DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-072 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 January 15, 2011, 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 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.  She also asked the 
Board  to  award  her  corresponding  back  pay  and  allowances  and  the  $1,000  bonus  she  was 
promised in writing upon enlistment in the Reserve on June 16, 2009. 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  when  she  advanced  from  E-1  to  E-2  upon  completing  boot 
 
camp, she completed all of the skill requirements for advancement to E-3 and was told that the 
only remaining obstacle to her advancement was six months’ time in grade as an E-2.  Therefore, 
she expected to advance to E-3 on February 7, 2010.  When she was not advanced, she was told 
by  her  chief  that  “all  that  needed  to  happen  was  approval.”    She  inquired  a  couple  more  times 
and received the same response.  By March 2010, she had completed the sign-off requirements 
and examination for advancement to E-4 and thought that she would advance to E-4 upon gradu-
ating  from  MST  “A”  School  and  earning  the  MST  rating.    While  in  MST  “A”  School  in  the 
summer  of  2010,  she  asked  about  her  advancement  to  E-3  and  was  told  that  the  form  for  her 
advancement  had  never  been  processed.    Therefore,  she  did  not  advance  to  E-3  until  she  had 
been  an  E-2  for  almost  a  year  and  could  not  advance  to  E-4  until  she  had  six  months’  time  in 
grade as an E-3.  Moreover, she was told that because she did not advance to E-4 upon graduat-
ing from MST “A” School, she would not receive the $1,000 bonus she had been promised when 
enlisting. 

 

 

  
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from her supervisor, a 
chief petty officer, who wrote that after the applicant completed all of the sign-off requirements 
for  advancement  to  E-3,  she  was  recommended  for  advancement.    Therefore,  he  contacted  an 
administrative officer and was told that “everything was done” and that the only obstacle to the 
applicant’s advancement to E-3 was her time in grade as an E-2.  Thereafter, the applicant con-
tinued  to  complete  sign-offs  toward  advancement  to  E-4  and  took  the  E-4  End  of  Course  Test 
before  attending  MST  “A”  School.    Because  she  had  already  completed  all  of  the  preliminary 
requirements, he expected her to advance to E-4 upon graduating from MST “A” School.  How-
ever, while she was away at school, he learned that she had never advanced to E-3 because they 
had failed to  complete a required form.   The chief stated that he  “take[s] responsibility for not 
making sure that all the paperwork was completed since [he is the applicant’s] supervisor.” 

 
The applicant also submitted the following documents in support of her allegations: 

  An  “Enlisted  IDP  E-2  to  E-3  Advancement  Checklist”  shows  that  the  applicant  com-
pleted the EPME proficiency requirements for advancement to E-3 on October 3, 2009; 
received  her  semiannual  performance  evaluation,  on  which  she  was  recommended  for 
advancement,  on  January  31,  2010;  complied  with  the  weight  standards;  and  had  six 
months of satisfactory time in grade as an E-2 as of February 7, 2010. 

  An  “Enlisted  IDP  E-3  to  E-4  Advancement  Checklist”  shows  that  the  applicant  com-
pleted the EPME proficiency requirements and AQE-4 End of Course Test for advance-
ment to E-4 and complied with the weight standards on April 25, 2010. 
 

  An “Enlisted Performance Evaluation” dated January 31, 2010, shows that the applicant 
received average or above average scores in all performance categories and was recom-
mended for advancement. 

  An “Administrative Remarks” (Page 7) dated June 16, 2009, and signed by the applicant 
and her recruiter states, “I have been advised that I am eligible for a $  1000   SELRES 
enlistment or affiliation incentive bonus.  Receipt of this bonus commits me to SELRES 
participation through   June 16, 2015   .  I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully 
understand  the  contents  of  COMDTINST  7220.1  Series  and  the  current  ALCOAST 
applicable to this bonus and fiscal year.”   

