DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BCMR Docket No. 2003-077
FINAL DECISION
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair:
This proceeding was conducted according to 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 May 19, 2003, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application.
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
This final decision, dated December 18, 2003, is signed by the three duly appoint-
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to correct his official home of record from
xxxxxxxx, MS, to xxxxxxx, MN. He alleged that he grew up in Minnesota and lived
there until he entered active duty. However, because he was visiting Mississippi when
he entered the Reserve under the delayed entry program (DEP), his home of record was
erroneously listed as Mississippi.
The applicant’s DEP enlistment application, dated March 24, 1989, shows that his
mailing address was in xxxxxx, MN, but that his home of record was in Mississippi.
The next page of the form shows that he had lived in Minnesota since at least 1981 and
was still living there. On April 18, 1989, when the applicant was released from the
Reserve to enlist in the regular Coast Guard, he was asked to review all of the
information on his DEP application and to indicate whether it was correct. He
indicated that it was all correct except for his home of record, which, he wrote in the
space provided for corrections, should be xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx.
The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief.
He stated that the applicant had claimed xxxxxx, MN, as his home of record since his
enlistment on April 18, 1989, and that his attempt to correct the error on his DEP
enlistment application had been overlooked. He pointed out that the Joint Federal
Travel Regulations (JFTR) define “home of record” as “[t]he place recorded as the home
of the individual when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into a
tour of active duty.”
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 appli-
cable law:
The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552. The application was timely.
The applicant’s DEP enlistment application shows that he was living in
xxxxxx, MN, when he enlisted in the regular Coast Guard, but also shows an address in
xxxxxxxxx, MS, as his home of record. Since he was living in Minnesota when he enlist-
ed, under the JFTR, his home of record should have been listed as xxxxxx, MN. His
attempt to correct his home of record less than one month later, when he enlisted in the
regular Coast Guard, was apparently overlooked.
Accordingly, the Board agrees with the Chief Counsel that the applicant’s
request should be granted.
1.
2.
3.
correction.
ORDER
The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military
record is granted.
His record shall be corrected to show that his official “home of record” when he
enlisted was xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx.
The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount he may be due as a result of this
Julia Andrews
Felisa C. Garmon
Dorothy J. Ulmer
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-142
He stated that this was an error because Wrightwood, CA, is not his HOR, “but rather where [he] was living while stationed in the Air National Guard. CGPC stated that “[a]t the time of his original enlistment in the Coast Guard, he listed his residence as Wrightwood, CA 92397, and he was enlisted at Recruiting Office San Diego, CA.” CGPC stated that his “HOR for the Coast Guard is based upon his home at the time he enlisted in the Coast Guard.” When he enlisted in the Coast Guard, “he was...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2002-022
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing his home of record from XXXXXXXXX, New Jersey to XXXXXXXXXX, Kansas. He recommended that the Board deny relief to the applicant because the applicant failed to submit persuasive evidence that his home of record was incorrectly listed in his military record. The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant listed XXXXXXXX, New Jersey as his home of record when he enlisted in the Army in 1995 and listed XXXXXXXXX, New Jersey as his...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1998-067
This final decision, dated December 17, 1998, is signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF The applicant, a xxxxxx in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his record by removing a special officer evaluation report (disputed OER) received while serving as the xxxxxxxxx at the xxxxxxxx.1 The applicant also requested that the Board remove from his record any other documents referring to his removal as xxxxxxxxx. “The xxxx” was the xxx of the Xxxxxxxxx of the Xxxxxx. ...
He alleged that on December 17, 2001, he was counseled that he was eligible to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 127/01 but was never paid the SRB. On December 17, 2001, ALCOAST 127/01 was in effect and authorized a Zone A SRB with a multiple of xxxxx for members in the XX rating. Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by voiding the applicant’s four-year reenlistment contract, signed on May 24, 2002, and by offering him the opportunity to extend his original enlistment contract for 2 years.
On May 30, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard stated that, if the applicant met the criteria for a Zone B SRB on the date of his sixth anniversary, the Board should grant the requested relief. The record indicates that the applicant met the criteria for a Zone B SRB on his sixth anniversary in that he was serving in pay grade E-5 and had not previously received a Zone B SRB. The Board further finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted on...
On December 12, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s requested relief because the record supports the applicant’s allegation that he was improperly counseled. The Chief Counsel admits and the Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error when it promised the applicant a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 585/01 despite there being no multiple available therein for his rating. The Board is persuaded that had the applicant known that he was...
the Zone A SRB that was authorized for members in the XX rating at the time under ALCOAST 184/99.2 Therefore, he extended his enlistment for only 30 months, which was the minimum amount of additional service that he had to obligate in order to accept his transfer orders and avoid discharge.3 The applicant alleged that he should have been advised and allowed to extend his service for 36 months to receive the SRB. If the applicant had extended his enlistment for 36 months in March 2000, he...
2003-028 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the six-year reenlistment contract he signed on September 13, 2002, in order to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02. He stated that because the applicant previously received a Zone B SRB, the Board should void the applicant’s September 13, 2002 reenlistment contract. The Chief Counsel admitted and the Board finds that the Coast Guard erred by advising...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1999-047
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On September 1, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommend- ed that the Board deny the applicant’s request. Under the JFTR, the Home of Record is defined as “the place recorded as the home of the individual when commis- sioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into the relevant tour of active duty.” The Chief Counsel explained that the purpose of having a Home of Record is “to determine the extent of the member’s entitlement to travel...
He alleged that he was improperly counseled about his eligibility to extend his reenlistment within the 3 months prior to his 10th active duty anniversary (March 20, 2000) for a Zone B SRB. On March 14, 2000, the applicant was advised that he could receive a Zone B SRB by extending the 4-year reenlistment contact he signed on May 28, 1999, through May 27, 2003. He recommended that the Board grant relief by correcting the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on March 14, 2000, for...