DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-018 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 on January 9, 2002 upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  26,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by substituting the three-year 
extension  agreement  he  signed  on  March  27,  2001,  with  a  three-year  extension 
agreement  dated  for  May  2,  2001.    He  stated  that  the  correction  will  entitle  him  to  
receive  a  Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  with  a  higher  multiple  under 
ALCOAST  127/01,  which  was  issued  on  March  27,  2001,  rather  than  the  SRB  with  a 
multiple of XX, promised in his extension agreement under ALCOAST 488/00. 

 

 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant stated that he signed a three-year extension agreement on March 
27, 2001, in order to meet obligated service requirements to accept permanent change of 
station (PCS) orders to XXXXXXXXXXXX.  He stated that on the date he executed the 
extension agreement, ALCOAST 127/01 was issued, increasing the SRB multiple for his 
rating from two to three for members who reenlisted or extended after May 1, 2001. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-018                                                                  p. 2 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled  on  March  27,  2001  about  his 
eligibility  to  receive  the  higher  multiple  under  ALCOAST  127/01.  In  support,  the 
applicant submitted a copy of ALCOAST 127/01, sent on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 at 
7:24 a.m. by electronic mail to a petty officer at his current station, and a letter from his 
command stating that it appeared that he was not informed about ALCOAST 127/01 at 
the  time  he  extended.    The  applicant  moreover  claimed  that  had  he  been  properly 
counseled, he would have canceled his leave and extended his enlistment after May 1, 
2001 to receive the larger SRB. 

 

 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
On September 17, 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve under 
 
the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP) for eight years.  On September 23, 1997, 
the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Reserve  and  enlisted  in  the  regular 
component of the Coast Guard for four years, through September 22, 2001.   
 
 
On  March  27,  2001,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALCOAST 
127/01, which authorized a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of xx for members in 
the XX rating, who extended or reenlisted for at least three years.  On the same date, the 
applicant  executed  a  three-year  extension  agreement  for  the  purpose  of  obligating 
service necessary to transfer to XXXXXXXXXXXX.  Although there is no page 7 in the 
applicant’s  record  formally  documenting  counseling  about  his  obligated  service 
requirement prior to accepting transfer orders, as required by Article 4.B.1.i.1.b. of the 
Personnel  Manual,  his  extension  agreement  specifies  that  he  was  informed  of  and 
acknowledged his eligibility to receive a Zone A SRB with a multiple of xx, pursuant to 
ALCOAST 488/00.  

 
On April 27, 2001, the applicant executed his PCS orders and on May 7, 2001, he 
reported  to  XXXXXXXXXXXX.    The  applicant’s  military  record  shows  that  on 
September 23, 2001, he received the first of three installments of the promised Zone A 
SRB under ALCOAST 488/00.  To date, he continues to serve on active duty.      

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 22, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel 
of  the  Coast  Guard  recommending  that  the  Board  deny  relief.    He  stated  that  the 
applicant  has  failed  to  prove,  or  even  allege,  that  an  error  was  committed  or  that  an 
injustice exists in this case. 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-018                                                                  p. 3 

 
The Chief Counsel stated that in March 2001, the applicant received PCS orders 
to XXXXXXXXXXXX.  He stated that in order to execute those orders, the applicant was 
required to have a minimum of four years of obligated service remaining in the Coast 
Guard  upon  reporting  to  his  new  unit.    See  Articles  4.A.5  and  4.B.6  of  the  Personnel 
Manual.    The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that,  unless  the  applicant  entered  into  an 
agreement to extend or reenlist prior to executing the PCS orders, he would not have 
been permitted to transfer. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel contended that on March 27, 2001, the applicant voluntarily 
chose  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  three  years  to  accept  PCS  orders,  and  that  in  the 
absence  of  fraud  or  duress,  he  is  bound  by  his  agreement.    He  stated  that  once  the 
applicant  received  his  PCS  orders,  he  was  required  to  accept  the  orders  and  its 
associated  obligation  or  reject  them  and  serve  the  remainder  of  his  obligated  service.  
He stated that in light of the foregoing, the applicant’s agreement to extend is neither 
erroneous or unjust. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  asserted  that  although  the  applicant  executed  his  extension 
agreement on the same date that ALCOAST 127/01 was issued, the record shows that 
there was no failure to counsel the applicant with respect to this ALCOAST.  He stated 
that because routine messages, such as ALCOAST 127/01, are required to be delivered 
within 24 hours of the time of publication, the applicant’s former command likely did 
not receive this ALCOAST until March 28, 2001.  He argued that the evidence that the 
applicant submitted suggests that even his new command received ALCOAST 127/01 
on the date after it was promulgated.  He further stated that neither the applicant nor 
the Coast Guard could predict the impending promulgation of ALCOAST 127/01.  The 
Chief Counsel contended that the applicant has failed to prove that he has suffered an 
injustice that “shocks the sense of justice” merely by the less than optimal results of the 
applicant’s voluntary decision to enter into an extension agreement on March 27, 2001. 
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 24, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The Board received no response.   
 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
Article  4.B.6.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  members  serving  in  a 
 
