DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2012-098 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application,  including  the  applicant’s  military  and  medical  records,  on  March  12, 
2012,  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  October  25,  2012,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who retired from the Coast Guard Reserve on October 25, 1988, asked the 
Board to correct his record to show that he retired as a chief damage controlman (DCC) in pay 
grade E-7, instead of as a damage controlman first class (DC1) in pay grade E-6.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  Admiral’s  Association  advised  him  that  he  should  have 
retired  as an E-7 because of his work, background, and the fact  that he  saved the Coast  Guard 
Academy  thousands  of  dollars  through  his  work  in  the  Academy’s  Public  Works  Department.  
The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in 2008 and that it is in the interest of 
justice for the  Board to  excuse the untimeliness of his  application because he “feel[s] like [he] 
was a chief” when he retired, but he never thought about it because he was always working.  The 
applicant submitted documents to support these allegations, including numerous documents con-
cerning his meritorious service at the Academy, his receipt of a USCG Reserve Meritorious Ser-
vice  Ribbon  and  a  USCG  Unit  Commendation,  and  his  completion  of  courses  pertaining  to 
occupational health and safety, orientation, inspection procedures, excavation, and construction.  
He also submitted copies of documents that are included in the summary of the record below. 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as a DC1 on May 7, 1973.  Because of 
prior  military  service,  his  adjusted  pay  base  date  was  October  2,  1967.    On  June  24,  1977, the 
applicant’s  District  Commander  responded  to  an  inquiry  from  a  congressman  on  behalf  of  the 
applicant.  The District Commander stated that a review of the applicant’s record had shown that 
he  would  be  eligible  to  compete  for  advancement  to  DC  if  he  performed  two  weeks  of  active 
duty  (annual  training)  for  evaluation  for  advancement  to  pay  grade  E-7.    The  District  Com-
mander noted that the applicant’s commanding  officer (CO) was ready  and willing to  schedule 
the evaluation period  and to  recommend the  applicant  for  advancement.   He  also  stated that to 
become eligible for appointment to warrant officer, the applicant needed to pass the RSWE for 
advancement  to  E-7;  to  perform  a  two-week  evaluation  period  on  active  duty;  to  complete  a 
course  in  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice;  to  attend  an  active  duty  leadership  school;  to 
complete at least four weeks of active duty in pay grade E-6 or above; and to be evaluated and 
recommended for the appointment by his CO. 
 
 
On October 26, 1978, the applicant’s congressman forwarded to the Coast Guard a letter 
from the applicant in which he described his service and again requested advancement to DCC.  
On  November  6,  1978,  the  District  Commander  responded,  stating  that  although  the  applicant 
completed the prerequisites and took  the RSWE  for advancement to  DCC  in  October 1977, he 
had not received a passing score.  The District Commander noted that the applicant had taken the 
RSWE again in October 1978 but the results were not yet known.  With regard to the applicant’s 
repeated  request  for  an  appointment  to  warrant  officer,  the  District  Commander  stated  that  the 
applicant had not yet completed any of the prerequisites outlined in his prior letter.   
 

On June 24, 1979, the applicant’s CO recommended the applicant for advancement to E-
7 because he had met the eligibility requirements in the Reserve Administrative Training Manual 
(RATMAN, CG-296).  The CO wrote that the applicant had 12 years and 8 months of creditable 
service; 6 years and 8 months in his current, E-6 pay grade; and average performance marks as 
an E-6 (on a 4.0 scale) of 3.80 for proficiency in rate, 3.75 for leadership, and 4.0 for conduct.  
The CO also noted that the applicant was dedicated and conscientious, had completed the DCC 
correspondence course on May 21, 1977, and had received a USCG Reserve Meritorious Service 
Ribbon and a USCG Unit Commendation.  
 
