  that  every  Monday,  after  the  Coast  Guard  receives  a  report  showing  all  GTCC 
delinquencies, an email is sent to the member and the member’s supervisor.  If the mem-
ber’s name still appears on the report the following Monday, another email is sent to the 
member and the supervisor.  If the delinquency is resolved after the first or second report, 
all correspondence about the matter is deleted.  If the member’s name is on the report the 
third Monday, an email is sent up the chain of command.   

 

 

  An  email  from  the  investigator  to  the  applicant’s  supervisor  dated  February  28,  2011, 
states that the Transportation Assistant could not find any emails by which the applicant 
or her supervisor had been notified of the applicant’s GTCC delinquencies and inquires 
whether the supervisor had copies of the emails.  The supervisor stated that she had never 
received any such emails and that she only learned about the problems when the applicant 
was unable to book a trip because her GTCC had been canceled.  The applicant also told 
the investigator by email that she had never received any emails about GTCC delinquen-
cies  and  learned  that  her  card  had  been  canceled  only  after  she  was  unable  to  confirm 
travel arrangements with an airline. 

  An  undated  letter  from  the  applicant  to  her  CO  requesting  GTCC  reinstatement  and 
explaining  that  although  she  usually  paid  her  GTCC  bill  out  of  her  joint  checking 
account,  which  had  ample  funds,  while  she  was  deployed  for  five  months  xxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxx, she sometimes paid her GTCC bill by phone with her debit card and inadvert-
ently  used  her  savings  account  number  instead  of  her  checking  account  number.    She 
stated  that  as  soon  as  she  discovered  the  error,  she  paid  the  bill  from  her  checking 
account. 
 

  An email from the Division Chief endorsing her request for reinstatement of her GTCC.  

He wrote that “[g]iven the extended period of her deployment and a review of the circum-
stances I believe the ‘non-sufficient funds’ payments were accidental and that the member 
was not aware of the situation until her card was suspended.” 

                                                 
11 The applicant also complained in her response to the advisory opinion that she has been improperly charged with 
23  days  of  leave.    Because  the  applicant  did  not  raise  the  leave  issue  in  the  original  application,  it  is  a  distinctly 
separate issue, and the Coast Guard has not had an opportunity to respond to it, the Board will not address the issue 
at this time.  The applicant may submit a separate application regarding the correction of her leave balance.  

 

 

 

 

  An  email  from  a  GTCC  Program  Coordinator  dated  January  10,  2011,  stating  that  he 
could not approve reinstatement of the applicant’s GTCC because there were four occur-
rences  of  insufficient  fund  checks  in  her  past  account  and  “it  appears  that  she  has  been 
using her card for personal expenses while not in a travel state.”  He recommended that 
the matter be investigated.  

OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Regulations About Financial Irresponsibility 
 

Article 8.L.1.e. of the Personnel Manual in effect in May 2011 states that “[t]endering a 
check drawn on a bank when the individual knows or reasonably should know that there will be 
insufficient funds available may constitute a criminal offense under the laws of the civil jurisdic-
tions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Commanding officers shall investigate incidents of 
this  nature  and  take  disciplinary  action  when  appropriate.  While  every  instance  of  a  check 
returned because of insufficient funds is not necessarily criminal, repeated incidents of this nature 
are  indicative  of  financial  irresponsibility  and  should  be  handled  as  provided  for  in  Article 
8.L.4.” 
 
Article 8.L.4.a. states that “[w]hen a unit receives a complaint of indebtedness, the com-
manding  officer  shall  counsel  the  individual  concerned.  For  units  below  the  group  level,  all 
responses,  Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307,  entries,  and  correspondence  will  be  prepared  by 
the  group  staff  and  copies  provided  to  the  unit  commanding  officer  (CO)  or  officer-in-charge 
(OIC).” 
 