  An “Applicant Information Page – Enlisted” shows that upon enlisting on June 16, 2009, 

the applicant agreed to attend MST “A” School and was promised a $1,000 bonus. 

  A  long  email  string  shows  that  on  September  24,  2010,  a  Sector  yeoman  advised  the 
applicant that he had reviewed her record and “there is no information regarding a bonus 
on your [enlistment] contract or your [contract] annexes.  If you feel this is incorrect, you 
will have to provide proof of a bonus that was promised to you. … I am unaware of any 
bonus for affiliation into the MST rating.”  On September 25, 2010, the applicant replied 
saying  that  her  “recruiter  randomly  requested  a  bonus  when  I  joined  just  to  see  if  any-
thing  would  get  approved.    It  was  only  $1,000  and  we  were  both  aware  that  it  was  not 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

common  for  the  rating  to  be  getting  that  bonus.”    On  October  11,  2010,  the  applicant 
advised the yeoman that her recruiter had just found and faxed him the paperwork for her 
bonus.  The yeoman replied, “I got the fax.  We are going to send the paperwork to [the 
Pay and Personnel Center] and they will pay out your bonus.” 

  An email string shows that on October 15, 2010, a member of the MAS Bonus Team at 
the Pay and Personnel Center advised the applicant’s unit that when she enlisted on June 
16,  2009,  ALCOAST  167/09  was  in  effect  and  authorized  enlistment  bonuses  only  for 
those  entering  the  machinery  technician  (MK)  rating.    In  addition,  an  MK  could  not 
receive this bonus until advanced to E-4. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On June 16, 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Reserve for eight years in pay grade E-1.  
Section B.8.c. of the enlistment contract, which was biometrically signed by the applicant, states, 
“The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the 
Government.    ANYTHING  ELSE  ANYONE  HAS  PROMISED  ME  IS  NOT  VALID  AND 
WILL  NOT  BE  HONORED.”    This  section  of  the  applicant’s  contract  does  not  mention  any 
bonus or annexes although the applicant did sign two annexes when she enlisted:  one related to 
the details of the Reserve program and the other related to her educational benefits.  The appli-
cant’s  record  also  contains  the  Page  7  regarding  her  eligibility  for  a  $1,000  bonus,  which  is 
quoted above.  The Coast Guard did not submit to the Board any records or information reveal-
ing when she advanced to E-3 or E-4. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 4, 2011, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board grant full relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the findings and analysis provided in 
a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 
 
The PSC stated that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that she was 
eligible  for  advancement  to  E-3  on  February  7,  2010.    The  PSC  further  stated  that,  if  she  had 
advanced to E-3 on February 7, 2010, she would have advanced to E-4 on August 7, 2010, upon 
her graduation from MST “A” School.  The PSC stated that her dates of advancement should be 
corrected and she should be awarded back pay and allowances.   
 

In addition, the PSC noted the Page 7 stating that the applicant was eligible for a bonus, 
concluded that she “has provided the evidence required to receive a $1,000 SELRES enlistment 
bonus,” and recommended that she be paid the bonus. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 2, 2011, the applicant advised the Board that she agreed with the Coast Guard’s 

 
 
recommendation for relief. 
 
 

 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Chapter 7.C.1. of the Reserve Policy Manual states that “[t]he provisions of the Personnel 
Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), apply to advancements of Reserve enlisted personnel 
except as specifically modified by this section.”  None of the listed modifications affect the out-
come in this case. 
 
 
ing centers are authorized to advance personnel from pay grade E-1 to E-2 upon satisfactory 
completion of recruit training.”  
 

Article 5.C.26.b.2. of the Personnel Manual states that  “[c]ommanding officers of train-

Article 5.C.14.a. provides the “time in grade” chart, which shows that a member may be 
advanced from E-2 to E-3 upon completion of six months in pay grade E-2 or upon graduation 
from “A” School and from E-3 to E-4 upon completion of six months in pay grade E-3. 