 
On  June  25,  1981,  the  applicant’s  congressman  forwarded  to  the  Coast  Guard  a  letter 
from  the  applicant  in  which  he  described  his  service  and  requested  an  appointment  to  warrant 
officer.    In  response,  the  Commandant  advised  the  congressman  that  although  the  applicant’s 
performance had been excellent and he had saved the Coast Guard time and money, his request 
for  a  direct  appointment  to  warrant  officer  was  not  feasible  because  such  appointments  were 
made  pursuant  to  a  competitive  process.    The  Commandant  stated  that  the  applicant  would  be 
fully advised of that process. 
 
 
the Reserve past his 60th birthday so that he could accumulate enough years of service to retire. 
 

On September 16, 1986, the Commandant approved the applicant’s request to remain in 

 

 

On May 11, 1987, the Commandant responded to another letter from the applicant’s con-
 
gressman.    The  Commandant  explained  that  although  the  applicant  had  been  a  member  of  the 
Naval Reserve from July 24, 1946, until July 23, 1950, he could only be credited with satisfac-
tory service for the period before July 1, 1949, because as of that date, reservists had to earn 50 
drill points per year to have a satisfactory year for retirement purposes but the applicant did not 
do so. 
 
On October 21, 1988, the Commandant  informed the applicant  that he would be retired 
 
on October 25, 1988, because he had more than 20 years of service and was immediately eligible 
for retired pay.  On October 31, 1988, after the applicant passed the mandatory retirement age of 
62, the Commandant advised him in a letter that he had been retired as of October 25, 1988, and 
that his retired pay would be based on his pay as a DC1.  The applicant was provided a Certifi-
cate of Retirement showing that he was retired as a DC1 with more than 21 years of service. 
 

In 1989, the applicant sent a letter to the Commandant and his congressional representa-
tives  in  which  he  alleged  that  in  October  1981,  after  he  passed  the  End  of  Course  test  for 
advancement to DCC, a warrant officer told him that his would be “the last of the grandfathered 
advancements.”  A year later, just before his civilian employer, the U.S. Post Office, transferred 
him from Massachusetts to Florida, his unit’s CO and Training Officer told him to tell his new 
Reserve unit command that  he had passed the DCC End of Course test and wanted to  take the 
upcoming Reserve Servicewide Examination (RSWE) for advancement to DCC.    

 
The applicant  alleged in  the letter that he did  as instructed when he reported to his new 
unit and also gave them a package of advancement recommendations and qualifications.  How-
ever, when the RSWE was given, they did not let him take it.  “Headquarters said that they had 
forgotten.  They tried to squeeze me in at the last minute, but to no avail.”  Later, someone called 
him  and  accused  him  of  trying  to  take  the  RSWE  under  false  pretenses.    He  explained  to  her 
about  the  “grandfather  clause,”  but  she  said  there  was  no  such  clause  and  that  his  friends  had 
been  promoted  “under  false  statements.”    The  applicant  stated  that  his  unit’s  Training  Officer 
also forgot to include him in the RSWE in January 1982 and for no apparent reason kept telling 
him to take an E-6 examination instead.  The applicant alleged that he was denied advancement 
to E-7 because of such mistakes and that if he had the E-7 rating, he “could still keep my head up 
with pride and rest in peace knowing that the Coast Guard had not forgotten me.”  Finally, the 
applicant wrote that he did not challenge his E-6 pay grade sooner because at the time, when he 
complained  to  an  active  duty  Coast  Guard  Training  Officer,  he  was  told  “not  to  make  waves 
between  the  Regulars  and  the  Reserves”  and  then  he  “decided  to  wait  until  retirement  to  press 
this issue.  I did not want to jeopardize 20 years of service.” 
 