Article 8.L.4.d. states that “[r]epeated complaints of indebtedness concerning an enlisted 
person,  with  no  indication  of  satisfactory  progress  toward  establishing  an  acceptable  financial 
status,  may  be  considered  as  evidence  of  unreliability.  Commanding  officers  shall  submit  an 
Administrative  Remarks,  CG-3307,  entry  that  the  member  is  "Unreliable  due  to  failure  to  pay 
debts." The entry shall also include a description of the circumstances surrounding the entry such 
as the dates, debts, and actions taken. Such an entry may be made for each succeeding marking 
period  until  the  situation  improves.  Each  time  this  entry  is  made,  it  will  be  considered  when 
completing the member's next performance evaluation, particularly in the commanding officer’s 
advancement recommendation. 

 
Paragraph 5 of COMDINST 4600.14 states the following: 
 
(1) Undisputed GTCC bills shall be paid in full on or before the statement due date regardless of 
reimbursement.  Non-timely  payment  of  the  bill  on  the  statement  is  prohibited  and  is  punishable 
under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and may result in other adverse 
administrative  or  disciplinary  action.  It  is  prohibited  to  allow  account  balances  to  age  to  delin-
quent,  suspended,  closed,  or  charged  off  status,  as  these  terms  are  defined  at  paragraph  A.5  to 
enclosure (1) of [COMDTINST M4600.18]. Violation of this order is punishable under Article 92 
of  the  UCMJ  and  may  also  result  in  other  adverse  administrative  or  disciplinary  action  by  the 
member’s command.  
 
(2)  Intentional  use  of  a  government  charge  card  (CBA  or  GTCC)  for  other  than  official  govern-
ment business while on approved official travel is prohibited and is punishable under Article 92 of 

 

 

the UCMJ and may result in other administrative, disciplinary, or adverse action, and depending on 
the situation may constitute fraud.  
 
(3) Commands shall ensure appropriate administrative, disciplinary and/or adverse action is taken 
as required by [COMDTINST M4600.18].  
 

Regulations About NJP and Administrative Corrective Measures 

 
Rule  306(c)(2)  of  the  Rules  for  Courts-Martial  states  that  a  “commander  may  take  or 
initiate administrative action, in addition to or instead of other action taken under this rule, sub-
ject  to  regulations  of  the  Secretary  concerned.    Administrative  actions  include  corrective 
measures  such  as  counseling,  admonition,  reprimand,  exhortation,  disapproval,  criticism,  cen-
sure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privileges, 
or any combination of the above.” 

 
Part  V.1.g.  of  the  Manual  for  Courts-Martial  states  that  NJP  under  Article  15  of  the 
UCMJ  does  “not  apply  to  include,  or  limit  the  use  of  administrative  corrective  measures  that 
promote  efficiency  and  good  order  and  discipline  such  as  counseling,  admonitions,  …  and 
administrative withholding of privileges. … Administrative corrective measures are not punish-
ment, and they may be used for acts or omissions which are not offenses under the code and for 
acts or omissions which are offenses under the code.” 

 
Chapter  1.G.1.a.  of  the  Military  Justice  Manual,  COMDTINST  M5810.1E,  states  that 
“[c]ommanding officers are authorized and expected to use administrative corrective measures to 
further the efficiency of their commands or units. These measures are not to be imposed as pun-
ishment for any military offense(s). They may be administered either orally or in writing. A non-
exhaustive list of administrative corrective measures generally fall into three areas: extra military 
instruction, administrative withholding of privileges, and nonpunitive censure. 

 
Article 14.B.2.a. of the Personnel Manual in effect in May 2011 states that a member may 
seek correction of an entry in his military record through his chain of command.  As an example, 
the article states that for “a member who receives an Administrative Remarks, CG-3307 from his 
or  her  division  chief  documenting  purported  substandard  watchstanding,  an  appeal  through  the 
division chief and the executive officer to the commanding officer should suffice.  (This appeal 
may be in the form of a so-called ‘Request Mast’ pursuant to Article 9-2-3, Coast Guard Regula-
tions, COMDTINST M5000.3 (series).)”   
 
