DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2010-161 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 receipt of the applicant’s 
completed  application  on April  27,  2010,  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  February  4,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who was medically retired from the Coast Guard on December 12, 1990, 
asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was promoted to CWO3 before his retire-
ment and retired at that rank.  The applicant alleged that he was promoted to CWO3 while he 
was stationed in Italy.  The applicant alleged that he was a CWO3 in Italy and throughout his 
processing for medical retirement in Houston, Texas, but a petty officer mistakenly typed CWO2 
on his DD 214.  He alleged that when he received his DD 214, he noticed the mistake and con-
tacted the attorney who handled his medical processing.  The attorney told him he would “take 
care of the matter.”  However, the error was not fixed.  The applicant alleged that his retirement 
pay has been calculated based on his correct rank, CWO3, but that upon recent inquiry, someone 
told him that Headquarters had demoted him from CWO3 to CWO2 without cause.  In support of 
his allegations, the applicant submitted copies of the following documents: 
 

•  Several photographs of the applicant in uniform do not clearly show his insignia indicat-
ing his rank.  On two photos in which his insignia are shown clearly, the applicant wrote 
that the photographs were taken before his promotion from CWO2 to CWO3. 

•  An undated letter concerning the applicant’s attainment of 20 years of satisfactory service 

for the purpose of retirement refers to him as a CWO2. 

•  A letter dated June 3, 1989, from a lieutenant commander to the applicant, a CWO2, wel-

coming him to his new unit in Italy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  A letter from the commanding officer (CO) of Loran Station Sellia Marina, Italy, dated 
February 9, 1990, requests patient information for the applicant, who is referenced as a 
CWO3. 

•  A record of an electrocardiogram dated March 21, 1990, shows the applicant’s rank as 

CWO3. 

•  Doctors’ orders date stamped March 21, 1990, include the notation “CW3.” 

•  A  letter  from  a  JAG  attorney  dated  September  25,  1990,  to  the  applicant,  whom  he 
addressed as a CWO3, concerns his processing under the Physical Disability Evaluation 
System (PDES). 

•  The  applicant’s  rejection  of  the  findings  and  recommendation  of  the  Central  Physical 
Evaluation Board (CPEB), dated November 24, 1990, shows that he signed the rejection 
as a CWO3. 

•  The applicant’s DD 214, dated December 11, 1990, shows his rank as CWO2. 

•  A  Certificate  of  Appreciation  from  the  President  to  the  applicant  upon  his  retirement 

refers to the applicant as a CWO2. 

•  A letter from the commanding officer (CO) of the Marine Safety Office (MSO) in Hou-
ston  to  the  BCMR  dated  August  20,  1991,  states  that  the  applicant,  a  CWO2,  was 
assigned to the MSO during his medical “outprocessing.”  The CO wrote that the “medi-
cal board process was filled with inconsistencies, delays, lost paperwork, confusion, and 
culminated in his retirement while [a hospital] inpatient in serious condition.  In addition, 
serious questions remain concerning his treatment following his illness and prior to the 
medical board process. … In my opinion, a full review of CWO2 [the applicant] case is 
needed and remedial action taken.”1 

•  A letter dated February 24, 1992, from a commander to the BCMR states that the appli-
cant, a CWO2, was a fevered, delirious, incoherent hospital inpatient in dismal condition 
with a left leg swollen to almost twice its normal size on his date of retirement. 

•  A  letter  from  a  JAG  attorney,  dated  February  17,  1993,  addresses  the  applicant  as  a 
CWO4, and concerns his processing under the PDES pursuant to the order of the BCMR. 

•  A Rapidraft Letter dated October 25, 1995, from MSO Houston concerns the applicant’s 
entitlement to a Commendation Ribbon for his service “in the outload operations in sup-
port of Operation Desert Shield.”  It refers to him as a CWO2. 

 
                                                 
1 Some of the documents submitted by the applicant concern his prior applications to this Board, BCMR Docket 
Nos. 367-91 and 120-93, as a result of which his disability rating was raised. 

 

 

 

•  An email exchange dated March 31, 2010, in which the applicant asks a woman whether 
she has any photographs of their time in Italy and mentions a “wetting down” (promo-
tion) party for him at the base when he was promoted to CWO3.  She responded, “Let me 
see, I think I have a few photos of you, when your foot got swollen (same time of the 
promotion?) and we were all there.” 