 
On  August  10,  1989,  a  congressman  forwarded  the  letter  the  applicant  had  sent  to  the 
Commandant and congressional representatives to the Coast Guard and asked the Coast Guard to 
investigate  the  matter  and  reply.    The  Commandant  acknowledged  the  congressman’s  letter  on 
August 30, 1989, and responded in full on October 1, 1989.  He explained the circumstances of 
the applicant’s case as follows: 
 

On May 7, 1973, [the applicant] enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as a Petty Officer First Class.  
He was enlisted in this pay grade because his civilian experience and skills closely related to those 
required  for  that  grade.    He  completed  the  Chief  Petty  Officer  rating  correspondence  course  on 

 

 

 

May 21, 1977.  He first took the Chief Petty Officer Servicewide Exam in October 1977, but did 
not receive a passing score.  There is no record of him taking the October 1978 exam.  He passed 
the October 1979 exam but was not promoted due to the limited number of vacancies.  During that 
period,  if  the  member  was  not  promoted  within  three  years  of  completion  of  the  rating  corre-
spondence  course,  the  member  had  to  retake  the  rating  correspondence  course.    Absent  a  new 
Chief  Petty  Officer  rating  correspondence  course  completion,  his  eligibility  expired  on  May  21, 
1980. 
 
Servicewide Exam participation requirements were set forth in the Reserve Administration Man-
ual  with Commandant Notices issued six  months prior to each scheduled exam to give members 
additional  information  for  the  upcoming  or  future  exams.    Commandant  Notices  were  issued  on 
May  14  and  December  3,  1980,  May  13  and  December  1,  1981,  and  April  15,  1982,  all  stating 
that: 
 

Commencing  with  the  October  1981  Servicewide  Exam  all  Chief  Petty  Officer  candi-
dates  must  have  completed  the  appropriate  First  Class  Petty  Officer  rating  correspond-
ence  course  as  well  as  the  Chief  Petty  Officer  rating  correspondence  course.    This 
requirement  will  ensure  that  personnel  entering  the  Coast  Guard  Reserve  at  the  First 
Class  Petty  Officer  level  will  have  completed  the  highest  level  technical  non-resident 
course  within  their  rating  prior  to  competing  for  advancement  to  Chief  Petty  Officer.  
This  requirement  applies  to  all  Chief  Petty  Officer  candidates  regardless  of  their  enlist-
ment program or what the advancement requirements were at the time of their enlistment. 

 
The section in the Reserve Administration Manual that applied to prerequisites for participation in 
Servicewide Exams was changed in September 1982 to reflect this requirement. 
 
[The applicant] reenrolled in the Chief Petty Officer rating correspondence course on August 21, 
1981, and completed it on September 17, 1982.  Since requirements had been changed in 1981 and 
announced  well  in  advance,  [the  applicant]  had  to  meet  the  new  requirements  prior  to  taking  a 
Servicewide  Exam.    He  never  completed  the  Petty  Officer  First  Class  rating  correspondence 
course and, therefore, he was not eligible to take the Chief Petty Officer Servicewide Exam. 
 
To advance to pay grade E-7 in the Coast Guard Reserve, a member must complete a number of 
prerequisites  including  passing  a  servicewide  exam.    Even  when  all  requirements  are  met, 
advancements  are  limited  by  the  number  of  vacancies.    Candidates  who  qualify  but  are  not 
advanced  in  any  given  year  must  requalify  is  succeeding  years  if  they  want  to  be  considered  in 
those years.  Our intent is to advance the best qualified personnel when vacancies occur. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 8, 2012, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 

 
 
that the Board deny the requested relief. 
 
 
The JAG stated that the application should be denied for untimeliness.  He noted that the 
applicant waited 30 years to complain to the Board about not being permitted to take the RSWE 
in  1982  and  failed  to  submit  any  documentation  or  justification  explaining  his  lengthy  delay.  
The JAG noted that the applicant complained to a congressman about his failure to advance after 
he  retired  in  1988  but  still  waited  24  years  after  his  retirement  to  file  his  application  with  the 
Board.  The JAG argued that with no justification for the long delay and no evidence of error by 
the Coast Guard, the Board should not waive the statute of limitations and should deny relief. 
 