Regulations About Enlisted Performance Evaluations 
 

Article 10.B.1.b. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]ach commanding officer/officer 
in charge must ensure all enlisted members under their command receive accurate, fair, objective, 
and timely enlisted employee reviews.” 

 
Article 10.B.2.a.1.a. states that “[e]nlisted employee reviews that result in assignment of 
an unsatisfactory conduct mark or low competency marks as defined in Article 10.B.8.a. must be 
supported by an adverse remarks entry for …”  The list includes court-martial conviction, civil 
conviction, NJP, financial irresponsibility, alcohol incidents, etc. 

 

 

 

Article  10.B.4.c.  provides  that  each  enlisted  member  is  evaluated  by  a  “rating  chain,” 
consisting  of  a  Supervisor,  Marking  Official,  and  Approving  Official.    In  addition,  each  rating 
chain has a higher EPE Appeal Authority.  The Supervisor “[g]athers all written and oral reports 
on the evaluee’s performance [and] [a]scertains the status of the evaluee's performance qualifica-
tions for next  higher pay grade” before completing an EPE with  supporting comments and for-
warding it to the Marking Official.  The Marking Official “[g]athers all written and oral reports 
on the evaluee’s performance”; reviews the marks recommended by the Supervisor; and “has the 
authority to return the employee review to the Supervisor for further justification or support for 
any marks.”  The Marking Official forwards the EPE to the Approving Official, who “[g]athers 
all written and oral reports on the evaluee’s performance”; ensures that the marks are consistent 
with performance; “has the authority to return the employee review to the Supervisor for further 
justification or support for any marks”; and forwards a copy of the completed EPE to the Super-
visor to counsel the member. 
 
 
ence with the rating chain to verbally express any concerns that could lead to a written appeal.”  
If the member is unsatisfied with the rating chain’s response, the member may submit a written 
appeal of the EPE through her CO to the Appeal Authority within 15 days of receiving counsel-
ing on the EPE or with an explanation of why the 15-day deadline was not met.  The CO has the 
authority to raise the marks (except for the advancement recommendation).  If the CO does not 
raise the marks as requested, the CO forwards the appeal to the Appeal Authority for decision.   
 

Article 10.B.9.b states that before appealing an EPE, a member “should request an audi-

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 submission, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

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

The application was timely filed. 
 

2. 

 The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chair, acting pur-
suant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case without 
a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.12   

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that her rating chain erroneously and unjustly entered a Page 
7 in her record and assigned her an unsatisfactory conduct mark, which rendered her ineligible to 
compete for advancement for two years, even though her CO had said she would be eligible to 
compete  for  advancement.    The  Board  begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the 
disputed  information  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  fair  and  accurate,  and  the  applicant 
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is 
erroneous or unjust.13  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that military officials 

                                                 
12  See  Steen  v.  United  States,  No.  436-74,  1977  U.S.  Ct.  Cl.  LEXIS  585,  at  *21  (Dec.  7,  1977)  (holding  that 
“whether  to  grant  such  a  hearing  is  a  decision  entirely  within  the  discretion  of  the  Board”);  Armstrong  v.  United 
States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR  proceedings  are  non-
adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them). 
13 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).   

 

 

and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith.”14 

4. 

The  evidence  of  record  shows  that  the  applicant’s  GTCC  account  was  charged 
with four returned check fees in 2010.  The four payments at issue were a payment of $1,995.64 
on  January  20,  2010;  a  payment  of  $36.00  on  October  21,  2010;  a  payment  of  $268.05  on 
November  22,  2010;  and  another  payment  of  $268.05  sixteen days later on December 8, 2010.  
The record further shows that on those dates the applicant’s joint  checking account  held ample 
funds to pay those amounts.  Presumably, therefore, a different bank account’s number or check-
book  was  used  when  those  payments  were  attempted,  and  that  account  did  not  have  sufficient 
funds to pay those amounts.  When the applicant’s GTCC was canceled due to delinquency, her 
command initiated an investigation based on the recommendation of the GTCC Program Coordi-
nator. 