•  An email exchange dated April 2, 2010, in which the applicant asked a retired Navy chief 
if he had any photographs of the parties celebrating the applicant’s promotion to chief 
petty officer, appointment to CWO, and promotion to CWO3.  The Navy chief stated that 
he would look though his photographs and that he remembered drinking at the applicant’s 
retirement party. 

•  The applicant also submitted several documents concerning his medical condition that do 

not mention or refer to his rank. 

The applicant alleged that it is in the interest of justice for the Board to waive its three-
year statute of limitations and consider his case on the merits “[b]ecause this has been an ongo-
ing problem and I have tried to get the problem corrected without filing a [DD] 149.”  He also 
stated that after his disability rating was corrected by the BCMR, he underwent open heart sur-
gery and was busy recovering from that. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On  September  20,  1987,  following  many  years  of  enlisted  service  in  the  Reserve,  the 
applicant executed an Oath of Office pursuant to his appointment as a Reserve warrant officer 
(WO-1), which was authorized to be effective as of December 29, 1987.  The applicant’s 20-year 
retirement letter (undated) refers to him as a CWO2. 

 
From June 4, 1989, until his separation on December 11, 1990, the applicant served on 

extended active duty in the Reserve.  He was assigned to a LORAN station in Italy. 

 
On February 22, 1990, the command of Air Station Houston sent a message to Activities 
Europe concerning the medical status of the applicant, noted to be a CWO2.  A Statement of 
Creditable Service dated August 20, 1990, also refers to the applicant as a CWO2. 

 
On  September  11,  1990,  the  CPEB  reviewed  the  applicant’s  medical  condition.    The 
CPEB referred to the applicant as a CWO2.  In a letter dated November 20, 1990, the Comman-
dant informed the applicant, addressed as a CWO2, that he would be retired because of a perma-
nent disability on December 12, 1990. 

 
On December 11, 1990, the applicant was admitted to a hospital.  The admission record 
shows that he listed his occupation as W-2 but that his insurance card, issued on July 6, 1990, 
stated his grade as W-3.  Although in the hospital, the applicant was retired on December 12, 
1990.  A  Computation  of  Retirement  Point  Credits  signed  by  a  chief  yeoman  on  December  5, 
1990, shows that the applicant’s rank was CWO2 and that he had 21 years, 6 months, and 18 
days of satisfactory service in the Reserve upon his retirement. 

 
On August 21, 1992, the BCMR issued a decision in BCMR Docket No. 367-91 ordering 
that the applicant, noted as a CWO2, be reprocessed under the PDES because he had not been 
accorded a hearing as he had requested.  On his signed application form, DD 149, and on the 
brief in support of his application, the applicant noted his rank as CWO2.  All of the correspon-
dence concerning Docket No. 367-91 and the documentation of the applicant’s subsequent repro-
cessing  under  the  PDES,  including  correspondence  from  the  applicant  himself  and  from  his 
attorney, also refer to him as a CWO2. 

 
On  a  Servicemen’s  Group  Life  Insurance  Election  and  Certificate  that  the  applicant 

signed on December 3, 1992, he noted his rank as CWO2. 

 
A medical report dated December 4, 1992, bears a stamp including the notation “CW3.” 
 
On January 25, 1993, the applicant’s attorney asked the president of the CPEB to have 
the  CPEB  reconsider  its  recommendation  based  on  new  information  from  the  applicant.    He 
referred to the applicant several times as a CWO2 and included a typed letter from the applicant, 
dated January 19, 1993, in which the applicant referred to himself as a CWO2. 

 
On September 28, 1993, the BCMR issued a decision in BCMR Docket No. 120-93, in 
which the applicant asked the Board to correct his disability rating to the rating recommended by 
the CPEB on February 5, 1993.  On his signed application form, DD 149, the applicant noted his 
pay grade as “CWO-2 (RET).”  The Board, referring to the applicant as a CWO2, ordered the 
record corrected to show that he was retired on December 12, 1990, with a 40% disability rating.  
All  of  the  correspondence  concerning  Docket  No.  120-93,  including  correspondence  from  the 
applicant’s attorney, refers to the applicant as a CWO2. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On September 1, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  The JAG 
argued that the application is untimely and should be denied on that basis because the applicant 
did not provide “any rationale in support of his undue delay or evidentiary support for his delay 
in  filing  this  application  from  1990  until  present.”    In  making  this  recommendation,  the  JAG 
adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Per-
sonnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The PSC stated that although the applicant claims he has been trying to get his rank fixed 
since  his  retirement,  he  submitted  nothing  to  show  what  steps  he  took  before  filing  his  latest 
BCMR application.  In addition, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s DD 214 correctly reflects 
his rank as a CWO2.  In this regard, the PSC submitted a copy of a page from the 1991 Register 
of Reserve Officers, which shows that the applicant, whose signal number was [XXX]9 was a 
CWO2 and that based on his signal number, his CWO2 date of rank was deemed to be August 
25,  1987.2    The  page  also  shows  that  the  applicant’s  “peers”—CWO2s  with  signal  numbers 
                                                 
