DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Application for the Correction of
the Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
FINAL DECISION
BCMR Docket No. 2010-003
SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The applicant asked the Board to void an 18-month extension contract dated October 17,
2007, that will otherwise go into effect on May 15, 2010, when her original May 15, 2006, 4-year
enlistment expires and run through November 14, 2011. She alleged that on September 25,
2007, when she received orders to transfer to Sector Mobile, a yeoman told her that she was
required to extend her enlistment for 18 months so that she would have enough obligated service
to complete a full tour of duty at her new unit. She alleged that this counseling was incorrect
because only 2 years (24 months) of obligated service was required, and there were still 33
months remaining to run on her original enlistment. Therefore, she alleged, the extension was
unnecessary should be removed from her record. Her transfer orders state that she was to report
to Sector Mobile on November 1, 2007, and that the transfer required 2 years of obligated
service.
The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board
grant the applicant’s request because in 2007 the applicant was striking to earn the SK rating.
She advanced to SNSK/E-3 on August 17, 2007, and to SK3/E-4 on October 1, 2007. Therefore,
under Article 4.B.6.a.(3) of the Personnel Manual, the JAG argued, she needed only 2 years of
obligated service to accept her transfer orders before reporting to Sector Mobile on October 28,
2007, and she already had more than 2 years of service remaining on her original enlistment.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Article 4.B.6.a.(3) of the Personnel Manual states that “[m]embers recommended for
advancement under the striker program and on the striker eligibility list for advancement are
required to have two years’ obligated service remaining upon reporting to the new unit, unless
otherwise directed.” When the applicant received her transfer orders on September 25, 2007, she
was on the striker eligibility list for advancement, and so the orders required just 2 years of obli-
gated service. However, by the time she signed her extension contract on October 17, 2007, she
had already advanced to SK3/E-4. Therefore, on October 17, 2007, Article 4.B.6.a.(3) was no
longer applicable because the applicant was not on the striker advancement eligibility list.
Under Article 4.B.6.a., members with less than 6 years of total service must normally
have sufficient obligated service to complete a full tour of duty at a new unit. Under Article
4.A.5.b., the tour length at Sector Mobile was 4 years. The 18-month extension obligated the
applicant to serve through November 14, 2011—4 years after her transfer date. Therefore, it
appears that on October 17, 2007, the yeoman on the GALLATIN required her to obligate suffi-
cient service to complete a full tour of duty as an SK3/E-4 pursuant to Articles 4.B.6.a. and
4.A.5.b. of the Personnel Manual. However, the applicant’s orders were issued when she was
still a striker and required only 2 years of obligated service. There is no evidence that the orders
were ever revised, and the JAG has stated that the OBLISERV requirement on the orders should
have been followed. Therefore, the applicant’s request should be granted.
ORDER
The military record of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, shall be corrected by
Lillian Cheng
removing her October 17, 2007, 18-month extension contract as null and void.
March 11, 2010
Date
George J. Jordan
Paul B. Oman
2008-004 SUMMARY OF THE RECORD The applicant asked that his record be corrected so that he is entitled to the 42 months of a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) payment that was deducted as previously obligated service from the Zone B SRB that he received as a result of his May 15, 2007 reenlistment. The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request because the Coast Guard failed to counsel the applicant correctly about the amount of...
He stated that the Coast Guard erred and that the applicant was only required to extend her enlistment for 2 years and 9 months to obligate sufficient service for transfer. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that if she had been properly counseled, she would have signed a 2 year, 9 month extension contract to obligate sufficient service to accept her transfer orders. [ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] ORDER The military record of YN3 XXXX XXXXX, xxx xx xxxx, USCG, shall be...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2000-154
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. 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...
The applicant, who was a reservist on extended active duty (EAD)2 at the time of her enlistment/reenlistment into the regular Coast Guard, alleged that she is entitled to the SRB because her previous active duty service causes her enlistment to be characterized as a reenlistment. The enlistment of Coast Guard Reserve personnel who are serving on extended active duty and who have served on extended active duty for 12 months or more shall be considered a reenlistment.” member must meet the...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2009-007
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an intelligence specialist, third class (IS3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he signed a four-year reenlistment contract on July 16, 2008, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 He alleged that when he received his transfer orders to Portsmouth, VA, he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility and...
This final decision, dated July 16, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant, an intelligence specialist, third class (IS3), asked the Board to correct his record to show that he signed a four-year reenlistment contract on July 16, 2008, to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1 He alleged that when he received his transfer orders to Portsmouth, VA, he was erroneously counseled about his SRB eligibility and...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-124
The JAG admitted that the record “does document that Applicant was advised in an Annex “T” form (CG-3301T) dated 13 May 2007, that he was eligible for a $6,000 enlistment bonus for college credit.” However, the JAG alleged, the Annex “T” was “invalid, erroneous, and unauthorized” because Article 3.A.2.3. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. Although the JAG recommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the...
3 To be eligible for a Zone B SRB, a member must have completed “at least 6 years but not more than 10 years of active service on the date of reenlistment or operative date of the extension.” Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4.b.3. He stated that upon receiving transfer orders to the Coast Guard Integrated Support Command (ISC) and the Coast Guard Cutter Healy in Seattle, he was counseled by a Coast Guard yeoman1 that he was eligible to reenlist or extend for up to six years for a...
On March 17, 2005, the applicant executed a six-year extension contract to obligate service for a one-year tour aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Baranof. Moreover, he should have been advised that under Article 3.C.5.6 of Personnel Manual, he could cancel the extension before it became operative and reenlist for an SRB while he was in the combat zone. These corrections will allow him to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 332/05 calculated with a multiple of 3 pursuant to a reenlistment contract...
However, he stated, “Knowing that the SRB message [a new ALCOAST] was set to come out a month from that time, I opted to just extend for three months to wait and see if the SRB multiple might increase.” The applicant alleged that the YN3 told him that if he extended his enlistment for just 3 months and the SRB multiple changed under the new ALCOAST, he could cancel the extension by reenlisting to get an SRB after he arrived at his new unit. However, there is no Page 7 dated May 1, 2009,...