Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2002-092
Original file (2002-092.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

 
 

 

FINAL DECISION 
BCMR Docket No. 2002-092 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  change  the  term  of  his  Reserve  enlistment  contract 
from 4 to 8 years.  He alleged that he had intended to enlist for 8 years and that his primary 
reason  for  enlisting  had  been  to  receive  educational  benefits  under  the  Montgomery  GI  Bill.  
However, when he applied for the benefits, he was told he was ineligible because his contract 
term was only 4 years.  The applicant’s Reserve contract dated January 14, 2001, states that he 
enlisted  for  4  years.    However,  his  record  also  contains  a  January  14,  2001,  Statement  of 
Understanding, prepared by his recruiter, which states, “I [applicant’s name] understand that I 
am enlisting in a program, which has a military service obligation (MSO) of 8 years.” 

 
The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard and the Commander of the Coast Guard Person-
nel  Command  both  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s  request  because  the 
record indicates that he intended to enlist for 8 years and that the 4-year term of his contract is 
“a bona fide error.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he intended to enlist 
in  the  Reserve  for  8  years  and  that  his  recruiter  intended  to  enlist  him  for  8  years.    He  has 
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 4-year term on his contract is the result of 
an administrative error.  Accordingly, his request should be granted. 

The military record of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, shall be corrected to show that 

on January 14, 2001, he enlisted in the Reserve for 8 years instead of 4 years.   

ORDER 

 

 

 

 

 
 
November 14, 2002
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2004-193

    Original file (2004-193.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 19, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he enlisted in the Regular Coast Guard on November 3, 1998, for four years, rather than six, and then reenlisted on November 3, 2002, for six years, to receive a Zone A SRB. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on April 20, 1998, for a period of eight years...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-159

    Original file (2005-159.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that he was counseled that he was signing a 2-year reenlistment contract when he integrated from the Coast Guard Reserve into the regular Coast Guard on April 1, 2003.1 He also alleged that the aforementioned enlistment contract was blank with respect to the term of the enlistment and that he did not initial block 13a to certify that he did not have any more questions regarding the enlistment. In addition, the applicant’s CO stated in a...

  • 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 | SRBs | 2004-065

    Original file (2004-065.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Personnel Command denied the applicant’s request for an extension pursuant to COMDINST 7220.33.2 The applicant also alleged that if evidence of his successful completion of the Navigation Rules examination (NAVRULS) had been placed in his military record prior to his reenlistment, then he would have been eligible for an SRB multiple of 2 under ALCOAST 182/03. If the applicant had been told on April 29, 2003, that his request for a one- month extension was denied, he would have...

  • 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 | SRBs | 2011-221

    Original file (2011-221.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2011-221 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant, a boatswain’s mate second class (BM2), in the Coast Guard Selected Reserve (SELRES) asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is eligible to receive the $4,000 enlistment bonus that he was promised for signing an 8-year Reserve enlistment contract and agreeing to serve in the BM rate. The JAG stated that although the applicant was not eligible for a bonus under the applicable ALCOAST, he should nonetheless receive the bonus because...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2004-078

    Original file (2004-078.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated January 27, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a lieutenant commander (LCDR; pay grade O-4) in the Coast Guard Reserve, asked the Board to correct his date of rank (DOR) as a lieutenant (LT; O- 3) from September 30, 1998, to March 27, 1997, which, he alleged, was the date he received his commission as a law specialist with the rank of lieutenant (junior grade) (LTJG; O-2). In 1999, he was selected for promotion, and on...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2004-060

    Original file (2004-060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On August 31, 2002, he enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve. APPLICABLE REGULATION Selected Reserve Enlisted Bonus Programs (COMDTINST 7220.1A) Paragraph 1 of Enclosure (4) states that the SELRES Prior Service Enlistment Program "provides a bonus to eligible prior service personnel who enlist in the SELRES (Selected Reserve) in ratings, billets, or units designated most critical (Level 1) or critical (Level 11). The page 7 offered by the applicant to prove that he was promised the SELRES...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-090

    Original file (2002-090.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated February 4, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling two short-term extension contracts and reenlisting him for four years as of January 20, 2002, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALCOAST 127/01. of the Personnel Manual provides that, in deciding whether to recommend a member for advancement, “the rating chain must consider...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2002-024

    Original file (2002-024.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They shall sign a page 7 service record entry, enclosure (3) outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” Article 3.b. The Board finds that although the applicant would not have reenlisted for six years for an SRB he was not eligible for on October 9, 2001, he would have either been discharged or allowed to reenlist for three, four, five, or six years, notwithstanding his ineligibility to receive a Zone B SRB. Accordingly, the Board should deny the applicant’s...