2 Because Reserve officer promotions are based on signal numbers and the promotion dates of active duty officers, it 
is not unusual for a Reserve officer’s date of rank to differ significantly from their actual date of appointment. 

above  and  below  his—also  had  August  25,  1987,  dates  of  rank  and  dates  of  appointment  in 
autumn 1987.  The PSC also submitted two pages of the 1992 Register of Reserve Officers.  The 
first shows that the CWO2s who were the applicant’s peers on the register in 1991 were pro-
moted to CWO3 on August 25, 1991, more than eight months after the applicant’s date of retire-
ment.    Another  page  from  the  1992  register  shows  that  the  applicant  retired  as  a  CWO2  on 
December 12, 1990. 
 
The  PSC  also  submitted  a  copy  of  a  memorandum,  dated  March  22,  2010,  from  its 
 
Reserve  Personnel  Management  branch,  which  states  that  “[a]fter  a  thorough  review  of  our 
attainable  records,  the  highest  grade  satisfactorily  held  by  [the  applicant]  was  Chief  Warrant 
Officer 2 (W2).  We could not find any evidence that he was presented to nor selected by a board 
for promotion to Chief Warrant Officer 3 (W3).” 
 
 
The PSC concluded that the applicant’s “record does not support that he was ever prop-
erly  promoted  beyond  the  rank  of  CWO2,  notwithstanding  the  few  occurrences  where  he  is 
incorrectly referred to as a CWO3 or CWO4 in various correspondences.  Likewise, the pictures 
the applicant provided of himself wearing the uniform of a CWO3 or references the applicant 
made to a “wetting down” ceremony are not tantamount to an authorized promotion in rank and 
should never be construed as such.”  The PSC stated that it is unclear why the applicant was ever 
under the impression that he was a CWO3 because the record “in no way supports this assump-
tion.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 29, 2010, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  The 
applicant stated that “[w]hile it is true it has been 19 years after I retired, it was noted that I did 
contact the Command and my Counsel within a month, and your records show I was in the hos-
pital on the day I was retired and it would have been impossible to file a complaint.”  The appli-
cant stated that when he inquired about his rank in 1996, he was advised to contact the National 
Personnel Records Center and he did so but never heard back.  Then in 1999, he underwent a 
heart bypass and valve replacement operation, and “everything else [went] on the back burner.”  
When he contacted the records center again, he was told to submit information, which he did, 
and ultimately received back a DD 149 BCMR application form.  The applicant stated that he is 
not seeking money from the Coast Guard but that his rank is a matter of pride. 

 
On January 7, 2011, the applicant submitted a copy of ALDIST 173/89, which was issued 
on September 2, 1989, and published the results of the Reserve CWO selection boards for tem-
porary and permanent promotions to CWO2, CWO3, and CWO4.  The list shows that the appli-
cant was selected for “W-2 (PERM) WITH CONCURRENT SELECTION TO W-3 (TEMP).”  
The most of CWOs listed above and below the applicant on the list are the same CWOs who 
were listed above and below his name on the 1991 Register of Reserve Officers. 

 

 

 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Regulations about Promotions 
 
 
vided the following definitions: 
 

 

 

of CWOs: 
 

of CWOs: 
 

Chapter 7-B-2 of the Reserve Administration Manual (RATMAN) in effect in 1990 pro-

a.  Date of Promotion – Is the date when all requirements for promotion have been completed, and 
the Commandant exercises promotion authority.  Pay and allowances begin on the date of promo-
tion in the grade to which an officer has been appointed, if in a pay status, and the insignia of the 
higher grade may first be worn on that date. 
 
b.  Date of Rank – Is the date used in computing eligibility for subsequent promotions.  This date 
will be the same as or earlier than the date of promotion. 