 
5. 

When seeking reinstatement of her GTCC, the applicant told her CO that she had 
been  paying  her  bills  by  phone  while  deployed  to  the    xxxxxxxxxx  and  “must  have” 
inadvertently used her savings account number instead of her checking account number when the 
payments failed.  In her application to the Board, she stated that her husband was paying the bills 
while she was deployed and used the wrong account number.  The Board notes that none of the 
four payments failed during the applicant’s deployment to  xxxxxxxxx from May 3 to October 1, 
2010.    The  Board  further  notes  that  the  four  failed  payments  were  not  a  $272.70  payment  in 
February 2010 and a $268.05 payment in November 2010 that automatically “attempted to post 3 
more  times,”  as  the  applicant  alleged,  but  the  four  distinct  payments  described  in  finding  4 
above. 

 
6. 

Although  a  copy  of  the  investigation  is  not  in  the  record,  the  disputed  Page  7, 
dated  May  20,  2011,  shows  that  the  investigation  revealed  the  four  failed  payments  and  two 
occasions on which the applicant allegedly used her GTCC to pay for expenses unrelated to her 
official travel.  As a result of the investigation, the applicant was taken to mast by her CO.  The 
applicant  alleged  that  at  mast,  she  submitted  copies  of  orders proving to  the CO that all of her 
charges were related to official travel, but she has not submitted that documentation to the Board.   

 
7. 

 A preponderance of the evidence shows that at mast on May 17, 2011, the appli-
cant’s CO dismissed the charges in accordance with Chapter 1.D.17. of the Military Justice Man-
ual,  COMDTINST M5810.1E, not because they were erroneous, but because he believed that a 
recent cancellation of her overseas orders was sufficient “punishment” for whatever she had done 
and so actual punishment was “not appropriate.”  The CO’s statements and actions indicate that 
he did  not  absolve her of the charges completely but  decided no NJP was warranted.  The evi-
dence of record also shows that the CO did not want the applicant to be ineligible to compete for 
advancement as a result of the mast.   

 
8. 

 

Chapter 1.E.3.l. of COMDTINST M4600.18 states that a CO must  

[e]nsure the appropriate level of action is taken for any GTCC holder identified as not fully com-
plying with the Coast Guard’s GTCC policies and procedures.  Specifically, commanding officers 

                                                 
14 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

 

 

shall ensure appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary actions are taken for both categories of 
misuse per tables 3-1 and 3-2; when accounts are past due and/or when accounts are found to have 
unauthorized  charges.    These  tables  provide  the  minimum  actions  to  be  taken  by  the  chain  of 
command to ensure fair and consistent treatment of GTCC holders.   
 
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 require the command to take various corrective actions in response to 
GTCC  delinquencies  and  misuse,  and  the  actions  increase  in  severity  with  the  degree  of  delin-
quency and misuse.  After the applicant’s CO dismissed the UCMJ charges at mast, her Division 
Chief made a Page 7 entry in her record on May 20, 2011, which is the next most severe action 
required by the tables.  Whether the CO approved the preparation of the Page 7 is not clear in the 
record.  The Board notes that the applicant did not mention the Page 7 in her recent emails to the 
CO, and he did not mention the Page 7 in his responses.  Given the mandate for some corrective 
action in Chapter 1.E.3.l. of COMDTINST M4600.18; the lack of any statement by the CO that 
he did not authorize the Page 7, did not know about the Page 7, or would have removed the Page 
7 if the applicant had appealed it pursuant to Article 14.B.2.a. of the Personnel Manual; the lack 
of  evidence  showing  that  the  text  of  the  Page  7  is  factually inaccurate;  and the presumption of 
regularity accorded the applicant’s Division Chief in preparing the Page 7, the Board finds that 
the applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed Page 7 should 
be removed from her record. 

 
9. 

