DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2000-154 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 applica-
tion  was  docketed  on  June  29,  2000,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed 
application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  19,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant,  a  XXXXXX,  asked  the  Board  to  release  him  from  active 
duty or, in the alternative, to void an extension contract that he signed on March 
14, 1997.   
 

The applicant alleged that in 1997, when he completed a Striker training 
program1 and advanced from seaman to xxx (pay grade E-4), he received transfer 
orders to a new unit.  He alleged that when his command called USCG Group 
xxxxxxxx to get his new permanent change of station (PCS) orders, his command 
was told that to accept the orders, he had to obligate himself to serve another 24 
months,  in  addition  to  the  26  months  remaining  on  his  initial  enlistment,  by 
                                                 
1  The Striker program is an on-the-job training program that allows seamen to advance to pay 
grade E-4 in certain ratings, such as XXXX, without attending school.  When a member completes 
the program, his commanding officer notifies the Coast Guard to put him on an eligibility list for 
advancement to E-4.  Members on the list are advanced in order of precedence.  See Article 5.E.1., 
Personnel Manual. 

extending  that  enlistment.    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  asked  what  would 
happen if he decided not to extend his enlistment and was told that he “would 
be  put  anywhere  at  anytime.”    When  he  asked  how  long  he  had  to  make  the 
decision,  the  yeoman  at  Group  xxxxx  told  his  command  he  had  to  make  the 
decision right at that moment while they were on the phone.  Therefore, without 
any chance to consider his options carefully, he agreed to extend his enlistment. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  two  errors  and 
injustices:    first,  he  was  advised  that  he  had  to  extend  his  enlistment  by  24 
months to accept the PCS orders when it was not actually required under Article 
4.B.6.a.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual;  and  second,  he  was  given  no  time  to  make 
this significant decision but had to decide immediately.  The applicant stated that 
he now has an opportunity to join a local police department and wants to pursue 
that career.   

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from his 
commanding officer, who wrote that he recommended that the Board grant the 
applicant’s request because he had “reviewed his records and agree[d] that inac-
curate  information  was  given  regarding  his  enlistment  and  extension.”    The 
applicant also submitted a copy of a letter congratulating him for being accepted 
by the police training academy and instructing him to report to the academy on 
September 21, 2000. Therefore, he asked the Board to correct his record to coun-
teract the errors and injustices committed by the Coast Guard. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On May 9, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four  years.    After  completing  boot  camp,  he  was  assigned  to  Coast  Guard 
XXXXX.  While serving as a seaman at XXXXX, he completed a Striker program 
and  was  advanced  to  xxx  on  December  1,  1996.    Thereafter,  he  received  PCS 
orders for a transfer to XXXXXXX. 
 

On March 14, 1997, the applicant signed a two-year contract extending his 
enlistment through May 8, 2001.  The extension contract shows that the reason 
for the extension was to obligate sufficient service for the transfer to XXXXXXX.  
He reported to his new unit on March 24, 1997.  The applicant’s record contains 
several highly laudatory administrative entries for his work at XXXXXX.  He was 
advanced to xxx on July 1, 1999. 

 

 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “[s]ervice members … 
E-4 and above with less than six years of active duty will not normally be trans-

ferred unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full 
tour on reporting to a new unit.”  Under Article 4.A.5.b., a full tour length at a 
shore unit in the continental United States, such as XXXXXXX, was four years.  

 
Article 4.B.6.a.3. of the current Personnel Manual states that “[m]embers 
recommended for advancement under the striker program and on the striker eli-
gibility  list  for  advancement  are  required  to  have  two  years’  obligated  service 
remaining upon reporting to the new unit, unless otherwise directed.”  However, 
this  provision  did  not  exist  in  March  1997.    The  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in 
March  1997  (Change  26)  contained  no  specific  requirement  for  “strikers”  in 
receipt of transfer orders. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 21, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s 
request. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant’s argument that he was not 
required  to  sign  the  extension  contract  because  of  the  provision  in  Article 
4.B.6.a.3. is meritless.  He alleged that under Article 4.B.6.a.1., the applicant was 
required  “to  have  sufficient  obligated  service  to  complete  a  full  tour  of  duty 
upon  reporting  to  his  new  unit.”    The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  under  that 
article,  members  in  pay  grade  E-4  or  higher  with  less  than  six  years  of  active 
service cannot receive PCS orders unless they have obligated sufficient service to 
complete  a  full  tour  at  their  new  unit.    He  alleged  that  a  full  tour  at  the 
“INCONUS”  unit  to  which  the  applicant  was  transferred  was  four  years.  
Therefore,  depending  upon  when  the  applicant  expected  to  be  transferred,  he 
had to obligate sufficient service to serve at his new unit for four full years. 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that Article 4.B.6.a.3. did not apply to the appli-
 
cant when he received the PCS orders because he was no longer on the striker 
eligibility  list  and  had  already  been  advanced  to  E-4.    Therefore,  the  terms  of 
Article 4.B.6.a.1. applied to his situation. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  December  21,  2000,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the 
views  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On 
December  27,  2000,  the  applicant  responded,  stating  that  after  doing  some 
research  on  the  matter,  he  had  no  objection  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  recommen-
dation.  He stated that his application had been based upon some misinformation 
he 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 sec-

tion 1552 of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

In  March  1997,  when the  applicant  was  offered  transfer  orders  to 
XXXXX, he was no longer a “striker,” having been promoted to xxx, pay grade E-
4,  on  December  1,  1996.    Therefore,  under  Article  4.B.6.a.1.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual then in effect, he was required to obligate sufficient service to complete a 
full tour at the station.  Under Article 4.A.5.b, a full tour at xxxxxxxx was four 
years.    Therefore,  to  accept  the  orders,  he  had  to  have  obligated  at  least  48 
months of service prior to his arrival at the new station. 

Article 4.B.6.a.3. of the current Personnel Manual does not apply to 
the applicant’s case because it was not in existence in March 1997 and because he 
was not on the striker eligibility list at that time. 

The applicant alleged that he was pressured into making the deci-
sion to extend.  However, he did not prove that he was coerced into signing the 
extension  contract.    Moreover,  his  response  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory 
opinion indicates that he no longer contests the validity of the extension contract. 

The applicant has not proved that the Coast Guard committed any 
error or injustice in requiring him to sign a two-year extension contract to accept 
his transfer orders to xxxxxxxxx in March 1997. 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
Robert A. Monniere 

 

 

 
Blane A. Workie