DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2008-142 

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 on May 23, 2008, upon receipt of 
the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to prepare 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 February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his official home of record (HOR) on his dis-
charge form DD 214 from Wrightwood, CA, to Onalaska, WI.  The applicant alleged that the 
Wrightwood, CA, address that is currently shown as his HOR on his DD 214 resulted from an 
“error of paperwork during [his] transition from [the] Air National Guard to the United States 
Coast Guard.”   

 
The applicant stated that he enlisted in the Air National Guard on February 25, 2004, and 
that those enlistment records show that his HOR is in Onalaska, WI.  He stated that he is from 
Onalaska, WI, and had lived there his whole life.  However, when he enlisted in the Coast Guard 
on  May  24,  2006,  he  filled  out  his  paperwork  and  wrote  down  his  then  current  address  in 
Wrightwood, CA, as his HOR.  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.  I was 
living in CA and because of this the recruiter assumed my Home of Record was my residence.  
Not being savvy and trained in the regulations of enlistments, I assumed the paperwork would be 
filled out correctly and signed [it].” 

 
In support of his allegations the applicant submitted a copy of his Alaska Air National 
Guard enlistment contract dated February 25, 2004, which shows that his HOR was Onalaska, 
WI, and that his place of enlistment was Anchorage, AK.  He also submitted a copy of his Coast 
Guard DD 214, dated May 26, 2008, which shows his HOR as Wrightwood, CA. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On February 25, 2004, when the applicant enlisted in the Alaska Air National Guard at 

 
the age of 23, his enlistment contract noted his HOR as being in Onalaska, WI.   
 
 
On May 24, 2006, the applicant went to a recruiting office in San Diego, CA, and enlisted 
in the Coast Guard.  There is no paper enlistment contract in his record.  However, the address 
history in the Coast Guard’s database indicates that his HOR is a house on a residential street in 
Wrightwood, CA.  In addition, the applicant’s Leave and Earnings Statements (LESes) for June 
and July 2006 show that his mailing address was in Wrightwood, CA, and California State tax 
was being withheld from his pay.  In addition, the June LES shows that on May 24, 2006, the 
applicant began receiving a basic allowance for housing at the “with dependent” rate (BAH DEP) 
for zip code 92397, which is the zip code for Wrightwood, CA. 
 

Beginning as of August 1, 2006, the applicant’s mailing address on his LES was changed 
to Sitka, AK, which was the location of his first duty station, Air Station Sitka.  In addition, his 
home address in the Coast Guard’s database was changed to Sitka, AK. 
 
On  May  26,  2008,  the  applicant  was  placed  on  the  temporary  disability  retired  list 
 
(TDRL) with a 30% disability rating due to a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.  His DD 214 shows 
his HOR as being in Wrightwood, CA.  The applicant’s travel orders indicate that he was moving 
to Onalaska, WI, and that his dependents included a wife, whom he married in 2003, and a son, 
who was born in 2007. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 14, 2008, the Judge Advocate General submitted an advisory opinion adopt-
ing  the  findings  and  analysis  provided  in  a  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the  Coast 
Guard Personnel Command (CGPC).  CGPC recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 
request.  In support of this recommendation, CGPC noted that the Joint Federal Travel Regula-
tions (JFTR), Appendix A, Part 1, define the HOR as follows: 
 

HOME OF RECORD (HOR). The place recorded as the home of the individual when commis-
sioned, appointed, enlisted, inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty. 
 
NOTE  1:  The  place  recorded  as  the  home  of  the  individual  when  reinstated,  reappointed,  or 
reenlisted remains the same as that recorded when commissioned, appointed, enlisted or inducted 
or ordered into the tour of active duty unless there is a break in service of more than one full day. 
Only if a break in service exceeds one full day may the member change the HOR. 
 
NOTE 2: Travel and transportation allowances are based on the officially corrected recording in 
those instances when, through a bona fide error, the place originally named at time of current entry 
into the Service was not in fact the actual home. Any such correction must be fully justified and the 
home, as corrected, must be the actual home of the member upon entering the Service, and not a 
different place selected for the member's convenience. 

CGPC further noted that Article 1.G.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “the enlist-

 
ment of any person who has previously served in the Regular Coast Guard.”1 
 
 
CGPC stated that while a member of the Air National Guard, the applicant was assigned 
to  a  squadron  in  Alaska  and  served  a  total  of  6  months  and  19  days  of  active  duty.    He  was 
released from the Air National Guard on May 23, 2006, so that he could enlist in the Coast Guard 
on May 24, 2006.  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 living in and 
claimed CA as his home.  While he served in the ANG, the reserve status and HOR from the 
non-active component do not carry over to his new period of active duty.” 
 
 
CGPC argued that the applicant “has failed to substantiate the existence of an error or 
injustice regarding his HOR.  The JFTR requires that the applicant fully justify correction of a 
bona fide error of the HOR and that the home, as corrected, be the actual home of the member 
upon entering the Service.”  CGPC argued that the applicant’s contract on May 24, 2006, was an 
original enlistment contract, rather than a reenlistment contract, and so his HOR upon his enlist-
ment in the ANG may not be carried over. 
 
 
Finally, CGPC noted a few errors in block 12 of the applicant’s DD 214 concerning the 
applicant’s time in service.  CGPC stated that these errors “can be administratively corrected by 
the Coast Guard.”2 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 16, 2008, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory 

 
 
opinion 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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely. 

1. 

 

                                                 
1 Article 1.G.1.a. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he enlistment of any person who has previously served in 
the Regular Coast Guard shall be considered a reenlistment. The enlistment of Coast Guard Reserve personnel who 
are serving on extended active duty and who have served on extended active duty of 12 months or more shall be 
considered a reenlistment.” 
2 CGPC stated that the applicant date of entry on active duty in block 12 should be changed from November 6, 2005, 
to May 24, 2006; that his net active service this period should be changed from 2 years, 6 months, and 21 days to  
2 years, 0 months, and 3 days; that his total prior active service should be changed from 6 months and 19 days to  
6 months and 18 days; and that his total prior inactive service should be changed from 0 to 1 year, 8 months, and  
12  days.    Because  these  corrections  are  not  clearly  in  the applicant’s interest and the applicant has not corrected 
them,  the  Board  should  take  no  action  with  respect  to  the  alleged  errors,  although  the  Coast  Guard  may  do  so 
administratively. 

2. 

 The  applicant  alleged  that  his  official  HOR  should  be  listed  as  Onalaska,  WI, 
because that is where he grew up.  However, under the JFTR, a member’s HOR is not defined as 
where the member grew up but as his residence at the time he enlists on active duty, as long as he 
has not had a break in service. 

The preponderance of the evidence in the record shows that when the applicant 
enlisted in the Coast Guard, his residence was in Wrightwood, CA, with zip code 92397.  The 
Wrightwood address he provided is a house, and he was presumably living there with his wife 
since he received BAH DEP.  Moreover, he was paying income tax to the State of California.  
Although the applicant may have grown up in Wisconsin, under the JFTR, Wrightwood, CA, was 
his proper HOR on the day he enlisted in the Coast Guard.   

The fact that Onalaska, WI, was the applicant’s HOR when he was a member of 
the Air National Guard does not prove that it should be his HOR in the Coast Guard because an 
HOR is only carried over from one period of service to another if the member is reenlisting with 
no break in service.  In this case, the applicant was not reenlisting on May 24, 2006, because he 
had never previously served on active duty in the Coast Guard.  Nor does it appear that the appli-
cant had no break in service as there is no evidence that he was serving on active duty in the Air 
National  Guard  when  he  was  discharged  from  that  service  on  May  23,  2006.    Under  Article 
1.G.1.a. of the Personnel Manual, a contract is only a reenlistment contract if the person has pre-
viously enlisted in the regular Coast Guard or if on the date of the contract, the person is a mem-
ber of the Coast Guard Reserve and has been serving on extended active duty for a continuous 
period of at least a year. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  SN  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

military record is denied.