DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2007-062 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

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 this case on January 12, 2007, 
upon  receipt  of  the  completed  application,  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 August  30,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, who on September 22, 2005, enlisted in the Coast Guard as a seaman (SN; 
pay grade E-3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he enlisted in pay grade E-4 
instead of E-3.  The applicant stated that because he was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 
pay grade E-5 on September 7, 2005, he should have been enlisted at least as an E-4 and should 
not have lost two pay grades.  He did not specify in what rating he should have been enlisted, 
although when he submitted his application he was enrolled in AET “A” School to become an 
aviation  electrical  technician.    The  applicant  noted  that  his  break  in  service  between  the Air 
Force and the Coast Guard was only fifteen days. 
 
 
In support of his allegation, the applicant submitted a copy of his discharge form DD 214 
from the Air Force.  The DD 214 shows that he served on active duty in the Air Force from Sep-
tember  8,  1999,  through  September  7,  2005,  and  that  during  his  enlistment  he  completed  six 
weeks of basic training  and six weeks of Airman  Leadership School  and was discharged as a 
staff sergeant (pay grade E-5).  The DD 214 also shows that the applicant’s specialty in the Air 
Force was “2A671B, Aerospace Propulsions, Turboprop & Turboshaft.”  
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On September 22, 2005, fifteen days after being discharged as an E-5 from the Air Force, 
the applicant enlisted for four years of active duty in the Coast Guard.  His enlistment contract 
shows  that  he  enlisted  as  an  E-3.    On  the  same  day,  he  also  signed  a  form  CG-3301G,  titled 

“Annex ‘G’ (SOU-PAY Grade).”  Part 3 of this form was initialed by the applicant to show that 
he understood that he was being enlisted in pay grade E-3 because he had previously attained pay 
grade E-4 or higher in another military service.  The applicant also signed “Annex ‘S’: Statement 
of  Understanding,  U.S.  Coast  Guard  Enlistment  Bonus,  No  Guaranteed  ‘A’  School,”  which 
shows  that  the  applicant  was  not  promised  enrollment  in  a  particular  rating’s  “A”  School  or 
Striker Program (for on the job training). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 22, 2007, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board deny the applicant’s request.  He adopted the facts and analysis provided in a memoran-
dum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC noted that Section 2.D.3.f. of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, COMDTINST 
M1100.2,  provides  that  “[p]rior  service  personnel  from  any  branch  of  the  U.S. Armed  Forces 
may be eligible to enlist under the ORL [open rate list] if at the time of separation from active 
duty  the  prior  service  applicant:  a.  Held  a  rating  listed  on  the  ORL  or  a  comparable  Military 
Occupational Specialty (MOS).”  CGPC also noted that when the applicant enlisted in September 
2005, ALCOAST 518/04 was in effect, and the only aviation ratings on the ORL were AET2s 
and AET3s with backgrounds in aircraft communication, navigation, and electrical systems. 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s Air Force specialty—“2A671B, Aerospace Propulsions, 
Turboprop  &  Turboshaft”—corresponds  to  the  Coast  Guard’s  aviation  machinery  technician 
(AMT) rating, which was not on the ORL in September 2005.   CGPC stated that the applicant’s 
Air Force specialty “does not relate directly to the AET specialty.  Thus, there was no provision 
to enlist the Applicant as a petty officer in the AET specialty.  The open rate list provides paths 
for direct petty officer accessions in specialties where there is Service need.  There was no urgent 
Service need for direct accession AMT’s at the time of the applicant’s enlistment in the Coast 
Guard.”  CGPC stated that since the applicant’s specialty was not on the ORL, he was offered 
enlistment as an E-3 because “other than the direct petty officer program under the open rate list, 
there is no provision for enlistment at a higher pay grade.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 23, 2007, 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.   
 

The Open Rate List (ORL) is a list of rates for which the Coast Guard has immediate billet open-
ings, and for which prior service personnel having those skills may apply.  An applicant enlisting 
under the ORL may enlist in the rating authorized by the … Recruiting Command.  Commandant 
(CG-12) maintains and periodically updates the ORL.  The ORL in effect on the date of enlistment 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Section 2.D.3.f., of the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual (COMDTINST M1100.2E) states 

 
 
the following: 
 

is the official authority.  In cases where a rating is removed from the ORL during the processing 
phase, CGRC may consider the applicant’s enlistment in that rating. 
 
1.  Eligibility.  Prior service personnel from any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces may be eligible 
to enlist under the ORL if at the time of separation from active duty the prior service applicant: 
 

Held the rating listed on the ORL or a comparable Military Occupational Spe-

Provides proof that it has been less than five years since separation from active 

Active duty service does not total more than 14 years. 

a. 
cialty (MOS); 
b. 
duty; and 
c. 

 

ALCOAST 518/04, which went into effect on December 1, 2004, and was not canceled 

until January 1, 2006, stated the following: 

 
2.   The  ORL  is  a  workforce  planning  tool  designed  to  enlist  skilled  and  qualified  prior-service 
members  to  fill  vacancies  in  specific  ratings,  as  follows:   AET3  (with  a  background  in  aircraft 
communication, navigation, and electrical systems), BM1, BM2, BM3, DC1, DC2, EM1, EM2, 
ET1, ET2, ET3, FS2, FS3, GM1, GM2, MK1, MK2, MST1, MST2, MST3, OS1, OS2, OS3. 
 
3.   All  applicant  qualifications  for  enlistment  will  be  determined  by  the  appropriate  assignment 
officer  in  consultation  with  the  rating  force  master  chief.    Final  approval  or  disapproval  of  an 
applicant’s enlistment via the ORL will be made by CGPC. 
 
4.  The ORL recruiting focus is targeted to the above ratings; however, enlistments in ratings other 
than those listed may be approved on a case-by-case basis. 
 
5.  As with other workforce interventions, we expect that bringing petty officers directly into the 
Coast Guard will have a minimal impact on advancements.  In fact, advancements are projected to 
be near or above historical highs over the next few years. 
 
ALCOAST 645/05, which went into effect on January 1, 2006, included the following 
ratings on the ORL: AET2 and AET3 (w/ specific background in aircraft communication, naviga-
tion, and electrical systems), BM1, BM2, EM1, EM2, ET1, ET2, ET3, FS2, FS3, GM1, MST1, 
OS1, OS2, OS3. 

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 

1. 

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

2. 

 The applicant alleged that he should have been enlisted as a petty officer, in a pay 
grade higher than E-3, because fifteen days before his enlistment he was discharged from the Air 
Force in pay grade E-5.  The Coast Guard enlists all recruits, including prior service members, to 
meet the needs of the Service and sets policy accordingly.  Therefore, to prove that his enlistment 
as an E-3 was erroneous or unjust, the applicant must prove that he was entitled to enlistment at a 
higher pay grade under applicable policies and regulations.   

 

 

3. 

When the Coast Guard needs petty officers in a particular skill rating, and it does 
not expect to gain enough such petty officers through the training and advancement of its own 
non-rates (seamen recruits, seamen apprentices, and seamen in pay grades E-1, E-2, and E-3), it 
places the skill rating on the open rate list (ORL) and allows recruiters to enlist petty officers 
from other military services into petty officer pay grades (E-4 and above) if they have the critical 
skills.   As  indicated  in paragraph  5  of ALCOAST  518/04,  in  placing  ratings  on  the  ORL  and 
enlisting petty officers at higher pay grades, the Coast Guard tries to be careful not to diminish 
its own non-rates’ opportunities for advancement. 

 Under Section 2.D.3.f., of the Recruiting Manual, the applicant would have been 
eligible to enlist in a petty officer pay grade (higher than E-3) if he “[h]eld the rating listed on the 
ORL or a comparable Military Occupational Specialty (MOS).”  The applicant’s Air Force DD 
214  shows  that  his  MOS  was  “2A671B,  Aerospace  Propulsions,  Turboprop  &  Turboshaft,” 
which corresponds to the Coast Guard’s AMT rating.  ALCOASTs 518/04 and 645/05 show that 
the AMT rating was not on the ORL in effect in either 2005 or 2006.  Therefore, the applicant 
was not eligible or entitled to enlist in a petty officer pay grade in September 2005. 

The Board notes that under paragraph 4 of ALCOAST 518/04, the Coast Guard 
acknowledged that “on a case-by-case basis,” it might enlist a prior service member in a petty 
officer rating even if that rating was not on the ORL.  The applicant has not proved that he was 
entitled to or unjustly denied enlistment in a higher pay grade under this provision. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice1  by  enlisting  him  as  a  seaman  in  pay  grade  E-3  on 
September 22, 2005, even though he was discharged from the Air Force on September 7, 2005, 
as an E-5.    
 

7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

 

 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                 
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)). 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.