DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 

 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2002-133 

 

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.  It was docketed July 5, 2002, upon the BCMR's 
receipt of the applicant's complete application for correction of his military record. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
 
expires on September 27, 2003, rather than August 27, 2004. 
 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that his enlistment 

This  final  decision  dated  April  8,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

SUMMARY OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that the August 27, 2004 end of enlistment date established 
by  the  Coast  Guard  is  in  error  and  unjust  because  he  never  attended  AMT  Class  "A" 
School, which was the purpose of an 11-month extension he signed on March 22, 2001. 
He further alleged that the August 27, 2004 date is incorrect because the Coast Guard 
listed  August  31,  2002  as  his  end  of  enlistment  date  on  the  extension  agreement.    He 
claimed that the yeoman who prepared the extension agreement did not know how to 
correctly complete it, requiring him to make two return visits to the yeoman's office to 
correct mistakes on the agreement.   
 
 
was disenrolled on August 8, 2001.  He stated the following about his disenrollment: 
 

The applicant executed orders and entered the airman program, from which he 

After  I  was  involved  in  the  airman  program,  I  started  having  personal 
problems with my wife at home.  As a reflection of my performance on the 
job, I was released from the airman program.  I never attended A-school.  
Finally,  I  transferred  to  [a  cutter]  and  my  command  helped  me  send  a 
letter  to  headquarters  asking  them  to  release  me  from  the extension.  In 
response, headquarters . . . disapproved my request and has tried to grant 
authority to adjust the "new expiration of enlistment date" from 02 Aug 31 
to 04 Aug 27.  I feel it is unlawful for CGPC to change the official contract 
without the consent of both parties whom entered into the contract. 

 
In closing I felt like the U.S. Coast Guard unfairly treated me.  I held my 
end of the contract as well as I could with the personal problems that I had 
at that time.   I never received the schooling that I wanted and the only 
reason for the extension was for my time in service after the completion of 
A-school.   

 
 
On September 28, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years. 
On March 22, 2001, he extended his enlistment for 11 months through August 27, 2004, 
in exchange for school/training in the AMT airman program.  (August 31, 2002, is listed 
as the end of enlistment date on the extension agreement.) 
 
 
The  applicant's  assignment  orders  required  COs  to  "(A)  Ensure  that  [the 
member]  agrees  to  [obligate  service]  31  months  (AMT/AVT)  and  28  months  (AST) 
effective  upon  "A"  school  graduation."    The  orders  further  stated,  "Completion  of  the 
airman program is mandatory.  COs/OINCs shall immediately notify CGPC-EPM-2 of 
any individual who will not complete the airman program.  CGPC-EPM-2 will reassign 
the [member] as service needs dictate." 
 
  
On April 9, 2001, in accordance with orders, the applicant reported for duty in 
the  Airman  Program.    On  August  6,  2002,  the  air  station  to  which  the  applicant  was 
assigned  requested  his  disernollment  from  the  program  for  fault,  due  to  his 
unsatisfactory performance and irresponsibility.  On August 8, 2001, the applicant was 
disenrolled from the program for fault and reassigned to a cutter.  The applicant never 
entered  AMT  Class  "A"  School,  which  convened  on  August  20,  2001  with  graduation 
date of January 18, 2002.   
 
 
 
On  January  20,  2002,  the  applicant’s  current  commanding  officer  (CO)  wrote  a 
letter  to  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC)  on  behalf  of  the  applicant 
requesting  that  the  applicant's  11-month  extension  be  voided  and  his  original  end  of 
enlistment date of September 27, 2003 be reinstated.  The CO noted that the extension 
agreement erroneously listed August 31, 2002, as the expiration date for the applicant's 
enlistment.   
 
 
On February 28, 2002, CGPC denied the applicant's request to have the 11-month 
extension voided, finding that he had received the benefits for which he extended.  In 
addition, CGPC adjusted the applicant's end of enlistment to August 27, 2004, stating 
that  August  31,  2002,  was  incorrectly  listed on the extension agreement as the end of 
enlistment date.  
 
On  June  11,  2002,  the  applicant's  yeoman,  a  YN1,  wrote  that  he  believed  the 
 
applicant was being treated unjustly.  He stated the only benefit the applicant received 
was  a  PCS  transfer  as  a  non-rate  to  an  air  station.    He  stated  the  applicant  never 

reported to AMT School and based on Article 2.A.2.a.(11) of COMDTINST M1500.10B,  
the applicant is not required to fulfill the 11-month extension.  This provision states as 
follows:   
 

This period of obligated service will commence on the date of graduation 
from "A" school.  Members disenrolled from Class "A" school at their own 
request, for lack of application, or for misconduct will be required to fulfill 
their full-obligated service requirement.   

 
 
The YN1 further stated that it was his opinion that the extension agreement is a 
legally binding contract and the Coast Guard should not be allowed to change the end 
of enlistment date on the extension contract from August 31, 2002 to August 27, 2004 
without the applicant's consent.  
  
Views of the Coast Guard  
 
On November 29, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
 
counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant.  
The  Chief  Counsel  adopted  the  analysis  provided  by  CGPC,  which  is  attached  as 
Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion. 
 
