Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-264
Original file (2010-264.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2010-264 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

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 his 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  record  contains  an  enlistment  contract  showing  that  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the 
Coast Guard Reserve on June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-3. Section G. of the contract shows that the 
applicant was discharged from the Reserve and enlisted in the regular Coast Guard 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).   
 
 
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 

the  Board  grant  relief 

that 

in  accordance  with 

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 15, 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 
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 due to 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 did not object to it in his response 
to the advisory opinion.  
 
 

4.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted relief.   
 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, 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  E3.   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 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-263

    Original file (2010-263.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. His record shall be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 1, 2010, in pay grade E-3.

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-217

    Original file (2010-217.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2011-095.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2011-072.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (2011-181.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | Medals and Awards | 2011-120

    After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-120

    Original file (2011-120.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After his release from active duty, the applicant served in the Reserve. § 1552(b), an application for correction of a military record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers the alleged error or injustice. Although the applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error in December 2010, the Board finds that he should have discovered it in the 1970s because he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in the 1970s and was told at that time that his condition could have been...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-035

    Original file (2010-035.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On July 12, 2007, he signed a 9-month extension contract, extending his enlistment from July 11, 2007, through April 10, 2011. The PSC noted that the applicant enlisted on July 11, 2006, for four years; that he would have graduated from AET “A” School on April 18, 2008; and that the obligated service requirement for AET “A” School is 32 months. However, the PSC concluded that because the applicant “upon graduation, would have had only 23 months remaining on his con- tract, he was obligated...

  • CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2011-130

    Original file (2011-130.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    § 357(j) states “When the Secretary orders a reduction in force, enlisted personnel may be involuntarily separated from the service without the [enlisted personnel board’s] action.” The applicant stated that the Secretary approved a Coast Guard memorandum that authorized involuntary retirements without board action, but she did not order a reduction in force. According to the applicant, the memorandum approved by the Secretary on behalf of the Coast Guard states that “the [CRSP] is required...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-260

    Original file (2010-260.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a Coast Guard Reserve identification card, which was issued to her on August 19, 2004, and which shows that she was a PO2 (petty officer, second class) in pay grade E-5. An application to the Board must be filed within three years after the applicant discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the alleged error in her record.1 Although the applicant claimed that she discovered the alleged error in June 2010, she must have...