 
Article  5.C.2.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  members  may  be  advanced  “[b]y 
their  commanding  officer  (applicable  for  advancement  from  E-1  to  E-2  and  E-2  to  E-3  and 
advancement to pay grade E-4 of Class “A” School graduates).” 
 

Article  5.C.9.  states  that  one  of  the  requirements  for  earning  the  MST3/E-4  rate  is  to 
graduate from MST “A” School.  Article 5.C.7.b.3. states that to advance to E-4 an “A” School 
graduate must also complete the EPME requirements and pass the AQE-4 examination. 
 

Article  5.C.26.a.2.  states  that  “commanding  officers  are  authorized  to  advance,  without 
reference to Commandant, from pay grade E-3 to E-4 members who were assigned a designator 
upon graduation from a Class “A” School once the member satisfies all applicable requirements 
of  Article  5.C.4.    The  requirements  listed  for  advancement  to  E-4  under  Article  5.C.4.  include 
being recommended for advancement, having sufficient time in grade, and completing the rating 
courses, EPME, and EPQ for the higher rate, if any. 

 
ALCOAST 167/09 was in effect when the applicant enlisted.  The only bonus authorized 
for new recruits  in  this ALCOAST is  a $6,000 bonus for people  who enlist  in the Reserve and 
agree to serve in the MK rating in the Selected Reserve for at least six years.  This bonus is paid 
in halves:  half upon completion of “A” School and the other half one year later if the member’s 
participation in the SELRES has been satisfactory. 

 
COMDTINST 7220.1A contains the rules for enlistment bonuses.  Paragraph 2 of Enclo-

sure (2) states the following: 
 

In order to meet the eligibility criteria for the enlistment bonus program the member:  

a. Must be a graduate of a secondary school.  
b. Must have never previously served in an armed force.  
c. Must enlist for a period of not less than six years in the SELRES.  
d. Must be assigned to a bonus-eligible permanent rating, billet, or unit listed in the cur-
rent  ALDIST  bonus  message  at  the  time  of  enlistment.    NOTE:  This  includes  assignment  to  a 
guaranteed ‘A’ school and/or a bonus eligible billet or unit.  

 

 

 

e. Member must agree to serve in the SELRES in the rating, billet, or unit, for which the 
bonus was authorized unless authorized to change to a rating, billet, or unit that is bonus eligible. 
…  

f. Must execute a written agreement (sample [Page 7] in this enclosure).  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 

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  10 U.S.C.  § 1552.  
The  application  was  timely  filed  within  three  years  of  the  applicant’s  discovery  of  the  alleged 
errors in her record.1   

 
2. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  her  advancements  to  E-3  and  E-4  were  improperly 
delayed and that she  was unjustly denied a $1,000 enlistment  bonus that had been promised to 
her in writing.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed infor-
mation in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in her record, and the applicant 
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is 
erroneous  or  unjust.2    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard 
officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and 
in good faith.”3  

 
3. 

The applicant  has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she had com-
pleted the requirements for advancement to E-3 on February 7, 2010, and was recommended for 
promotion  when  she  gained  sufficient  time  in  grade  as  an  E-2  (six  months)  to  qualify  for 
advancement.4    Her  advancement  checklist  shows  that  she  had  timely  completed  the  require-
ments, and her supervisor states that he later learned that the command had failed to ensure that a 
necessary  form  was  submitted  to  ensure  her  timely  advancement.    However,  the  applicant  was 
not advanced to E-3 until several months later, and the Coast Guard has admitted the delay was 
caused  by  an  administrative  error.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant’s  date  of 
advancement  to  E-3  should  be  backdated  to  February  7,  2010,  and  she  should  receive  corres-
ponding back pay and allowances. 

 
4. 

