Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2001-077
Original file (2001-077.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied



Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2001-077 



ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The BCMR docketed this case on 
April 18, 2001, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated February 14, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 


The applicant, an electrician’s mate third class (EM3; pay grade E-4), asked the 

Board to correct his record to show that he was enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve as an 
electrician’s mate second class (EM2; pay grade E-5).  He also asked to be awarded the 
back pay and allowances he would be due as a result of the correction. 
The applicant alleged that when he enlisted in the Reserve on November 2, 2000, 
he asked his recruiter if he could enlist as an E-5.  His recruiter told him that because he 
had been serving as an E-4 in the           National Guard, he could only enlist in that pay 
grade.  The applicant alleged that he had since discovered that this was untrue.  He 
alleged that he qualified for an E-5 enlistment, that there were several EM2/E-5 billets 
open at the time he enlisted, and that he is currently serving in an EM1/E-6 billet.   
4, the recruiter submitted a “rate determination package” to the Integrated Support 
Command (ISC) in          requesting approval of the applicant’s enlistment as an E-4.  He 
alleged that if the recruiter had submitted a rate determination package requesting 
approval of the applicant’s enlistment as an E-5, the ISC would have approved it. 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a rate deter-
mination sheet that shows that he had the qualifications to enlist as an E-5.  He also 

The applicant alleged that, because his recruiter believed he had to enlist as an E-

The applicant also submitted a statement signed by his recruiter, who confirmed 

submitted seven certificates indicating his completion of various electronics and technical 
courses and a summary of his private-sector work history as an electrician, technician, 
and mechanic.   
that he was enlisted as an E-4 “based solely on [his] being an E-4 in the       National 
Guard.”  The commanding officer of the ISC endorsed the applicant’s request as well, 
concluding that “there is sufficient evidence ... to support his entry into the Coast Guard 
as an EM2.”  In addition, the applicant submitted a letter from his Reserve supervisor, 
who stated that he completed all assignments with “journey level professionalism” and 
that his leadership skills and technical expertise justified an immediate promotion. 


On September 14, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

the Board grant the applicant’s request. 
In making this recommendation, the Chief Counsel relied on a memorandum on 
the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC stated that it 
had forwarded a copy of the application to its EM Force Manager for an opinion as to 
whether the applicant should have been enlisted as an E-5.  The EM Force Manager had 
recommended that the applicant’s enlistment contract be corrected to show that he 
enlisted as an EM2/E-5.  Therefore, CGPC recommended that the applicant be 
retroactively reenlisted at the higher rate and that he be awarded all associated back pay 
and allowances. 


On September 18, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On October 1, 2001, 
the applicant responded, stating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation. 


Under Chapter 5.D.1. of the Reserve Policy Manual, when experienced personnel 

at least 24 years of age first enlist in the Reserve, they may be enlisted as either E-4s or 
E-5s, depending upon their qualifications.  The recruiter is supposed to determine which 
rate and billet the candidate qualifies for and submit a “rate determination package” for 
approval by an ISC review panel. Under ALCGRSV 010/00, if the panel approves an E-4 
rate determination package, the ISC authorizes the recruiter to enlist the candidate.  If the 
recruiter submits an E-5 rate determination package and the package is approved by the 
ISC review panel, the package is forwarded to CGPC and the force manager for further 
review and authorization.   



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 appli-
cable law: 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

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

The applicant’s recruiter has admitted that he erroneously submitted an E-

4 rate determination package for the applicant based solely on the applicant’s rate in the       
National Guard, rather than on his skills and qualifications as an EM.  






The EM Force Manager, ISC               , CGPC, and the Chief Counsel 

have each determined that, at the time of his enlistment, the applicant was qualified to be 
enlisted as an EM2/E-5.  They have recommended that the Board grant his request. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

Coast Guard erred by enlisting him as an EM3/E-4.  He has proved that if his recruiter 
had submitted an E-5 rate determination package for him based on his skills and 
qualifications, the ISC review panel, CGPC, and the EM Force Manager would have 
approved his enlistment at the higher rate and pay grade. 


Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.  



The application of                        , USCGR, for correction of his military record is 

His record shall be corrected to show that he enlisted in the Reserve as an EM2/E-

The Coast Guard shall pay him any back pay and allowances he is due as a result 








5 on November 2, 2000, instead of as an EM3/E-4. 
of this correction. 

















Coleman R. Sachs 




Jacqueline L. Sullivan 



Nilza F. Velázquez 











Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-135

    Original file (2004-135.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On his application to the Board, he merely noted that the Board should consider his application “in the interest of justice.” SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE The applicant enlisted into the Coast Guard Reserve on December 3, 1942, and began serving on active duty on March 17, 1943. He served on the ship until December 22, 1945, and was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard on January 8, 1946. As the JAG and CGPC stated, the applicant has provided no explanation for his failure to request the...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2006-156

    Original file (2006-156.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He further stated that on May 25, 2004 he reapplied for a lateral change to the IV rating and that in September 2004, he received orders assigning him to CGIS, almost two years after he had been removed from the BMC advancement list. There is no record of either the servicing ISC or CGPC-rpm approving the Applicant’s lateral request. Although the applicant requested to have his name reinstated on the advancement list, the Coast Guard denied it stating that his request to lateral to the...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2006-005

    Original file (2006-005.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Coast Guard Per- sonnel Manual because his diagnosed personality disorder “requires that I request your discharge due to unsuitability.” The CO stated that he was recommending a general discharge under honorable conditions, but that the final decision would rest with CGPC. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual provides that the Commander may authorize or direct the separation of enlisted members for a number of reasons, including diagnosed personality disorders. After experiencing two...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2007-100

    Original file (2007-100.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated November 15, 2007, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, who was released from active duty (RELAD) as an EM2/E-5 on July 21, 2006, asked the Board to backdate the date of his reenlistment from November 21, 2006, to October 21, 2006, so that he will be entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 The appli- cant stated that sometime after his RELAD, he realized “how good the Coast Guard life is” and so...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-165

    Original file (2005-165.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Coast Guard Training and Education Manual, before reporting to “A” school on January 22, 2000, she needed to obligate sufficient service — 19 more months — to complete the 14 weeks of school and have 26 months remaining on her enlistment upon completion of the school.3 Therefore, the applicant is entitled to have the term of her January 20, 2000, extension contract corrected to 19 months. The Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled regarding her SRB eligibility,...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-069

    Original file (2004-069.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the reverse does not hold true: an attorney’s service in a legal program billet does not by itself constitute the basis for designation.” CGPC further stated that, even if the Board decides to correct the applicant’s record to show that she was commissioned as a lieutenant, she should not be awarded backpay because she “has not overcome the presumption of regularity with respect to the SRDC selection process that commissioned her an O-1E.” Moreover, “[d]esignation as a law...

  • 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 | 2008-139

    Original file (2008-139.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    13 (the applicant had been No. 3, but the applicant was placed at No. Paragraph 2.B.1 of ALCOAST 341/07 states in pertinent part: “On January 1, 2008, IS members on [the] May 2007 SWE eligibility lists for advancement in their legacy ratings will be removed from their legacy advancement lists and merged into new IS advancement lists,” which was effective from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008.

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2007-062

    Original file (2007-062.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 2007-073

    Original file (2007-073.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that in January 2006, YNC H of the in Service Transfer Team told him that upon his release from active duty, “your unit will request that you be placed on the Reserve Advancement List based on your [active duty] results – that’s your incentive.” The applicant further stated that YNC H and SKSC N (Seattle Reserve Career Develop- ment Advisor) told him that all he had to do was to have his Reserve Unit send a message to have his name transferred from the active duty...