DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2007-110 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

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 March 8, 2007, upon receipt 
of the 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 November 29, 2007, 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 timely advanced 
to the rate of machinery technician, second class (MK2/E-5) off of the advancement list in 2004 
and  that  he  reenlisted  for  four  years  on  April  15,  2004,  to  receive  an  SRB  under  ALCOAST 
182/03.  The applicant alleged that the MK2 End of Course examination he took in April 2004 
was  incorrectly  graded  and,  as  a  result,  he  was  not  timely  advanced  and  was  not  eligible  to 
reenlist for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  In support of his request, the applicant submit-
ted the following: 
 

•  A  memorandum  from  the  Coast  Guard  Institute  to  the  applicant’s  command,  dated 
February 22, 2006, states that a “scoring error was discovered, and your MK2 test administered 
on April 15, 2004, has been rescored, resulting in a passing score.” 

•  ALCOAST 070/06, dated February 9, 2006, states that scoring errors at the institute 
“may have resulted in missed or delayed advancement eligibility for affected CG members.”  The 
ALCOAST explained how commands could verify affected members’ qualifications for advance-
ment  and  inform  the  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  of  the  dates  the  command  would  have 
asked that their names be placed on the advancement lists had the scoring errors not occurred. 

•  A message dated March 30, 2006, from the applicant’s current command to the PSC 
states that the “institute erroneously graded [the applicant’s] end of course test.  [He] re-took and 
passed the test on 09/09/2004 and was put on the advancement list as of that date.  [He] should 
have been placed on the list on 04/15/2004.  Depending on the correct date [he] would have been 

advanced to MK2, he may have been able to receive a SRB when he reenlisted and may be due 
back pay and BAH.”  

•  An email dated June 7, 2006, from a yeoman to the applicant states that he is “ineligi-
ble to receive or recoup any SRB” for his April 22, 2004, extension because the contract was 
signed more than a month before he advanced to MK2.  The yeoman wrote that if he had waited 
until June to sign the extension contract, he would have been entitled to the SRB. 

•    Documentation showing that his active duty base date is May 27, 2001. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY RECORDS 

 
On July 25, 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years, through July 

24, 2005.  He had previously performed 58 days of active service as a reservist. 

 
On January 16, 2004, the applicant, an MK3, received orders to transfer from his overseas 
unit to a unit in California.  The orders indicated that his departure date from his overseas unit 
was June 1, 2004, and that he should report to his new unit on July 1, 2004.  The orders further 
show that the applicant requested 37 days of leave beginning on May 20, 2004, and that he was 
given 6 days of proceed and travel time from June 26 through July 1, 2004.  To accept the trans-
fer orders, the applicant was required to have at least four full years of service obligation upon 
reporting to the new unit.1  Since his end of enlistment (EOE) at the time was July 24, 2005, he 
needed to obligate at least 36 more months of service, from July 25, 2005, through July 24, 2008, 
before reporting to his new unit on July 1, 2004.   

 
On  April  15,  2004,  the  applicant  took  an  MK2  End  of  Course  test  through  the  Coast 

Guard Institute.  The institute reported that he had not passed the test.   

 
On April 22, 2004, the applicant’s command submitted his performance evaluation for 

the period ending March 31, 2004.  He was recommended for advancement. 

 
Also on April 22, 2004, the applicant signed a 36-month extension contract to accept his 
transfer  orders.    At  the  time,  ALCOAST  182/03 authorized no SRB multiple for MK3s but a 
multiple of 1.5 for MK2s.  As an MK3, the applicant was not authorized or promised an SRB. 

 
On May 20, 2004, the applicant began 37 days of leave and then 6 days of proceed and 

travel time pursuant to his transfer orders from his overseas unit to California. 

 
On May 24, 2004, the Commandant issued ALCGENL 088/04, which announced that as 
of June 1, 2004, certain advancements could be made from the MK2 advancement list as long as 
the listed members were recommended for advancement by their commands2 and met the other 
eligibility criteria in Article 5.C. of the Personnel Manual. 

                                                 
1 Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual states that members with less than six years of active service will not 
normally be transferred to a new unit unless they obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at the new 
unit before reporting there.  Under Article 4.A.5.a.2., a full tour at the applicant’s new unit in California was 4 years. 
2 Article 5.C.4.e.4. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he commanding officer's recommendation for advance-
ment or change in rating by participation in the SWE is valid only for a specific competition and must be renewed for 
each succeeding competition.” 

 
In  September  2004,  the  applicant  passed  a  subsequent  End  of  Course  test,  and  he 
advanced to MK2 on February 1, 2005.  However, when scoring errors were discovered in 2006, 
PSC  retroactively  placed  the  applicant’s  name  on  the  advancement  list  as  of  April  22,  2004, 
which is the date his command completed his eligibility for advancement by submitting his per-
formance evaluation for the period ending March 31, 2004, with his commanding officer’s rec-
ommendation for advancement.  As a result, his date of advancement to MK2 was backdated to 
June 1, 2004, which is the date of rank he would have had if his name had actually been placed 
on the list on April 22, 2004, and he received back pay and allowances. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On July 31, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended 
that the Board deny the applicant’s request.  He adopted the findings and analysis provided in a 
memorandum on the case prepared by the Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC). 
 