grade E-4 and above with fewer than six years of active duty may not accept PCS orders 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-018                                                                  p. 4 

unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full tour of duty on 
reporting to a new unit.  
 
Article  4.B.1.i.1.b.  provides  that  members  who  receive  PCS  orders  must  be 
 
counseled  about  obligated  service  requirements  and  sign  a  page  7  documenting  that 
counseling.  
 
ALCOAST  488/00,  issued  by  the  Commandant  on  December  21,  2000, 
 
authorized  SRBs  for  members  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments 
between  February  1,  2001  and  April  30,  2001.    An  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  xx  was 
authorized  for  members  in  the  XX  rating  in  Zone  A  (having  no  more  than  six  years 
active duty service). 
 
Under ALCOAST 127/01, members in the XX rating with no more than six years 
 
of active service were eligible for a Zone A SRB, calculated with a multiple of xx if they 
reenlisted or extended their enlistments for at least three years between May 1, 2001 and 
January 31, 2002.  
 
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  on  the  same  date  that  ALCOAST 
127/01 was issued; however, the applicant has failed to present any evidence to show 
that  his  former  command  received  ALCOAST  127/01,  prior  to  the  signing  of  his 
extension agreement.  Absent strong evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume 
that the Coast Guard officers have “discharge[d] their duties correctly, lawfully, and in 
good faith.”  Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285, 302, 594 F.2d 804, 813-14 (1979).   
Therefore,  the  Board  presumes  that  the  applicant’s  command  would  have  counseled 
him  about  ALCOAST  127/01,  if  they  had  received  it  before  he  signed  the  extension 
contract.  The Board also presumes that he was not counseled about ALCOAST 127/01 
because his command had not yet received it.  The Board finds that the applicant has 
not  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  or  proved  that  his  command  erred  or 
committed an injustice when he signed the contract.  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-018                                                                  p. 5 

3. 

 
The  applicant’s  original  enlistment  was  due  to  expire  on  September  22, 
2001.    On  March  27,  2001,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  three  years  to  obligate 
sufficient time remaining in the Coast Guard to complete a full tour of duty at his new 
station.  In order to report to his new station on May 7, 2001, as the applicant did, he 
could  not  have  waited  until  May  2,  2001  to  execute  an  extension  of  enlistment.    The 
Board is not inclined to find that the applicant would both have been able to delay his 
commitment to transfer and satisfy his reporting date of May 7, 2001, as the Board notes 
that  a  forty-day  lapse  occurred  between  date  of  his  extension  and  the  date  of  his 
reporting to his new assignment. 
 
 
Moreover,  although  the  applicant’s  command  apparently  failed  to  have 
him complete a page 7 entry regarding SRB counseling on March 27, 2001, in light of the 
foregoing,  he  has  not  proved  that  he  was  prejudiced  by  the  Coast  Guard’s 
administrative  error.    The  applicant  was  informed  of  and  acknowledged  his  SRB 
eligibility  under  ALCOAST  488/00,  which  was  in  effect  at  the  time  the  applicant 
voluntarily  extended  on  March  27,  2001.    The  Board,  therefore,  finds  no  error  or 
injustice that requires correction under the facts presented in this case. 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

4. 

5. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-018                                                                  p. 6 

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  XXX  XX  XXXX,  USCG,  for  the 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

      
 

 
 
correction of his military record is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 L. L. Sutter 

 

 

 
 Nilza F. Velazquez 

 

 

 
 Blane A. Workie