DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
____________________________________________________________________________
Application for Correction
of Coast Guard Record of:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
_____________________________________________________________________________
BCMR Docket No. 2010-170
FINAL DECISION
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 Chair docketed the application upon
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on May 4, 2010, and subsequently prepared the
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.
The final decision, dated March 10, 2011, is approved and signed by the three duly
APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS
The applicant asked the Board to correct her record to show that she enlisted in the Coast
Guard for 6 years instead of 4 years on July 12, 2005. She stated that even though her enlistment
contract says 4 years, she believed that she had enlisted for 6 years because that was her intention
and because Direct Access (Coast Guard’s computerized data base) mistakenly showed she had
enlisted for 6 years. She stated that she was not aware of this error until “the time had come for
me to reenlist for transfer” on or about April 23, 2010.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 7, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an
advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant partial relief in accordance with the
memorandum from Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Service Center (PSC) which was
attached as an enclosure to the advisory opinion.
PSC recommended that the Board grant partial relief by offering the applicant the
opportunity to “execute an agreement to extend her enlistment for [60] months, effective July 12,
2009 and expiring on July 11, 2014.” PSC stated that the 5-year extension contract would
properly account for the period of time between the applicant’s initial contract that expired on
July 11, 2009 and the expiration of her current obligation in July 2014.1
1 According to the Coast Guard the applicant does not have a contract in her record covering the period July 12,
2009 to July 11, 2014.
In recommending partial relief, PSC stated that the applicant was incorrect when she
stated that Direct Access showed that she had enlisted for 6 years. According to PSC, Direct
Access properly reflects that the applicant enlisted for 4 years.
APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD
On October 12, 2010, a copy of the Coast Guard views was mailed to the applicant
inviting her to submit a reply. On December 15, 2010, the Board received the applicant’s
response to the views of the Coast Guard. She agreed with them.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the submissions
1. The Board has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 of the United
of the applicant and of the Coast Guard, the applicant’s military record, and applicable law:
States Code. It was timely.
2. The Board finds that the applicant’s July 12, 2005 enlistment contract shows that she
enlisted in the Coast Guard for 4 years. Despite this finding, the Board is persuaded that some
confusion existed in the applicant’s electronic record regarding her length of service because her
4-year term expired on July 11, 2009 and she remains on active duty without having extended her
original enlistment or having reenlisted. This is error. To remedy this situation, the Board will
order the applicant’s record corrected to show that she executed a 60-month extension of her July
11, 2009 enlistment, with July 11, 2014, as the expiration of enlistment date. The applicant and
the Coast Guard have agreed to this correction.
3. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the relief discussed above.
[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]
ORDER
No other relief is granted.
The application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of her military record is
granted. Her record shall be corrected to show that she extended her July 12, 2005 enlistment for
a period of 60 months to execute permanent change of station orders.
Lillian Cheng
Megan Gemunder
Donna A. Lewis
Members are placed on and advanced from the list in the order in which PSC receives the messages. This message stated in pertinent part: For members not in a retirement eligible status, or serving on an indefinite enlistment contract, the obligated service requirement for the purposes of PCS orders shall be executed within 5 days of orders issuance. PSC then ordered the applicant discharged under ALCOAST 173/10, for refusing to obligate service for PCS orders, although the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-174
Therefore, the Board finds that, had she not been erroneously discharged on December 2, 2009, the applicant would have been able to request to transfer back to the Ready Reserve in accordance with Chapter 3.3.5. of COMDTINST M1020.8G because she met the body fat standard prescribed in the Page 7 before the expiration of her year on the ISL. Thus, PSC’s recommendation for relief does not put the appli- cant back in the position she would have been in had the Coast Guard not erroneously...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-140
The page 7 advised the applicant that she was required to lose the weight and/or body fat by July 17, 2009, and that if she failed to reach weight compliance by the end of the probationary period, she would be recommended for separation. she acknowledged with her signature: On November 2, 2009, the following page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record which On this date you have been determined to be 7 pounds over your MAW and 3% over your maximum allowable body fat. the evidence that the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-140
The page 7 advised the applicant that she was required to lose the weight and/or body fat by July 17, 2009, and that if she failed to reach weight compliance by the end of the probationary period, she would be recommended for separation. she acknowledged with her signature: On November 2, 2009, the following page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record which On this date you have been determined to be 7 pounds over your MAW and 3% over your maximum allowable body fat. the evidence that the...
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-148
States Code. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.” The court further instructed that “the 2 On January 4, 2010, the Board received a DD 149 from the applicant requesting an upgrade of his discharge and reenlistment code. On January 4, 2010, the Board received a new DD 149 from the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2010-229
I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...
I understand on return to Active Duty, I will enlist in or be appointed to the same grade or rate last held while serving on Active Duty.” On January 27, 2009, the Personnel Command issued orders to discharge the applicant from the Reserve and enlist her in the regular Coast Guard on May 29, 2009, in accordance with Article 1.G.2.a. Based on that old ADBD, the PSC alleged that the applicant’s “expected active duty termination date/end of ser- vice date should be April 21, 2025, a period of...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2011-118
The applicant alleged that when his record was reviewed by the retention board on July 7, 2010, a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) he had been awarded by the Navy on June 22, 2010, was not in his record. The applicant argued that his evidence also proves that although the Coast Guard received the MSM from the Navy on or about June 22, 2010, the Coast Guard failed to forward a copy of it to him, as it should have, and therefore deprived him of the opportunity to contact RPM to ensure that the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-159
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. The applicant stated that the affidavit from his relative that she remembers the applicant completing papers of his intent to remain in the Inactive Reserve, his own statement in this regard, and a copy of his 2002 letter requesting to affiliate with the drilling Reserve rebut the Coast Guard’s contention that there is no official record or...
CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2010-048
On June 16, 2009, she was told that she could transfer from the ISL to the IRR to drill for points without pay. states that all Reserve officers except those on the ISL and retired officers are considered to be in an “active status.” Chapter 7.A.3.a. Whether serving on active duty or in the Reserve, officers who fail twice of selection are eligible for separation or retention, and under Chapter 7.A.8.d.