DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-097 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR:  Andrews, J. 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed this case on 
April 21, 2006, upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated January 11, 2007, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who on September 22, 2005, enlisted in the Coast Guard as a sea-
man (SN; pay grade E-3) with prior active service in the U.S. Army, asked the Board to 
correct his record to show that he is a gunner’s mate first class (GM1; pay grade E-6).   
 
The applicant alleged that his recruiter never properly checked his record and so 
 
erroneously told him that he did not qualify to enlist in the GM rating.  The applicant 
alleged that other soldiers from his unit with less training than he had, had transferred 
to the Coast Guard in the GM rating.  
 
 
The applicant stated that during his more than 10 years in the Army, he attended 
training in leadership, armor school, airborne school, air assault, reconnaissance, anti-
terrorism,  and  special  forces.    He  qualified  as  an  expert  with  numerous  weapons, 
including  the  M4,  M16  rifle,  M60  machine  gun,  M240B  machine  gun,  M240C  coaxial 
machine gun, M249 machine gun, M203 grenade launcher, 9MM TOW missile, MK19 
machine  gun,  25MM  ammunition  can,  and  a  50  caliber  (M2)  machine  gun,  day  and 
night fire.  Prior to leaving the Army, he had earned advancement to E-7 but was dis-
charged as an E-6 (staff sergeant) because he would not sign an indefinite reenlistment 

contract  when  his  Army  enlistment  ended.    The  applicant  pointed  out  that  the  Coast 
Guard  “has  a  better  use  for  my  leadership  and  experience  than  picking  up  trash  on 
base” as an SN.  He submitted many documents and certificates concerning his qualifi-
cations. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  30,  2006,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-
mended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  He adopted the facts and analysis 
provided in a memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Recruiting Com-
mand (CGRC) and on a signed memorandum by the first class petty officer, AET1 C, 
who served as the applicant’s recruiter. 
 
CGRC stated that during the applicant’s enlistment processing, he “expressed a 
 
strong  desire  to  enlist  on  active  duty  immediately,  for  further  assignment  to  Puerto 
Rico.”  CGRC stated that the applicant’s Army training was reviewed for a rate deter-
mination.  CGRC further stated that  
 

[b]ased  on  the  recruiter’s  initial  review  and  experience  with  rate  determinations  for  all 
ratings, [the applicant] was advised that because none of his Army training aligned with 
any  of  the  Coast  Guard’s  ratings,  including  the  Gunner’s  Mate  (GM)  rating,  the  likeli-
hood of a favorable GM rate determination was remote, and that a substantial amount of 
time would be required to complete the rate determination.  Additionally, the entire staff 
at [the recruiting office] advised [the applicant] of the available opportunities with Guar-
anteed “A” Schools as a prior service applicant, which would determine his enlistment 
date depending on class availability.  However, [the applicant] decided to forego request-
ing both a rate determination and  Guaranteed “A” School.  Subsequently, [he] enlisted 
on active duty on 22 September 2006.  He attended four weeks of prior service indoctri-
nation training at Coast Guard Training Center Cape May, New Jersey, and was assigned 
to Coast Guard Sector San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
 
Because [the applicant’s] prior service training did not align with any of the ratings in the 
Coast Guard enlisted workforce and his recruiter appropriately advised him of all avail-
able training opportunities to which he declined, I recommend that relief not be granted 
in this case. 

 
The  applicant’s  recruiter,  AET1  C,  supported  the  claims  in  CGRC’s  memoran-
 
dum.  He stated that when the applicant contacted the recruiting office in August 2005, 
he  expressed  a  strong  desire  to  enlist  immediately.    After  reviewing  the  applicant’s 
Army experience, AET1 C advised him that there was no comparable rate in the Coast 
Guard for someone with his experience and discussed “A” School opportunities for him 
based on his ASVAB test.  However, the applicant stated that “his preference was to be 
stationed in Puerto Rico and to get there as soon as possible.”  During AET1 C’s first 
call  to  the  non-rate  detailer,  the  latter  stated  that  the  closest  opening  he  had  was  in 
Florida.  After the applicant emphasized that he needed to be assigned to Puerto Rico so 
that  he  could  see  his  children,  who  lived  with  his  ex-wife,  the  non-rate  detailer  was 

contacted  again  and  stated  that  there  was  an  opening  in  San  Juan  beginning  in 
November  2005.    Further  calls  enabled  the  applicant  to  join  the  prior  service 
indoctrination  class  that  started  in  September  2005.    AET1  C  stated  that  when 
“striking”—on-the-job  training  to  earn  a  petty  officer  rating—was  explained  to  the 
applicant, he was interested because it would allow him to remain in Puerto Rico. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  1,  2006,  the  Chair  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the 

 
 
Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
The Enlisted Performance Qualifications Manual (COMDTINST M1414.8C) indi-
 
cates that apart from marksmanship, some of the basic qualifications for the GM rating 
include  the  safe  handling,  firing,  and  training  others  to  use  the  Coast  Guard’s  small 
arms, machine guns, and weapon systems installed on cutters; maintaining and fixing 
the mechanical, electrical, electronic, and hydraulic parts of all such weapons; handling, 
inspecting, storing, activating, demonstrating the use of, and disposing of pyrotechnics 
and ammunition; inspecting, maintaining, and fixing magazines and magazine sprink-
ler  systems;  managing  an  ordnance  hazardous  material  and  disposal  program;  and 
maintaining inventories. 
 

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: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

 The  applicant  has  submitted  insufficient  evidence  and  information  to 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice by enlisting him as an SN/E-3.  While it is clear from the applicant’s submis-
sions that he has significant leadership experience and expertise with various weapons, 
his submissions do not show how his Army experience and expertise match the skill set 
required of a GM1, GM2, or GM3 in the Coast Guard. 

 
3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  some  Army  colleagues  with  similar  or  less 
experience  have  transferred  to  the  Coast  Guard  in  the  GM  rating.    He  provided  no 
proof that he had the same skill sets as these colleagues or that they were recruited at 

the same time that he was.  The Coast Guard is certainly entitled to alter its recruiting 
requirements over time. 

 
4. 

The  applicant’s  recruiter  indicated  that  the  applicant  expressed  a  strong 
desire to be stationed near his children’s home.  Even if the applicant’s experience and 
expertise did match the skill set for the GM rating, the Coast Guard was not required to 
create an open GM billet in the desired location to suit the applicant’s needs. 

 
5. 

While the applicant has made a significant financial and professional sac-
rifice to return to active duty based near his children’s home, he has not proved that his 
voluntary enlistment as an E-3 was erroneous or unjust.1 

 
6. 

 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
  

        

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Charles P. Kielkopf 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                 
1 For purposes of the BCMRs under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, “injustice” is “treatment by military authorities that 
shocks the sense of justice.” Sawyer v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 860, 868 (1989), rev’d on other grounds, 930 
F.2d 1577 (citing Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 1011 (1976)).