DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
BCMR Docket No. 2010-263
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
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 application upon
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on September 27, 2010, and subsequently
prepared the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated June 23, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was advanced to pay
grade E-3 (seaman (SN)) upon his graduation from recruit training. He stated that he was
promised advancement to E-3 upon graduation. Additionally, he stated that he was qualified and
eligible for advancement to E-3 because he agreed to a six-year enlistment on a statement of
understanding (CG-3301-G) that authorized the advanced pay grade.
The applicant’s record contains an enlistment contract showing that he enlisted in the
Coast Guard Reserve on June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-1. The contract was executed with the
applicant’s biometric signature. Apparently, the contract was subsequently revised to show that
the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve in pay grade E-3 on June 1, 2010. Section G.
of the revised contract shows that the applicant was discharged from the Reserve and enlisted in
the regular Coast Guard for in pay grade E-3 on October 27, 2010.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On January 5, 2011, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an
the
advisory opinion recommending
recommendation from the Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC).
in accordance with
that
the Board grant relief
PSC stated that the applicant accepted and executed a six-year enlistment contract in pay
grade E-3. PSC stated that under Article 2.E.6.b.10.b. of the Recruiting Manual, individuals
“who enlist in the Regular Coast Guard for a period of 6 years of active duty may be enlisted in
pay grade E3.” PSC stated that according to the applicant’s original recruiter, an administrative
error caused the applicant not to be enlisted in pay grade E3. PSC stated there is nothing in the
record to indicate that the applicant was not entitled to pay grade E-3 upon his enlistment.
Therefore, PSC stated that the applicant should be entitled to all pay and benefits commensurate
with pay grade E-3 beginning on June 1, 2010.
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On January 31, 2011, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion and agreed with the
recommendation.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's
1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law:
of the United States Code. The application was timely.
2. The Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error by not enlisting the
applicant in pay grade E3, as he was promised. The Board is persuaded in this finding by the
revised enlistment contract which is evidence that the Coast Guard intended to enlist the
applicant in pay grade E-3; the statement of understanding promising enlistment in the advanced
pay grade signed by the recruiter and the applicant; and the recruiter’s statement to PSC that the
applicant was not enlisted in pay grade E-3 because of an administrative error. In light of the
above, the Board agrees that the applicant should have been enlisted in pay grade E-3.
3. The Board notes that although the applicant stated that he was to be advanced to E-3
after recruit training, the Coast Guard stated that he was supposed to be enlisted in pay grade E-3
from the inception of his enlistment. The Board will grant the correction as recommended by the
JAG. The correction is not detrimental to the applicant and he agreed with it in his reply to the
advisory opinion.
4. Accordingly, the applicant should be granted relief.
ORDER
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military
record is granted. His record shall be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on
June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-3. Any enlistment contracts in his record that are inconsistent with
this order shall be removed or corrected as appropriate. He shall receive all pay and allowances
due as a result of this correction.
Rebecca D. Orban
Reagan N. Clyne
Philip B. Busch
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-264
PSC stated there is nothing in the record to indicate that the applicant was not entitled to pay grade E-3 upon his enlistment. The Board is persuaded in this finding by the enlistment contract which is evidence that the Coast Guard intended to enlist the applicant in pay grade E-3; the statement of understanding promising enlistment in the advanced pay grade signed by the recruiter and the applicant; and the recruiter’s statement to PSC that the applicant was not enlisted in pay grade E-3...
Members are placed on and advanced from the list in the order in which PSC receives the messages. This message stated in pertinent part: For members not in a retirement eligible status, or serving on an indefinite enlistment contract, the obligated service requirement for the purposes of PCS orders shall be executed within 5 days of orders issuance. PSC then ordered the applicant discharged under ALCOAST 173/10, for refusing to obligate service for PCS orders, although the...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-095
The PSC stated that relief should be denied because the applicant was guaranteed and could have attended OS “A” School to receive the bonus but “freely chose” to accept an offer to attend EM “A” School instead. However, all of the documentation showing the promises made to him on the day he enlisted indicates that he was guaranteed attendance at OS “A” School and a $4,000 enlistment bonus if he actually graduated from OS “A” School and served in the OS rating. The Board notes that the...
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...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-181
This final decision, dated February 23, 2012, 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 enlisted as a third class petty officer (pay grade E-4), rather than a seaman (pay grade E-3). The revision of the policy for the RQ program announced in the memorandum dated February 3, 2010, expanded the program “to allow for DoD personnel with greater than 8 years of honorable service to enter the...
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 | 2008-044
The JAG stated that the applicant’s official enlistment contract in his military record states only “AN- NEX N SIX YEAR ENLISTMENT” in block B.8. He stated that this contract and the Annex “N” dated February 6, 2003, “are correct and valid.” In addition, the JAG stated that when the applicant enlisted on February 6, 2003, ALCOAST 231/02 was in effect and it authorized a combined bonus only for members perma- nently assigned to Naval Coastal Warfare Forces units. The JAG stated that the...
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 | 2008-005
1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. Although the JAG rec- ommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the Board granted relief, finding that the recruiter had promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist and that, “whenever reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the erroneous advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” In BCMR Docket No. Although the...
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...