DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2003-127
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 August 18, 2003.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated April 29, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that on April 29,
2003, he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve in pay grade E-2 (seaman apprentice (SA)),
instead of E-1 (seaman recruit (SR)). He also asked to receive the back pay and
allowances he would be due as a result of this correction.
The applicant alleged that his recruiter knew that he had been to college but did
not request a transcript. He alleged that at the time of his enlistment, he had 58
semester credits and that regulations allow enlistment in pay grade E-2 with only 30
semester credits. Therefore, he argued, he should have been enlisted as an E-2. In
support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his college transcript and
Article 2.G.4.b. of the Recruiting Manual.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant enlisted in the Reserve as an E-1 on April 29, 2003. On his
enlistment form CC 1966/2, he clearly indicated that he had attended a community
college from August 1999 to December 2001 and a university from January to December
2002. The transcript that the applicant submitted confirms these dates and shows that
he earned a total of 58 semester hours of college credit.
Article 2.G.4.b.4.a. of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual states that “[a]pplicants
who have satisfactorily completed 30 semester hours or 45 quarter hours of post-
secondary (college) education may be enlisted in pay grade E-2.”
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 11, 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recom-
mended that the Board grant the applicant’s request. He stated that the applicant was
mistakenly enlisted as an E-1 because his recruiter erroneously completed a recruitment
“Reservation Request” to show that he had only a high school education. The Judge
Advocate General submitted with his advisory opinion an email message from the
applicant’s recruiter, who admitted that he had failed to note the applicant’s college
experience. The recruiter stated that it was an oversight and “was in no way done out
of malicious intent to deprive [the applicant] of due benefits.”
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On December 15, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the views of the
Coast Guard invited him to respond within 30 days. No response was received.
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.
Under Article 2.G.4.b.4.a. of the Recruiting Manual, candidates for
enlistment, such as the applicant, who have satisfactorily completed at least 30 semester
hours of college education may be enlisted in pay grade E-2. The language of the
regulation is permissive and does not require candidates with 30 semester hours to be
enlisted in pay grade E-2.
3.
The applicant’s transcripts show that prior to his enlistment, he earned 58
semester hours of college credit. The applicant’s recruiter has admitted to making an
error by failing to take into account the applicant’s college credits. The recruiter’s
statement indicates that, but for the accidental omission, the applicant would have been
enlisted as an E-2. Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that his enlistment in pay grade E-1 instead of E-2
constitutes an error in his record.
4.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his military
record is granted.
His record shall be corrected to show that on April 29, 2003, he enlisted in the
Reserve in pay grade E-2, instead of E-1.
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any amount he may be due as a result of
Jordan S. Fried
this correction.
J. Carter Robertson
Kathryn Sinniger
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2005-118
This final decision, dated April 5, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that on October 19, 2004, she enlisted in the Coast Guard in pay grade E-3 (seaman; SN), instead of pay grade E-2 (seaman apprentice; SA). SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On October 12, 2004, one week before she enlisted, the applicant and her recruiter signed a form CG-3301G, which states that under the Recruiting...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-184
Rather than the specific relief requested by the applicant, CGPC recommended that the applicant’s record be corrected to show that he was accessed into the Coast Guard in pay grade E-3. specifies that verification of education on the DD Form 1966 [enlistment application] is a “responsibility of recruiters.” Article 2.E.6.b.6 authorizes enlistment in an advanced pay grade for members who are college students. “Applicants who .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081743C070215
The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted in the Army Reserve on 12 October 2001 for a period of 8 years, in the pay grade of E-1. The applicant's DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) shows she enlisted in the DEP on 12 October 2001 in the pay grade of E-1. PERSCOM stated that a review of the records indicated that the applicant enlisted on 3 January 2002 in the pay grade of E-1.
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 | 2008-092
However, the applicant’s record clearly indicates that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 29, 2004. ALCOAST 192/03 was in effect on June 29, 2004, and it did not provide any bonus for new Coast Guard members enlisting in the SELRES. On June 1, 2004, the Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 268/04, which did provide a bonus for those enlisting in the SELRES for six years in the MST rate, but it did not become effective until July 1, 2004.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2006-168
He stated that he has one OER covering the period February 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001; nothing covering the period September 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002, during which time he was attending college as duty under instruction (DUINS); and another OER covering the period February 2, 2002, through August 12, 2002. Therefore, the Coast Guard should be ordered to fill in the empty “not observed circles.” Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted by adding a new DUINS OER...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2000-166
The Chief Coun- sel pointed out that the applicant’s RE-3R reenlistment code is not an absolute bar to his reenlistment “if, in the opinion of his Recruiter, Applicant has resolved his disqualifying factor and his Recruiter believes the Coast Guard would benefit from Applicant’s reenlistment.” The Chief Counsel adopted by reference a memorandum prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) concerning the applicant’s case. of the Personnel Manual, members in pay grades E-3 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012608
It appears the original education transcripts provided to the recruiter at the time of entry into the DEP were foreign and needed to undergo a foreign education evaluation for advancement determination purposes. The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the USAR DEP in pay grade E-1 on 1 October 2013, he was discharged from the USAR DEP, and he enlisted in the RA in pay grade E-1 on 13 January 2014. Since he completed 39 semester hours prior to his enlistment, his foreign...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-069
However, the reverse does not hold true: an attorney’s service in a legal program billet does not by itself constitute the basis for designation.” CGPC further stated that, even if the Board decides to correct the applicant’s record to show that she was commissioned as a lieutenant, she should not be awarded backpay because she “has not overcome the presumption of regularity with respect to the SRDC selection process that commissioned her an O-1E.” Moreover, “[d]esignation as a law...
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...