Article 10.B.8.b. of the Personnel Manual in effect in 2011 states that a member’s 
“rating chain must assign an unsatisfactory mark in conduct whenever an individual meets any of 
the criteria listed in Article 10.B.2.a.”  The list in Article 10.B.2.a. includes a Page 7 document-
ing financial irresponsibility.  Therefore, the unsatisfactory conduct mark on the applicant’s EPE 
for the period ending May 31, 2011, was correctly assigned by her rating chain because the dis-
puted  Page  7  documents  financial  irresponsibility.    Under  Article  3.A.5.b.(3)  of  COMDTINST 
M1000.2, a member is ineligible to compete for advancement to chief petty officer if they have 
received  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  within  the  preceding  two  years.    Therefore,  the  appli-
cant’s  receipt  of  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  in  2011  made  her  ineligible  to  compete  for 
advancement in 2012 and 2013. 

 
10. 

The record does not show whether the applicant appealed the disputed Page 7 or 
unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  in  accordance  with  Articles  14.B.2.  and  10.B.9.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, respectively.  She may not  have done so because she had been assured by the CO and 
her Division Chief that she would be eligible to compete for advancement and because she was 
recommended for advancement on the EPE. 

 
11. 

The applicant’s CO has clearly stated that he did not want her to be ineligible to 
compete  for  advancement.    However,  the  dismissal  of  the  charges  at  mast  does  not  preclude 
administrative  corrective  measures  based  upon  the  same  alleged  misconduct.15  As  explained 
above,  it  was  Coast  Guard  regulations  requiring  corrective  action  for  GTCC  misuse  and  delin-
quency, requiring an unsatisfactory conduct mark for those with a Page 7 documenting financial 
irresponsibility,  and  causing  those  with  an  unsatisfactory  conduct  mark  to  be  ineligible  for 
advancement  to  chief  petty  officer  that  made  the  applicant  ineligible  to  compete  for  advance-
ment.    Given  that  the  requirement  for  corrective  action  in  Chapter  1.E.3.l.  of  COMDTINST 

                                                 
15 Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2008 ed.), pages II-26 and V-2; Military Justice Manual, COMDTINST 
M5810.1E, Chapter 1.G.1.a. 

 

 

M4600.18  is  intended  “to  ensure  fair  and  consistent  treatment  of  GTCC  holders,”  the  Board is 
not convinced that the CO’s desire that she be eligible for advancement should alone override the 
regulations that together rendered the applicant ineligible to compete for advancement, especially 
since the CO has not said that the disputed Page 7 was factually erroneous or unwarranted under 
Chapter 1.E.3.l.   

 
12. 

The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed 
Page 7 and unsatisfactory conduct  mark on her EPE are erroneous or unjust.  However,  certain 
matters suggest that further consideration of this case may be warranted. In this regard, the Board 
notes  that significant  evidence is  missing from  the record  because the applicant  submitted  only 
certain  documents from  the investigation but  not  the whole report of the investigation, that she 
submitted contradictory claims about why the payments failed and did not review and explain the 
evidence in the GTCC print-out, and that it is possible that the applicant’s CO would submit on 
her  behalf  a  statement  averring  that  he  did  not  authorize  the  disputed  Page  7  and  would  have 
removed  it  from  her  record  had  she  timely  appealed  it  despite  the  requirements  of  Chapter 
1.E.3.l.  of  COMDTINST  M4600.18.    Therefore,  the  Board  believes  that  further  consideration 
would  be  warranted  if  the  applicant  submitted  the  whole  investigation  and  addressed  the  other 
concerns identified in these findings. 

 
13. 

 
Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  requests  should  be  denied,  but  the  Board  will  grant 
further  consideration  if  within  180  days  of  the  date  of  this  decision  she  submits  a  copy  of  the 
whole report of the investigation and addresses other concerns identified in these findings. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her  military 

record is denied. 

 

ORDER 

 

  

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 
 Ashley A. Darbo 

 

 
 

 
 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer