DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-095 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 February 7, 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 November 18, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct the annexes to his original enlistment contract to 
show that he enlisted to  become an  electrician’s  mate (EM), instead of an operations specialist 
(OS).    The  applicant  stated  that  during  his  enlistment  process,  EM  was  the  only  rating  he  dis-
cussed with his recruiter.  Moreover, he attended EM “A” School directly after completing boot 
camp and is currently an EM3.  However, he alleged, the annexes he completed pursuant to his 
enlistment erroneously indicate that he was enlisting to become an OS.  In support of his allega-
tions, the applicant submitted many of his enlistment documents, including the following: 

 

  The  applicant’s  enlistment  contract,  dated  October  19,  2009,  incorporates  by  reference 
several  annexes.    The  fourth  page  of  the  contract,  signed  by  the  applicant,  notes  in  the 
“Remarks” section the annexes he had signed, his enlistment in pay grade E-3 because he 
had prior military service, the fact that it was a four-year enlistment, and the fact that he 
would be attending “OS A School.” 
 

  Annex D, signed by the applicant and his recruiter on October 19, 2009, states the follow-
ing:    “1.  I  have  been  guaranteed  that  I  will  be  assigned  to  OS  Class  “A”  School,  class 
convening on 1/4/2010. …”   
 

  Annex  T,  signed  by  the  applicant  and  his  recruiter  on  October  19,  2009,  states  that  the 
applicant was offered a $4,000 enlistment bonus to affiliate with the OS rating.  Annex T 

 

 

 

also states that if he did not graduate from OS “A” School or serve in the  OS rating, he 
would be ineligible for the bonus and any unearned portion of it would be recouped. 
 

  Travel orders issued on October 27, 2009, ordered the applicant to report for training at 
EM “A” School in Yorktown, Virginia, from January 3, 2010 to May 14, 2010, following 
his completion of recruit training. 
 

  Travel  orders  issued  on  April  13,  2010,  assigned  the  applicant  to  a  unit  to  serve  as  an 

electrician from May 30, 2010, to July 1, 2014. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  June  2,  2011,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 

advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   

 
The JAG stated that the applicant’s enlistment  documents show that he was promised a 
$4,000 bonus if he attended OS “A” School and served as an OS for the term of his enlistment.  
The JAG pointed out that the annex promising the bonus stated that it he would be ineligible for 
the bonus or the bonus would be recouped if he did not graduate from OS “A” School or serve in 
the OS rating.  The JAG pointed out that the  applicant signed each of the documents regarding 
his attendance of OS “A” School and the bonus for affiliating with the OS rating.  Therefore, the 
JAG  argued  that  the  applicant  has  “failed  to  carry  his  burden  of  production  and  persuasion  to 
show that these documents incorrectly indicate OS vice EM.” 

 
The JAG stated that the Coast Guard has not found any documentation revealing how the 
applicant  ended  up  attending  EM  “A”  School,  instead  of  OS  “A”  School.    The  JAG  included 
with his memorandum a copy of an email from the Recruit Servicing Personnel Officer (SPO) at 
the recruit training center.  The SPO stated that “I’m not sure how things were handled prior to 
my arrival at [the training center].  Our current process is that if member elects to decline their 
guaranteed ‘A’ School assignment as shown on their enlistment contract (DD FORM 4/1), they 
would sign a CG-3307 [“Page 7”] that would be filed in the [personnel data record].  The CG-
3307 also states that any bonus was part of this assignment that it would become null and void 
[sic].”  The SPO submitted a form recruits currently fill out to explain why they are relinquishing 
their “A” School guarantee and to acknowledge how much bonus the recruit would lose by relin-
quishing their guaranteed “A” School assignment.  The SPO also submitted a copy of the Page 7 
recruits currently sign when they are relinquishing their “A” School guarantee, which states the 
following: 
 

I  hereby  decline  my  guaranteed  Class  “A”  school  assignment  of  ______  Class  “A”  School  as 
shown on my enlistment contract, DD form 4/1.  I understand that this will enable me to request 
orders in conjunction with normal recruit procedures.  I understand that I am not eligible to request 
another Class “A” school until I have been assigned to my first unit for 4 months.  I fully under-
stand this cancellation of my guaranteed Class “A” school assignment if final [sic].  I also under-
stand that if any bonus was part of this assignment, the bonus becomes null and void. 
 
The JAG attached to his advisory opinion a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Ser-
vice Center (PSC) and adopted the findings and analysis provided by the PSC.  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.  The PSC stated that the applicant’s enlistment  contract  “is  not  wrong or inaccurate in 
any part and is still valid.  At time of enlistment, the offer listed in Annex D was the proposed 
offer made to the Applicant and did not obligate him in any way to only become an OS.  Being 
that he chose another rate, all terms of the contract relating to him becoming an OS are moot, but 
do not negate the remaining terms of the contract.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On June 9, 2011, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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 applicable law: 
 
 
cation was timely filed. 
 

1. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  over  this  matter  under  10  U.S.C.  § 1552.   The  appli-

2. 

The applicant alleged that the annexes to his enlistment contract erroneously show 
that he intended to earn the OS rating and was promised an enlistment bonus for doing so when 
the only rating he discussed with his recruiter was the EM rating, which he did earn.  Therefore, 
he asked the Board to correct the annexes to reflect his intention to enlist as an EM.  The Board 
begins  its  analysis  in  every  case  by  presuming  that  the  disputed  information  in  the  applicant’s 
military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the burden of proving 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or unjust.1  

 
3. 

The  evidence  before  the  Board  shows  that  after  his  enlistment,  the  applicant 
attended EM “A” School and became an EM.  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.  His enlistment contract and two annexes to the contract show that the 
promise of the enlistment bonus was contingent  upon his earning and serving in the OS rating.  
The  applicant  signed  the  three  documents  acknowledging  the  guarantee  and  bonus  offer  for 
attending OS “A” School on October 19, 2009, and he has not proved that they do not reflect the 
promises made to him by his recruiter.   

 
4. 

The Board notes that the Coast Guard is unable to explain why the applicant was 
issued orders to attend EM “A” School, instead of OS “A” School.  However, the applicant did 
not  complain  about  being  denied  OS  “A”  School  and  indicated  that  he  intended  to  attend  EM 
“A” School all along. 

                                                 
1 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, Government officials are presumed 
to have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith”). 

 

 

 
5. 

The Board  also  notes that the applicant  did  not  mention  the unearned OS enlist-
ment bonus on his application to the Board.  Because the applicant earned the EM rating, instead 
of the OS rating, he is not entitled to the  OS enlistment bonus he was offered upon enlistment.  
After  enlistment,  members  sometimes  become  eligible  for  critical  skills  training  bonuses 
(CSTBs) in exchange for agreeing to attend certain “A” schools, but the applicant has made no 
allegations about a CSTB and there is no documentation in the record that he was ever promised 
one. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  denied  because  the  applicant  has  not  proved  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that the references to the OS rating on his enlistment contract and 
two annexes to the enlistment contract, which he signed on October 19, 2009, are erroneous or 
unjust.   
 
  

 
6. 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction 

of his military record is denied.  

 

 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 H. Quinton Lucie