DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2011-181 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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 June 3, 2011, and assigned the case 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  February  23,  2012,  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  enlisted  as  a  third 
class  petty  officer  (pay  grade  E-4),  rather  than  a  seaman  (pay  grade  E-3).    He  alleged  that  he 
enlisted  in  the  Reserve  under  the  Prior  Service  Enlistment  Program  (RQ),  and  that  under  that 
program the beginning pay grade is E-4.  However, his recruiter erroneously enlisted him in pay 
grade E-3.   
 
 
In  support  of  these  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  memorandum  from  the  Com-
mandant to the Recruiting Command dated February 3, 2010, which announced several changes 
to  the  various  Reserve  programs.    Paragraph  1.e.  announces  changes  to  the  RQ  program  and 
states the following in pertinent part: 
 

The RQ program is expanded to allow for DoD personnel with greater than 8 years of honorable 
service to enter the Coast Guard with a rate determination package.  This allows for experienced, 
prior  service  members  to  access  as  Petty  Officers  (maximum  accession  rank  is  E-4)  and  attend 
DEPOT  [Direct  Entry  Petty  Officer  Training]  based  on  their  prior  service  leadership  skills  and 
experience  (e.g.,  Army  tankers  have  the  leadership  skills  and  experience  but  not  Coast  Guard 
specific  skills).    Rate  determination  package  recommendation  by  RFMCs  required  unless  prior 
Coast  Guard  member  is  separated  less  than  5  years.    Recruiters  will  prepare  and  submit  rate 
determination packages to CGRC [the Recruiting Command] for prior service members from DoD 
services whose military experience does not translate to a Coast Guard rating. 

 

 

 

The applicant also submitted his Reserve enlistment contract dated March 6, 2011, with a 
 
Record of Military Processing showing that he was enlisted as an E-3 and signed an “Annex L—
RQ Statement of Understanding; Guaranteed MST  [marine science technician] A School on 03 
JAN  2012.”    The  Annex  L  Statement  of  Understanding  for  the  RQ  program  that  the  applicant 
signed on January 28, 2011, states the following in paragraph 3:  “For those enlisting as E-3:  I 
have been guaranteed assignment to Class A-School for the   MST   rating. …” 

 
The  applicant  also  submitted  a  discharge  form  DD  214  showing  that  he  had  previously 
served exactly four years in the U.S. Marine Corps from November 21, 1989, to November 20, 
1993, and was honorably released into the Marine Corps Reserve in pay grade E-4.  The DD 214 
shows  that  he  spent  17  months  as  a  field  radio  operator  and  18  months  as  a  reconnaissance 
marine parachutist. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  14,  2011,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  submitted  an  advisory  opinion  in 
which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the find-
ings and analysis provided in a memorandum prepared by the Personnel Service Center (PSC).   
 

The PSC stated that the applicant’s specialties in the Marine Corps were field radio oper-
ator and reconnaissance marine parachutist and that there is no equivalent Coast Guard rating for 
these specialties.  Therefore, the applicant was enlisted with a promise of guaranteed “A” School 
to  become  an  MST.    The  PSC  noted  that  the  Recruiting  Manual  describes  the  RQ  program  in 
Table  3-A  and  states  that  if  the  member  was  discharged  from  a  service  other  than  the  Coast 
Guard  and discharged more than five  years previously,  a rate determination must be made  and 
that 
 

E-4s  and  E-5s  from  other  services  whose  military  occupational  specialties  do  not  translate  to  a 
Coast Guard rating may be enlisted as E-3s and shall receive a guaranteed “A” School to imme-
diately  follow  REBI [Reserve Enlisted Basic Indoctrination].  The time-in-grade requirement for 
advancement to E-4 shall be waived and the member shall immediately advance upon graduation 
from “A” School. 
 
The PSC stated that pursuant to this policy, the applicant’s pay grade remains E-3 until he 

 
graduates from MST “A” School.  Therefore, the Board should deny relief. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  20,  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: 
 

 

 

1. 

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

The application was timely filed. 

 
2. 

The applicant alleged that he should have been enlisted in pay grade E-4 because 
of his prior military service but that his recruiter made a mistake by enlisting him as an E-3.  The 
Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information in the appli-
cant’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. 
33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b).    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard 
officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, lawfully, and 
in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United 
States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
3. 

The  revision  of  the  policy  for  the  RQ  program  announced  in  the  memorandum 
dated February 3, 2010, expanded the program “to allow for DoD personnel with greater than 8 
years  of  honorable  service  to  enter  the  Coast  Guard  with  a  rate  determination  package.”    This 
memorandum does not require prior service members enlisting in the RQ program to be enlisted 
in pay grade E-4; it merely allows them to be enlisted in pay grade E-4 depending upon the out-
come of a rate determination.1  As the PSC stated, there is no equivalent Coast Guard skill rating 
for a veteran discharged from active duty in 1993 with training and service as a field radio opera-
tor and a reconnaissance marine parachutist.  The record shows that, instead of receiving a petty 
officer rating and E-4 pay grade, the applicant was enlisted in advanced pay grade E-3, based on 
his  prior  military  service,  and  was  guaranteed  training  as  a  marine  science  technician  with 
advancement to  E-4 upon graduation.   He signed an Annex  L regarding  his  E-3 pay  grade  and 
MST  “A”  School  on  January  28,  2011,  and  that  annex  was  incorporated  by  reference  in  his 
enlistment contract.  The Board concludes that the evidence of record does not substantiate that 
the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice in enlisting the applicant in pay grade E-3. 

 
4. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
1 The Board also notes that the applicant served 4 years on active duty in the Marine Corps and presumably another 
4 years in the Marine Corps Reserve, which would give him exactly 8 years of prior military service, but there is no 
evidence that he had served greater than 8 years, as required by the memorandum. 

 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCGR, for correction of his military 

record is denied.  

ORDER 

 

  

 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 
 
 Erin J. Greten 

 

 
 Vicki J. Ray