Chapter 7-B-4.a. of the RATMAN stated the following regarding permanent promotions 

Permanent warrant officers are eligible for permanent promotion to the next higher pay grade as 
follows: 
 
(1)  W-1 to W-2 – three years service from date of rank as permanent W-1 
(2)  W-2 to W-3 – six years service from date of rank as permanent W-2 
(3)  W-3 to W-4 – six years service from date of rank as permanent W-3 

Chapter 7-B-5.a. of the RATMAN stated the following regarding temporary promotions 

Eligibility for temporary promotion of warrant officers will occur in accordance with the follow-
ing schedule: 
 
(1)  W-1  to  W-2  –  Enlisted  personnel  who  accept  appointment  as  a  permanent  W-1  will  imme-

diately be promoted to the temporary grade of W-2 with the same date of rank 

(2)  W-2 to W-3 – four years service from date of original appointment as W-1 
(3)  W-3 to W-4 – eight years service from date of original appointment as W-1 

Chapter 7-B-6.b. of the RATMAN states that the “zone” of warrant officers eligible for 

 
 
selection for promotion by a selection board includes those warrant officers  
 

who become eligible for promotion to permanent W-2 and temporary and permanent W-3 and W-
4 as defined in 7-B-4 and 7-B-5, between 1 October of the calendar year in which the board is held 
and 30 September the following year.  Since warrant officers are considered for promotion in both 
their permanent and temporary grades simultaneously, the following schedule applies: 
 
(1)    Chief  warrant  officers  will  be  in  their  second  year  of  service  for  promotion  to  permanent 
CWO2.  Selection for permanent W-2 will result in a concurrent selection for temporary 
W-3. … 

(2)    Chief  warrant  officers  will  be  considered  in  their  seventh  year  of  service  for  promotion  to 
temporary  W-4.    Selection  for  temporary  W-4  will  result  in  a  concurrent  selection  for 
permanent W-3. … 

(3)  Chief warrant officers will be considered in their fourteenth year of service for promotion to 

permanent W-4.  … 

(4)  Promotion to temporary and permanent grades will be made after selection and upon comple-

tion of the years in grade specified in 7-B-4 and 7-B-5. 

Chapter 7-B-10 of the RATMAN lists the following requirements for promotion: 

a.  be on a promotion list, 
b.  complete time in grade requirements of 7-B-4 or 7-B-5, 
c.  be physically qualified as evidenced by a current approved physical examination documented 

by PMIS data base entry, 

d.  be in an active status, [and] 
e.  character of service since selection has been satisfactory. 

 
Chapter 7-B-12.a. of the RATMAN states that CWOs “will be notified of promotion by 
 
the  ROPAL  as  described  in  paragraph  7-A-9.e.  of  this  instruction,”  which  in  turn  states  that 
“Reserve  officers  will  be  notified  of  their  promotions  through  the  Reserve  Officer  Promotion 
Authorization Listing (ROPAL).” 
 
Regulations about Retirement 
 
 
the following: 
 

Chapter 12-D-5 of the RATMAN, entitled “Grade on Retirement for Disability,” states 

 
 
 

 
 

Unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision of law, a member retired for physical 
disability is entitled to the highest of the following: 
 
a.  The grade or rank in which he or she was serving when placed on the Temporary Disability 
Retired List, or retired, 
b.  The highest temporary grade or rank in which he or she served satisfactorily, 
c.  Permanent regular or Reserve grade to which the member would have been promoted had it not 
been for the physical disability which was found to exist as a result of a physical examination for 
promotion. 
d.  The temporary grade to which the member would have been promoted had it not been for the 
physical disability, if eligibility for that promotion was required to be based on cumulative years 
of service in grade and disability was discovered as a result of that member’s physical examination 
for promotion. 

 
 
Chapter 12-C of the RATMAN concerned the retirement for reasons other than disability 
of Reserve CWOs serving on inactive duty and referred the reader to the Personnel Manual for 
the  rules  governing  Reserve  CWOs  being  retired  from  extended  active  duty.    Chapter  12-C-
15.c.(2) of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Grade or Rate in Which Retired,” stated the follow-
ing: 
 

Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a chief warrant or war-
rant officer retires, as determined by the Commandant, in the permanent chief warrant or warrant 
grade, if any, that he/she held on the day before the day of his/her retirement, or in any higher war-
rant officer grade in which he/she served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Com-
mandant, for a period of more than 30 days. 

