DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2005-118
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
FINAL DECISION
AUTHOR: Andrews, J.
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 Chair docketed the
applicant’s request for correction on June 29, 2005.
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
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). She alleged that she did not know and her recruiter
never told her that she could enlist as an E-3 because she had already earned 62 college
credits and an Associate of Arts degree. She alleged that her recruiter “led [her] to
believe that the highest grade I could graduate basic training at was E-2.”
In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of her college
transcript. The transcript shows that she received an Associate of Arts degree from
xxxxxxx College on December 20, 2003, after accumulating 62 credits with a 3.9 grade
point average.
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 Manual,
candidates with at least 30 hours of college credit may be enlisted in pay grade E-2 and
that candidates with at least 60 hours of college credit may be enlisted in pay grade E-3.
The form indicates that the candidate and recruiter should initial the program/pay
grade that is being offered, but none of the blocks are initialed.
On October 19, 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard in pay grade E-2.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 25, 2006, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recom-
mended that the Board grant the applicant’s request based on a memorandum on the
case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). CGPC stated that the
amendment to allow enlistment at pay grade E-3 for candidates with at least 60 credit
hours was a “pen-and-ink change” to the Recruiting Manual prior to the applicant’s
enlistment. CGPC stated that “[o]ur review of [the applicant’s] situation revealed that
her recruiter cited an out-of-date recruiting manual during her enlistment processing.
Subsequently, [the applicant] was not offered an enlistment at pay grade E-3, for which
she was entitled.” CGPC recommended that the Board grant relief.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On March 6, 2006, the applicant informed the Board that she had no objection to
the Coast Guard’s recommendation for relief.
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.
The Coast Guard has stated that prior to the applicant’s enlistment on
October 19, 2004, a “pen-and-ink” amendment to Article 2.G.4.b.4.a. of the Recruiting
Manual permitted candidates for enlistment who had satisfactorily completed at least
60 semester hours of college education to be enlisted in pay grade E-3. The applicant’s
college transcript shows that at the time she enlisted, she had satisfactorily completed
62 credit hours and had earned an Associate of Arts degree.
3.
The Coast Guard has stated that because the applicant had earned at least
60 credit hours when she enlisted she was entitled to enlist as an E-3. The Coast Guard
has admitted that the applicant’s recruiter erred by following an out-of-date edition of
the Recruiting Manual when enlisting her as an E-2.
4.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of her military
record is granted.
Her record shall be corrected to show that on October 19, 2004, she enlisted in the
Coast Guard in pay grade E-3, instead of E-2.
The Coast Guard shall pay her any amount she may be due as a result of this
correction.
Frank H. Esposito
Jordan S. Fried
William R. Kraus
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2003-127
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. 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...
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 | 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 .
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...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-031
The applicant alleged that he learned that the members of the substitute rating chain were close associates of the CO of the cutter and “may have been involved in the effort to suppress information concerning the [migrant interdiction] incident.” The applicant alleged that the Reporting Officer and Reviewer who prepared the first disputed OER were biased against him because his father had threatened the Reviewer with legal action and had reported both officers to Headquarters officials in...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-010
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 applicable law: The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code. Up until April 6, 1944, a member appar- ently qualified for an Honorable discharge if, like the applicant, he was discharged for the con- venience of the Government; he had “[n]ever...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-143
YNCM stated that the Coast Guard has no record that the applicant completed the October 2000 RSWE or 2001 RSWE. She also denied that she discussed the issue of the applicant not having sufficient time to complete the exam with MKCS B. LTJG D also stated the following: [The applicant] states “LTJG [D] informed me that she had sent the wrong SSN and that a test wasn’t received.” ESO’s do not ORDER RSWE. The applicant alleged that an exam had been sent for him and that it was received by the ESO.
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 | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2004-132
Chapter 1 § 51.7, Equity Standard of Review, it would be fair and in the best interest of the government to upgrade the applicant’s discharge from “under honorable conditions” to “honorable.” CGPC stated that given the applicant’s conduct and proficiency marks, the discrepancy, and the applicant’s service history, it is unlikely that the applicant would have received a general discharge under current policy. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, which states in any case in which a general...