 
Regarding  the  merits  of  the  case,  the  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant’s  pay  grade  upon 
retirement is presumptively correct and that he has not overcome this presumption by submitting 

 

 

convincing evidence to support his claim that he should have been advanced to E-7.  The JAG 
stated that the record shows that the applicant was ineligible to take the RSWE before October 
1981 because he had not completed the pre-requisite chief petty course, and he was not eligible 
to take the RSWE in October 1981 or thereafter because he did not complete the new pre-requi-
site  first  class  petty  officer  correspondence  course.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  new  pre-requisite 
that  went  into  effect  in  October  1981  was  announced  several  times  in  Commandant  Notices 
beginning in 1980, and there is no evidence of any “grandfather clause.”   
 
 
The  JAG  stated  that  if  there  was  some  type  of  “grandfather  clause”  that  would  have 
allowed the applicant to take the RSWE for advancement to DCC without first passing both the 
first class and chief petty officer correspondence courses, then his unit’s refusal to let him take 
the RSWE might qualify as an injustice to warrant correction.  However, he stated, the applicant 
submitted no evidence of such a clause, and the Coast Guard knows of none.  Furthermore, the 
JAG  noted,  that  the  applicant’s  claim  was  investigated  after  the  Commandant  received  his 
congressman’s inquiry in 1989, and the investigation “flatly rejected his assertions.”  The JAG 
concluded that “without any compelling reason for delay, and without any reasonably chance of 
prevailing  on  the  merits,”  the  Board  should  not  waive  the  three-year  statute  of  limitations  and 
should deny the applicant’s request. 
 
 
The JAG also adopted the findings and analysis provided in a memorandum on the case 
prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC), which also recommended denial of relief.  PSC 
stated  that  the  record  shows  that  the  applicant’s  claim  was  investigated  within  a  year  of  his 
retirement,  and  the  specific  causes  that  contributed  to  the  applicant’s  failure  to  advance  were 
explained in detail to the applicant’s congressman.  PSC said that it adopts the findings and con-
clusions provided to the congressman because no new evidence has been submitted to cast doubt 
on them. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 21, 2012, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard 

and invited him to respond in writing within 30 days.  No response has been received.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

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

 

2. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), an application to the Board must be filed within three 
years after the applicant  discovers the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant alleged that she 
discovered the error in his record in 2008.  However, the preponderance of the evidence shows 
that  he  knew  in  October  1988  that  he  had  not  advanced  to  DCC  and  was  being  retired  in  pay 
grade E-6.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application is untimely. 
 

 

 

3. 

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. 

The applicant provided no explanation that justifies his long delay in applying to 

the Board.   
 

5. 

The  Board’s  cursory  review  indicates  that  the  applicant’s  case  cannot  prevail  on 
the merits.  In this regard, the Board notes that the Coast Guard  repeatedly reviewed the appli-
cant’s  eligibility  for  advancement  at  the  request  of  his  congressmen  while  the  applicant  was  a 
member of the Reserve and in 1989, after he retired.  Each review showed that the applicant had 
not met certain requirements for advancement or, if he qualified for advancement by passing the 
RSWE, was not advanced because there were not sufficient vacancies.  Being recommended for 
advancement by one’s CO is just one criterion a member must satisfy to take the RSWE and be 
placed  on  the  advancement  list,  so  the  fact  that  the  applicant’s  CO  recommended  him  for 
advancement  does  not  prove  he  was  ever  entitled  to  advancement.    The  applicant’s  military 
records showing that he was properly retired as a DC1/E-6 are presumptively correct under the 
Board’s  rules  at  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).    The  applicant  has  not  submitted  sufficient  evidence  of 
error or injustice to overcome this presumption. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, the  Board  will not  excuse the untimeliness of the application.  The 

applicant’s request should be denied.   
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Retired),  for  correction  of 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 H. Quinton Lucie 

 

 

 
 James H. Martin 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

his military record is denied.