Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-055
Original file (2011-055.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
                                                                                FINAL DECISION 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-055 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she enlisted in the regu-
lar Coast Guard for 6 years in pay grade E-3, instead of E-1.  She alleged that when she enlisted, 
she thought she was enlisting for 6 years starting as an E-3.  The Record of Military Processing 
prepared by a recruiter and signed by the applicant on August 16, 2010, shows that she enlisted 
in the Reserve for 6 years as an E-1 on August 19, 2010, under the Delayed Entry Program, and 
enlisted in the regular active duty Coast Guard for 8 years as an E-3 on September 21, 2010.  The 
first page of her enlistment contract shows an 8-year Reserve enlistment “beginning in pay grade 
E-3  of  which  6  years  and  0  weeks  is  considered  an  active  duty  obligation,  and  2  years  and  0 
weeks will be serve in the Reserve …  I understand that I will be ordered to active duty unless I 
report  [to  the  recruiting  office]  by  2010  09  21  for  enlistment  in  the  Regular  component  of  the 
United States … Coast Guard for not less than 6 years and 0 weeks.”  However, the third page of 
the contract shows that a recruiting official enlisted her as an E-1.  An Annex G, which the appli-
cant and her recruiter signed on August 16, 2010, shows that she agreed to a 6-year enlistment to 
be able to start active duty as an E-3.  The annex is incorporated by reference in the Record of 
Military Processing but not in the enlistment contract. 

 
The  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  because  the  record  supports 
the applicant’s allegations and her recruiter has affirmed that she was enlisted for 6 years “with 
the full understanding that she was enlisting as an E-3 … [A]t MEPS somehow the [enlistment 
contract] was incorrectly entered in as E-1 and should have been E-3.”   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
In light of her enlistment contract and the recruiter’s statement, the Board finds that the 
applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  as  a  result  of  an  administrative 
error,  she  was  mistakenly  enlisted  in  pay  grade  E-1,  when  in  fact  she  only  agreed  to  enlist  on 
active  duty  as  an  E-3,  and  that  her  record  erroneously  shows  a  6-year,  instead  of  an  8-year, 
Reserve obligation and an 8-year, instead of a 6-year, active duty obligation.  Accordingly, relief 
should be granted. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  military  record  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  shall  be  corrected  to 
show that she enlisted in the Reserve for 8 years on August 19, 2010, with a 6-year active duty 
obligation and a 2-year Reserve obligation, and that she enlisted in the regular, active duty Coast 
Guard for 6 years on September 21, 2010, in pay grade E-3.  The Coast Guard shall pay her any 
amount due as a result of these corrections.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

  

 
 
 Troy D. Byers 

 

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 Dana Ledger 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 14, 2011   
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-229

    Original file (2010-229.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2010-229

    Original file (2010-229.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2001-124

    Original file (2001-124.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant, a former petty officer second class (pay grade E-5) requested that her DD Form 214 (discharge document) be corrected to show that she had served for six or eight years on inactive duty in the Coast Guard Reserve. To be timely, an application for correction of a military record must be submitted within three years after the alleged error or injustice was or should have been discovered. The applicant was discharged approximately 19 years before she filed her application with...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-188

    Original file (2009-188.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1 COMDTINST 7220.1 states that a SELRES enlistment bonus will be recouped if a member enlists on active duty. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ALCOAST 056/06 authorizes an enlistment bonus of $6,000 for members enlisting in the SELRES for at least six years. When the applicant was counseled about her SELRES enlistment bonus on May 15, 2007, she acknowledged having read and fully understood COMDTINST 7220.1, which clearly states that SELRES enlistment bonuses are subject to recoupment if the...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-131

    Original file (2009-131.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case This final decision, dated December 17, 2009, 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 was enlisted in pay grade E-3 instead of E-1. His Reservation Request for recruit training also shows that he had been approved for a six-year enlistment in pay grade E-3, as does an “Applicant Information Page – Enlisted.” VIEWS...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2011-165

    Original file (2011-165.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD 214, which he signed, also shows in blocks 23 through 28 that he was honorably released from active duty due to “completion of required active service” and, in block 29, that he had no “time lost.” Block 12 contains the following entries, in pertinent part: 12. The PSC noted that the applicant does not contest his dates of enlistment or discharge and alleged that the calculation of his time net active service in block 12.c. [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] ORDER The...

  • CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2001-076

    Original file (2001-076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Chief Counsel stated that according to the Personnel Manual, a member with eight years or more of military service is entitled to a hearing before an ADB, if the Coast Guard intends to discharge the member involuntarily prior to the end of that member’s enlistment. The only evidence of any previous military service in her Coast Guard record is a comment in the alcohol evaluation report that she had served in the Army for six years, not eight. If the applicant had wanted to remain in...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2006-179

    Original file (2006-179.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. However, CGPC stated that the Coast Guard “is bound by the earlier [August 14, 2006] oath [of office] and recommends that the August 19, 2006 oath be removed from her record.” CGPC further stated that the applicant’s Direct Access Orders show that she was supposed to begin EAD “in time to report to DCO [Direct Commission Officer] School and...

  • 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 | Other Cases | 2008-005

    Original file (2008-005.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...