The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  had  she  been 
properly advanced to E-3 on February 7, 2010, she would have advanced to E-4 upon her gradu-
ation from MST “A” School on August 7, 2010.  Her checklist, her performance evaluation, and 
her  supervisor’s  statement  show  that  she  completed  all  the  preliminary  requirements  for 
advancement  to  E-4  before  attending  “A”  School,  and  she  would  have  had  sufficient  time  in 
grade as an E-3 (six months) to advance to E-4 upon graduation from “A” School if she had been 
                                                 
1 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b). 
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)). 
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 
4 See Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Articles 5.C.4., 5.C.2.a.2., and 5.C.14.a. 

 

 

timely advanced to E-3 on February 7, 2010.5  The Coast Guard has admitted that the delay of 
her  advancement  to  E-4  resulted  from  an  administrative  error.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that 
the  applicant’s  date  of  advancement  to  E-4  should  be  backdated  to  August  7,  2010,  and  she 
should receive corresponding back pay and allowances. 

 
5. 

The applicant alleged that she has unjustly been denied a $1,000 enlistment bonus 
that she was promised in writing.  Her record contains a Page 7 signed by her and her recruiter 
stating that she was “advised that I am eligible for a $  1000   SELRES enlistment or affiliation 
incentive bonus.”  The promise of the bonus is  not  incorporated in  her enlistment  contract,  but 
the lack of incorporation is not particularly probative since the recruiter also failed to incorporate 
required  annexes  she  executed  into  the  contract.    No  bonus  was  authorized  for  the  applicant 
under ALCOAST 167/09 because she was enlisting in the MST rating, but the Coast Guard has 
recommended  that  she  receive  the  bonus  based  on  the  language  in  the  Page  7.    However,  the 
Board  notes  that  in  an  email  dated  September  25,  2010,  the  applicant  wrote  that  her  “recruiter 
randomly  requested  a  bonus  when  I  joined  just  to  see  if  anything  would  get  approved.    It  was 
only  $1,000  and  we  were  both  aware  that  it  was  not  common  for  the  rating  to  be  getting  that 
bonus.”    Thus,  it  appears  that  the  applicant  was  aware  when  she  enlisted  that  no  bonus  was 
authorized  for  the  MST rating  but  that  her  recruiter  led  her  to  believe  that  she  might  receive  a 
bonus anyway if she completed the paperwork for one.  It is not entirely clear whether the appli-
cant  signed  her  enlistment  contract  believing  she  would  receive  a  $1,000  bonus  for  doing  so.  
However, because of the Page 7 and the Coast Guard’s belief that she should receive the bonus, 
the Board will order the Coast  Guard to  pay the  $1,000 bonus in accordance with  the rules for 
payment in ALCOAST 167/09. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by backdating the applicant’s advancement 
to E-3 to February 7, 2010; backdating her advancement to E-4 to August 7, 2010; awarding her 
corresponding  back  pay  and  allowances;  and  ordering  the  Coast  Guard  to  pay  her  the  $1,000 
bonus in accordance with the rules for payment in ALCOAST 167/09. 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
5 See Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Articles 5.C.4., 5.C.7.b.3., 5.C.9., and 5.C.26.a.2. 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of her military 

record is granted. 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct her date of advancement to pay  grade E-3 to February 7, 
2010,  and  her  date  of  advancement  to  pay  grade  E-4  to  August  7,  2010,  and  shall  pay  her  the 
back pay and allowances she is due as a result of these corrections. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  her  $500—the  first  half  of  the  $1,000  enlistment  bonus 
documented on the Page 7 dated June 16, 2009—because she has already completed  IADT.  In 
addition,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  promptly  determine  whether  she  meets  or  has  met  the 
participation standards under Chapter 4 of the Reserve Policy Manual during the year following 
her completion of MST “A” School, and if so, her record shall be corrected to show that she is 
eligible for and entitled to the second half ($500) of the $1,000 bonus, and the Coast Guard shall 
pay her that amount as well.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Julia Doig Wilcox 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

 
 
 
 

  

 
 James E. McLeod