 
CGPC  disagreed  with  the  applicant's  contention  that  his  extension  is  void 
because  he  never  enrolled  in  class  "A"  school.    He  stated  that  according  to  the  Coast 
Guard Aeronautical Engineering Maintenance Management Manual, Aviation Class "A" 
school  instruction  is  two-tiered.    The  first  tier  consists  of  assignment  to  an  Airman 
Program at an air station and the second tier is the traditional resident Class "A" school.  
He stated that the applicant's orders are evidence that the Coast Guard intended for the 
Airman  Program  to  be  a  part  of  Class  "A"  training  because  the  orders  required  the 
applicant  to  have  sufficient  remaining  obligated  service  upon  graduation  from  "A" 
school (the second tier) prior to being transferred to an air station.   
 
 
CGPC  further  disagreed  with  the  applicant's  contention  that  he  never  received 
the benefits of the extension agreement.  He stated that it is longstanding Coast Guard 
policy to require members to obligate for additional future service in exchange for "A" 
school training.  The Coast Guard expects that members will make a good faith effort to 
complete the training, but if they fail to complete the training through no fault of their 
own,  the  Coast  Guard  will  permit  the  cancellation  of  the  extension.    However,  in 
situations like the applicant's where a member fails through his own fault to complete 
the program, the Coast Guard will not permit the cancellation of the extension.  CGPC 
stated  that  the  applicant  was  disenrolled  from  the  Airman  Program  because  of  his 
irresponsibility and unsatisfactory training.   
 
 
CGPC  stated  that  the  August  31,  2002,  end  of  enlistment  date  typed  on  the 
extension agreement is an obvious clerical error.  He stated that the applicant's original 

four-year  enlistment  expires  on  September  27,  2003  and  with  an  11-month  extension, 
the new enlistment date could not be August 31, 2002.  CGPC stated that the extension 
agreement should have shown the end of enlistment date as August 27, 2004.  He stated 
that  the  applicant  acknowledged  on  the  extension  agreement  and  under  oath  that  he 
was  voluntarily  extending  his  enlistment  for  11  months.    CGPC  asserted  that  the 
incorrect end of enlistment date on the extension agreement in no way altered the terms 
of the agreement or placed an unjust burden on the applicant. 
 
 
 

 
The Chief Counsel stated the following: 

The Coast Guard followed proper procedure in evaluating the member's 
request to be released from his extension agreement.  The Coast Guard's 
decision to require the Applicant to complete his obligated service, even 
though  he  did  not  ultimately  receive  the  full  training  for  which  he 
obligated  additional  service  for    --  due  to  his  own  fault  --  was  not  an 
injustice that "shocks the senses."  Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1010, 
1011 (1976).  ("Injustice" is treatment by the military authority that shocks 
the  sense  of  justice,  but  is  not  technically  illegal.)  .  .  .    It  cannot  be 
overstated that if  a member could, without consequence, fail to complete 
"A"  school  training  due  to  his  own  fault,  the  Coast  Guard's  ability  to 
manage  its  training,  assignment  and  workforce  processes  would  suffer 
and would ultimately place the member's desires above the needs of the 
service.    

 
Applicant's Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On  December  2,  2002,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard's  views  was  sent  to  the 
applicant  with  an  invitation  for  him  to  submit  a  response.    He  did  not  submit  a 
response. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  on  the 
basis  of  the  applicant's  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submission,  and 
applicable law: 
 
 
title 10, United States Code. The application was timely. 
 
 
2.  The applicant has failed to show that the Coast Guard committed an error or 
injustice  by  not  canceling  the  11-month  extension  agreement  he  signed  on  March  22, 
2001.  The applicant voluntarily entered into this extension agreement in exchange for 
AMT training.  However, before the applicant was eligible to enter AMT "A" school, he 
was required to complete training in the Airman Program.  His orders directed him to 

report to an Air station on or before April 20, 2001 and to enter the AMT "A" School on 
August 20, 2001.  Moreover, his orders stated that he was required to have 31 months of 
service remaining after he completed "A" school, which was scheduled to conclude on 
January 18, 2002.  If the applicant had graduated from "A" school on January 18, 2002, 
the remaining service on his original four-year enlistment plus the 11-month extension 
would equal the 31 months of required obligated service after graduation. 
 
 
3.   The Coast Guard disenrolled the applicant from the Airman Program because 
of unsatisfactory performance and irresponsibility.  The applicant did not deny that his 
performance was unsatisfactory but offered that he was having marital problems at that 
time.    He  never  stated  that  he  did  not  have  the  ability  to  do  the  work.    Nor  did  he 
describe  the  extent  of  his  family  problems.    Therefore,  the  applicant  has  submitted 
insufficient  evidence  to  show  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  injustice  by 
refusing to void his 11-month enlistment extension.  
 
 
4. The August 31, 2002, end of enlistment date listed on the extension agreement 
is obviously incorrect.  The applicant could not have been misled by this error.  If a four 
year enlistment ends on September 27, 2003 and an 11-month extension is added to that 
date, it is impossible to conclude that your end of enlistment date is earlier than the date 
the original enlistment was due to expire.  The Coast Guard did not commit an error or 
injustice  by  correcting  an  obvious  error  with  respect  the  end  of  the  applicant's 
enlistment.    The  corrected  end  of  enlistment  date  reflects  the  facts  of  the  applicant's 
bargain with the Coast Guard. 
 
 
that requires corrective action by this Board.  Accordingly, relief should be denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

5.  The applicant has not shown the existence of an error or injustice in this case 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
 Quang Nguyen 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
record is denied.