 
CGPC stated that the applicant’s adjusted date of rank as an MK2 was properly calculated 
to be June 1, 2004.  CGPC further stated that the applicant chose to depart his overseas unit on 
leave  on  May  20,  2004,  and  was  required  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  accept  his  transfer 
orders before beginning his travel.  Since even with the adjusted date of rank, he was still an 
MK3 when he left the overseas unit, he was not eligible for an SRB when he signed the exten-
sion contract on April 22, 2004.  CGPC noted, however, that the applicant was entitled to reenlist 
on his 6th active duty anniversary for an SRB and that there is no documentation of timely SRB 
counseling in his record.  Although the applicant did not request such relief, CGPC recommend-
ed that he be afforded the opportunity to reenlist for an SRB on his 6th anniversary. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

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

On July 25, 2007, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory opinion and 

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.  

1. 

 

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, as a result of a 
scoring error, he was not advanced to MK2 until February 1, 2005.  The Coast Guard stated that 
his date of rank has been retroactively backdated to June 1, 2004, and that he has received back 
pay and allowances.  However, the applicant alleges that as a result of not being timely advanced, 
he missed an opportunity to receive a Zone A SRB.  To prevail on his claim, the applicant must 

show that, if the test had been properly scored in April 2004, he would have been eligible for the 
SRB when he extended his enlistment to accept his transfer orders.3   

The applicant alleged that, had no scoring error been made, his name would have 
been placed on the advancement list on April 15, 2004.  His command’s message to the PSC 
dated March 30, 2006, supports this allegation.  However, the applicant’s performance evaluation 
was not completed and submitted until April 22, 2004.  In fixing the problems created by the 
scoring errors, in accordance with ALCOAST 070/06, CGPC determined that the applicant first 
became eligible for advancement on April 22, 2004, because that was the date CGPC received 
his  performance  evaluation  with  his  commanding  officer’s  recommendation  for  advancement.  
Under Article 5.C.4. of the Personnel Manual, a recommendation for advancement on the mem-
ber’s performance evaluation for the most recent evaluation period is an essential requirement for 
advancement.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved that CGPC erred in 
placing his name on the advancement list as of April 22, 2004, rather than April 15, 2004. 

 
Moreover, the applicant has not shown that if his name had been placed on the 
advancement list as of April 15, 2004, instead of April 22, 2004, he would have been advanced 
to MK2 any earlier than June 1, 2004, pursuant to ALCGENL 088/04. 
 
 
The applicant signed his extension contract on April 22, 2004, when he was an 
MK3 and therefore ineligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 182/03.  If no scoring error had been 
made, he would have timely advanced to MK2 and been eligible for an SRB as of June 1, 2004.  
This  circumstance  raises  the  question  of  whether,  if  no  scoring  error  had  been  made,  the 
applicant would have known that he would be advanced on June 1, 2004, and would have been 
able to delay signing his extension contract until that date.  However, the applicant left his com-
mand on leave on May 20, 2007, and was required to accept his transfer orders by obligating the 
36  months  of  additional  service  before  leaving  his  old  unit.    ALCGENL  088/04,  which 
announced the names of those members who could be advanced to MK2 on June 1, 2004, was 
not issued until May 24, 2007.  Therefore, there is no way that the applicant or his command 
could have known in April or early May 2004 that he would be advanced to MK2 on June 1, 
2007, and so become eligible for an SRB.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of 
the evidence that he was deprived of an opportunity to earn an SRB in 2004 because of the Coast 
Guard Institute’s scoring error. 
 

As CGPC noted in the advisory opinion, the applicant was eligible to reenlist on 
his 6th active duty anniversary for an SRB under ALCOAST 283/06.  According to a Statement 
of Creditable Service in his record, the applicant’s active duty base date is May 27, 2001.  There-
fore, his 6th anniversary would have been May 27, 2007, and there is no documentation of SRB 
counseling on that date as required by Article 3.C.11.2. of the Personnel Manual. 

6. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

5. 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied, but alternative relief should 
be granted by offering him the opportunity to reenlist on his 6th anniversary for a Zone A SRB 
under ALCOAST 283/06. 

 

                                                 
3 Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 “entitles a complainant to nothing more than placement in the same position he would have 
been had no error been made.” Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188, 199-200 (1975). 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 
record is denied, except that the Coast Guard shall counsel him about SRBs and offer him the 
opportunity to reenlist as of his 6th active duty anniversary for 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at his discretion, 
to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 283/06. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 
  
  

 
 James E. McLeod