 

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: 
 
 
 

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

1. 

3. 

2. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discov-
ered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant was retired as a CWO2 in December 1990 and 
signed several documents as a CWO2 following his retirement.  Therefore, he clearly knew of 
the alleged error in his record soon after his retirement, and his application is untimely. 
 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits would need to be to justify a full review.”  Id. at 164, 165; see also Dickson v. Secretary 
of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

 
4. 

 
5. 

Regarding  the  delay  of  his  application,  the  applicant  stated  that  he  has  tried  to 
have his rank corrected without applying to the BCMR and that after the BCMR corrected his 
disability rating, he had to undergo open heart surgery and was in recovery.  The Board finds, 
however, that if the applicant believed his rank was erroneous, he should have and could have 
filed an application about it when he filed his first two applications to this Board.  In the early 
1990s, the facts about his rank would have been readily available to the Personnel Command.  
The fact that the applicant underwent open heart surgery in the mid 1990s does not justify his 20-
year delay in applying to this Board.  Nor has he submitted anything to show that during the last 
20 years, he has diligently been trying to get his rank corrected in another way.  The Board finds 
the applicant’s delay in seeking relief to be unjustified in the record. 

In addition, the Board’s review of the merits of this case indicates that it cannot 
prevail on the merits.  The record shows that the applicant was appointed a warrant officer (W-1) 
with a retroactive date of rank of August 25, 1987, based on his signal number.  In accordance 
with Chapter 7-B-5.a.(1) of the RATMAN, he became a temporary W-2 with the same date of 
rank as soon as he was appointed to W-1.  In 1989, he was selected for promotion to permanent 
W-2 and for promotion to temporary W-3, in accordance with Chapter 7-B-6.b.(1).  Chapter 7-B-
4.a.(1) stated that a member had to complete three years of service as a W-1 before being perma-
nently promoted to W-2.  Chapter 7-B-5.a.(2) stated that a member had to complete “four years 
service from date of original appointment as W-1” to receive the promotion to temporary W-3.  
Therefore, the applicant received his promotion to permanent CWO2/W-2 on August 25, 1990, 
exactly three years after his date of rank, and he would have received his promotion to temporary 
CWO3/W-3 on August 25, 1991, four years after his date of rank, had he remained in the Ser-
vice.  However, the applicant was retired on December 12, 1990, before his temporary promotion 

was authorized.  Thus, the record shows that although the applicant was selected for promotion 
to  temporary  CWO3/W-3  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  selected  for  permanent  promotion  to 
CWO2/W-2, he remained in the Service long enough to have the time in grade for his promotion 
to permanent CWO2/W-2 but not long enough to have the time in grade required for his promo-
tion to temporary CWO3/W-3.  This conclusion is supported by the fact that his peers on the 
Register  of  Reserve  Officers  have W-3  dates  of  rank  of August  25,  1991—exactly  four  years 
after their date of rank as a W-1.   

Under Chapter 12-D-5.a. of the RATMAN, the applicant was properly retired at 
his permanent W-2 rank at the time he retired.  Although he had been selected for promotion to 
temporary W-3, he was never promoted to that rank, so paragraph b of Chapter 12-D-5 does not 
apply.  Because he was never selected for promotion to permanent W-3, paragraph c does not 
apply.  Under paragraph d, his selection for promotion to temporary W-3 would only have war-
ranted his retirement as a W-3 if his disability had been discovered during the physical examina-
tion required for the promotion.  There is no evidence that the applicant’s disability was discov-
ered during the physical examination required for the promotion. 

The Board also notes that the vast majority of the documents in the record show 
that the applicant was a CWO2/W-2 upon his retirement.  Moreover, he referred to himself as a 
CWO2/W-2 in his two applications to the BCMR following his retirement; on his life insurance 
certificate dated December 3, 1992; and on a letter he wrote dated January 19, 1993.  Based on 
all of the documentary evidence and the regulations in effect at the time regarding permanent and 
temporary promotions and time-in-grade requirements, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim 
cannot prevail on the merits. 

Accordingly, the Board will not excuse the application’s untimeliness or waive the 

statute of limitations.  The applicant’s request should be denied. 
 
 

 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR (Retired), for correction 

ORDER 

 

 
 
of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim