DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BCMR Docket No. 2009-131
FINAL DECISION
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of
title 14 of the United States Code. The Chair docketed the case after receiving the applicant’s
completed application on April 24, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare 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 December 17, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was enlisted in pay
grade E-3 instead of E-1. He alleged that he agreed to a six-year enlistment because he was told
that with a six-year commitment he could enlist as an E-3. He alleged that his enlistment
documents show that he enlisted as an E-3. However, an error was made and the Coast Guard’s
database shows that he enlisted as an E-1. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted
copies of his enlistment documents.
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
On September 9, 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as an E-1 under
the Delayed Entry Program. On December 2, 2008, the applicant enlisted in the regular Coast
Guard for a term of six years. The enlistment contract incorporates by reference Annexes A, E,
G, and Z. Annex G is a “Statement of Understanding for Enlistment in Advanced Pay Grade.”
Paragraph 3 states that a recruit may be enlisted in pay grade E-3 if he signs a six-year enlistment
contract. This page is signed by the applicant and his recruiter, but the block to initial to indicate
that the option was offered by the recruiter is not initialed. However, the Record of Military
Processing in the applicant’s record states in block 18.g. that his pay grade upon accession was to
be E-3. His Reservation Request for recruit training also shows that he had been approved for a
six-year enlistment in pay grade E-3, as does an “Applicant Information Page – Enlisted.”
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On August 11, 2009, the Coast Guard submitted an advisory opinion recommending that
the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that he enlisted in pay grade
E-3 on December 2, 2008, because his enlistment documents support his allegation. The Coast
Guard also recommended that, if the applicant’s placement on an “A” School list has been
delayed because of his rank, his placement on the list be adjusted to what it would have been had
he been enlisted as an E-3.
RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
and invited him to respond within 30 days. No response was received.
On August 13, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions based on the applicant’s mili-
tary record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submission, and applicable law:
1.
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.
Accordingly, the relief recommended by the Coast Guard should be granted.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
The application was timely.
2.
Based on the evidence in his enlistment documents, the Board finds that the
applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was approved for enlistment as
an E-3 and that he enlisted for six years to be entitled to enlistment at the advanced pay grade.
However, the Coast Guard apparently erred by inputting his rank as E-1 upon enlistment.
According to the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion, the applicant’s assignment to
“A” School may have been delayed because of his erroneous rank. Therefore, the Board should
direct the Coast Guard to adjust that and any other matters that may have been negatively
affected by the applicant’s enlistment as an E-1 instead of an E-3.
3.
4.
ORDER
The application of SA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he enlisted in pay grade E-3 on
record is granted.
December 2, 2008.
The Coast Guard shall review other matters that may have been delayed or negatively
affected by his enlistment as an E-1 instead of an E-3, such as his possible placement on an “A”
School list, and shall adjust his records and status as if he had been enlisted as an E-3 on
December 2, 2008.
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount he may be due as a result of these corrections.
Julia Andrews
Dorothy J. Ulmer
*The third member of the Board was unavailable. However, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.11(b),
two designated members constitute a quorum of the Board.
*
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 | 2010-229
I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...
I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...
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 | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-003
CGPC noted that the application was submitted untimely and that the applicant “provided no justification for the delay in filing.” CGPC stated that the applicant’s request should be denied based on its untimeliness and lack of merit. CGPC stated that the work that the applicant was assigned, which he attributed to preju- dice, “is not inconsistent with work typically assigned to non-rated personnel or personnel of his pay grade.” CGPC also noted the applicant’s disciplinary problems while...
The military record submitted by the Coast Guard does not contain either the Page 7 with the promise of the $6,000 enlistment bonus or his SELRES enlistment contract. 1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her 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 completion of MST “A” School, his record shall be corrected to show that he is eligible for and...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2011-072
This final decision, dated September 29, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a marine science technician, third class (MST3/pay grade E-4) in the Reserve, asked the Board to correct her record to show that she advanced from pay grade E-2 to E-3 on February 7, 2010, and advanced from E-3 to E-4 on August 7, 2010. In addition, the PSC noted the Page 7 stating that the applicant was eligible for a bonus, concluded that she “has...
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly appoint- APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, a boatswain’s mate, third class (BM3), in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to a $2,000 enlistment bonus for enlisting in the Coast Guard on October 16, 2007, and agreeing to serve in the BM rate. The JAG admitted and the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error by refusing to pay the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-234
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. On September 14, 1984, the Commandant ordered the applicant’s command to discharge him with a general discharge for misconduct due to drug abuse in accordance with Article 12-B-18 of the Personnel Manual. It stated that in the Service’s attempt to rid itself of anyone who abused drugs, more than 700 members had received general discharges due...
The JAG stated that although the applicant’s September 30, 2008, enlistment/reenlistment contract states that he was entitled to receive an SRB, he was not eligible for an SRB because he served only 11 months on active duty when he integrated into the regular Coast Guard, and a reservist must have served at least 12 months continuous active duty for an enlistment in the regular Coast Guard to be considered a reenlistment. The enlistment of Coast Guard Reserve personnel who are serving on...