DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2002-135
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of
title 10 and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code. The BCMR docketed the
applicant’s request for correction on July 5, 2002.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated May 22, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his pay grade
from the date of his enlistment, May 19, 1997, to November 18, 1997, was E-3 instead of
E-2, and that his pay grade from March 12, 1998, to May 18, 1998, was E-4 instead of E-
3.
The applicant alleged that his recruiter incorrectly advised him that, as an Eagle
Scout, he could enlist as an E-2. He alleged that, in fact, the Recruiting Manual allows
Eagle Scouts to enlist in pay grade E-3. He further alleged that, if he had enlisted as an
E-3, he would have advanced to E-4 upon his graduation from “A” School on March 12,
1998. He alleged that, because of his recruiter’s error, he was enlisted as an E-2 and he
did not advance to E-4 until six months after his advancement to E-3 on November 19,
1997.
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of Article 2.G.4.b.7.c.
of the current Recruiting Manual, which states that “Applicants who are Eagle Scouts
may be enlisted in pay grade E-3.”
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard as an E-2 on May 19, 1997. On the
same day, he signed a form CG-3301R, Statement of Understanding: Enlistment in an
Advanced Pay Grade. This form allows recruiters to document the enlistment of
college students and members of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), Junior
ROTC, Naval Sea Cadet Corps, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Sea Explorers as E-2s or E-
3s. On the applicant’s CG-3301R, the words “Eagle Scout” have been typed at the
bottom of this list and his enlistment as an E-2 is indicated directly above his signature.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that
the Board deny the applicant’s request. He stated that the Recruiting Manual was
revised on March 23, 1999, to allow Eagle Scouts to be enlisted as E-3s. However, when
the applicant enlisted in 1997, the Recruiting Manual provided no such incentives for
Eagle Scouts.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 2, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the
Coast Guard invited him to respond. No response was received.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Article 2.G.4.b.7. of COMDTINST M1100.2D, dated March 23, 1999, provides that
Article 2.G.4. of the Recruiting Manual, COMDTINST M1100.2C, dated May 18,
1994, provides that college students and members of the ROTC, Junior ROTC, Naval
Sea Cadet Corps, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Sea Explorers may be enlisted as E-2s or
E-3s. Eagle Scouts are not mentioned.
“Applicants who are Eagle Scouts may be enlisted in pay grade E-2.”
Paragraph 5 of ALCOAST 057/99, issued on August 16, 1999, states that
“[r]ecruit applicants who became Eagle Scouts or received the Girl Scout Gold Award
are authorized enlistment as E-3’s vice E-2’s.”
Paragraph F of ALCOAST 124/99, issued on October 4, 1999, states that the
authorization to recruit Eagle Scouts and Girl Scout Gold Award recipients as E-3s
became effective on August 17, 1999, and would be incorporated into the Recruiting
Manual.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and appli-
cable law:
10 U.S.C. § 1552. The application was timely.
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of
1.
2.
Although the applicant alleged that he should have been enlisted as an E-3
in 1997 because he was an Eagle Scout, ALCOASTs 057/99 and 124/99 clearly indicate
that recruiters were not authorized to enlist Eagle Scouts as E-3s until August 17, 1999.
3.
When the applicant enlisted, there was no provision in the Recruiting
Manual for enlisting Eagle Scouts at an advanced rank. Presumably, his recruiter
received authorization from the Recruiting Command or from an ALDIST or ALCOAST
bulletin to enlist the applicant as an E-2.
4.
5.
The language in the Recruiting Manual is permissive in that it permits
recruiters to use offers of advanced rank as incentives to recruits with certain creden-
tials but does not require recruits with those credentials to receive an advanced rank.
Therefore, even if there had been authorization for recruiters to offer Eagle Scouts
enlistment as E-3s in 1997, the applicant’s enlistment as an E-2 would not have been
erroneous per se. Moreover, the record shows that he voluntarily enlisted as an E-2.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his
ORDER
military record is denied.
Julia Andrews
Margot Bester
Francis H. Esposito
He alleged that if he had known about the requirement that he be in pay grade E-5 to receive a Zone B SRB, he would not have reenlisted for six years but would have 1 SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the length of the period of reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the multiple used to calculate the bonus. Coast Guard members in pay grade E-5 and...
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard stated that typically when the proper personnel office receives a message about a member’s eligibility for advancement on a supplemental advancement list one month, the member’s name is added to the list the following month, and “the member is advanced the third month.” Therefore, when the applicant’s com- mand sent a message about his eligibility for advancement to an electronic address that had recently become...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-098
After reenlisting, the Coast Guard stated that I was ineligible for the promised bonus because I have too much time in service. 1999-027, the applicant had been promised a $2,000 Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. 2005-117, the applicant was promised a $4,000 enlistment bonus by his recruiter.
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-009
On March 15, 2005, the Coast Guard’s Personnel Service Center denied the applicant’s request for a waiver, citing Article 5.C.15.c., because he did not have 12 months of sea service in a pay grade higher than E-3. Prior to February 14, 2003, however, the sea duty requirement for advancement to BMC was the same no matter when one entered the rating: “12 months above pay grade E-3 in designated rating.” Waiver Regulations Article 5.C.15.a.1. Under ALCOAST 082/03, the sea duty requirement for...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2006-009
On March 15, 2005, the Coast Guard’s Personnel Service Center denied the applicant’s request for a waiver, citing Article 5.C.15.c., because he did not have 12 months of sea service in a pay grade higher than E-3. Prior to February 14, 2003, however, the sea duty requirement for advancement to BMC was the same no matter when one entered the rating: “12 months above pay grade E-3 in designated rating.” Waiver Regulations Article 5.C.15.a.1. Under ALCOAST 082/03, the sea duty requirement for...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-124
The JAG admitted that the record “does document that Applicant was advised in an Annex “T” form (CG-3301T) dated 13 May 2007, that he was eligible for a $6,000 enlistment bonus for college credit.” However, the JAG alleged, the Annex “T” was “invalid, erroneous, and unauthorized” because Article 3.A.2.3. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. Although the JAG recommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-196
The JAG noted that under ALCOAST 064/07, the applicant was not entitled to an enlistment bonus because he had previously served in the military, and ALCOAST 064/07 states that bonuses were not available to enlistees with prior military service. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. In addition, if he meets or has met the participation standards under Chapter 4 of the Reserve Policy Manual during the year following his...
This final decision, dated September 12, 2002, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by either ordering the Coast Guard to pay a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB), which was promised to him on August 18, 2001 for a six-year reenlistment under ALCOAST 127/01, or canceling the six-year reenlistment contract. The applicant did not receive the Zone A SRB because at the time of his reenlistment, he had served for 7 years and 8...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-005
1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. Although the JAG rec- ommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the Board granted relief, finding that the recruiter had promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist and that, “whenever reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the erroneous advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” In BCMR Docket No. Although the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-214
The JAG admitted the record “does document that Applicant was advised in an Enlistment Package Check-Off List for a $6,000 enlistment bonus, in a Reservation Request for a $6,000 enlistment bonus, and in an Administrative Remarks (CG-3307) dated 08 March 2007, that he was eligible for a $6,000 SELRES enlistment bonus based upon ALCOAST 056/06.” The JAG stated that under ALCOAST 056/06, only members enlisting in a critical rating were eligible for the bonus, and PS3 was not cited as a...