DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-159 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxxxxx, MK1 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Hale, D. 
 
 
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.    It  was  docketed  on 
September 6, 2005, upon receipt of the completed application.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  June  20,  2006,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by changing the term of his 
enlistment  from  4  years  to  3  years.    In  his  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant 
alleged that he was counseled that he was signing a 2-year reenlistment contract when 
he integrated from the Coast Guard Reserve into the regular Coast Guard on April 1, 
2003.1    He  also  alleged  that  the  aforementioned  enlistment  contract  was  blank  with 
respect to the term of the enlistment and that he did not initial block 13a to certify that 
he did not have any more questions regarding the enlistment.   
 

In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  letter  that  his 
commanding  officer  (CO)  sent  to  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command  (CGPC), 
wherein the CO asked CGPC to change the applicant’s expiration of enlistment (EOE) 

                                                 
1  Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  signed  a  2-year  contract,  he  seeks  to  correct  his  current 
enlistment  from  4  years  to  3  years,  because  he  has  already  completed  36  months  of  the  April  1,  2003, 
enlistment. 

date to reflect a 3-year enlistment.  The CO asked CGPC to make the change, alleging 
that  “[the  applicant]  was  counseled  for  a  2-year  enlistment  contract  at  Coast  Guard 
Station Fort Lauderdale by [LT R].”  In his letter to CGPC, the CO also stated that the 
applicant’s April 1, 2003, enlistment contract was blank with respect to the term of the 
enlistment.    Responding  to  the  CO’s  request,  CGPC  stated  that  it  was  denying  the 
request  to  have  the  applicant’s  EOE  date  adjusted  because  there  was  no  provision  in 
Coast Guard policy for a 2-year reenlistment.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  February  21,  2002,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALCOAST  080/02,  which 
provided  certain  Coast  Guard  Reserve  members  serving  on  extended  active  duty  the 
opportunity  to  apply  for  integration  into  the  regular  Coast  Guard.    The  ALCOAST 
directed interested reservists to submit their applications using Request for Active Duty 
(CG-3472)  forms.    Paragraph  8  of  the  ALCOAST  specified  that  upon  approval  of  a 
member’s application, CGPC would “authorize the member to enlist/reenlist into the 
regular Coast Guard for a period of 4 years.” 

 
On February 18, 2003, while serving on extended active duty in the Coast Guard 
Reserve,  the  applicant  submitted  his  CG-3472  and  requested to  be  integrated  into the 
regular Coast Guard.  On March 26, 2003, CGPC sent a letter to Coast Guard Integrated 
Support  Command  (ISC),  with  a  copy  to  the  applicant’s  unit,  authorizing  ISC  to 
discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Reserve  and  immediately  enlist  him  in  the  regular 
Coast Guard on April 1, 2003, for a term of four years.  A copy of the letter was not sent 
directly to the applicant. 

 
On  April  1,  2003,  the  applicant  signed  an  enlistment  contract  that  had  been 
prepared by his unit’s executive officer who was filling the role of the unit’s enlistment 
officer.  The block of the contract that should have contained the term of the enlistment 
was left blank.  In addition, although the applicant signed the contract in blocks 13b and 
18a and initialed block 8c, he did not place his initials in block 13a, which states that 

 
I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS DOCUMENT.  ANY QUESTIONS I 
HAD  WERE  EXPLAINED  TO  MY  SATISFACTION.    I  FULLY  UNDERSTAND  THAT 
ONLY THOSE AGREEMENTS IN SECTION B OF THIS DOCUMENT OR RECORDED 
ON THE ATTACHED ANNEX(ES) WILL BE HONORED.  ANY OTHER PROMISES OR 
GUARANTEES MADE TO ME BY ANYONE ARE WRITTEN BELOW.  

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 30, 2006, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard sub-
mitted  an  advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the 
applicant’s request.  The JAG argued that the applicant failed to prove that the Coast 
Guard  committed  an  error  or  injustice  in  this  case.    He  stated  that  absent  strong 

evidence to the contrary, Coast Guard officials are presumed to have carried out their 
duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 
(D.C. Cir. 1990); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d. 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  In addition, the 
JAG noted that Article 1.G.2.A. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual only authorizes 
enlistments into the regular Coast Guard for periods of 3, 4, 5, or 6 years.   
 

 
The  JAG  argued  that  the  Coast  Guard  official  who  entered  the  applicant’s 
contract data into the Direct Access database carried out his duty correctly by entering 
an effective enlistment date of April 1, 2003, and a contract term of 4 years.  In addition, 
the  JAG  argued  that  the  terms  of  enlistment  that  were  entered  into  the  Direct  Access 
database  were  consistent  with  paragraph  8  of  ALCOAST  080/02,  CGPC’s  letter  of 
March 26, 2003, and the enlistment contract signed by the applicant.  

 
The JAG further argued that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to 
 
show that his 4-year term of enlistment is erroneous or unjust.  The JAG argued that the 
applicant offers no evidence to corroborate his claim that the executive officer counseled 
him  that  he  was  enlisting  for  2  years.    The  JAG  also  argued  that  it  is  reasonable  to 
conclude that the executive officer believed that the applicant was enlisting for 4 years, 
because  the  executive  officer  likely  received  CGPC’s  letter  specifying  a  4-year 
enlistment within a week of the applicant signing the contract.  
 
 
Finally, the JAG argued that the applicant’s request should be denied because the 
applicant failed to carry his burden of production and persuasion when he pointed to a 
blank term in his enlistment contract.  The JAG argued that the blank term of enlistment 
was  nothing  more  than  an  ambiguity  in  the  contract,  and  that  any  such  ambiguity 
should only be construed against the Coast Guard in the absence of any evidence of the 
intent of the parties.  He argued that the Coast Guard’s intention can be inferred from 
ALCOAST 080/02, CGPC’s letter of March 26, 2003, and Coast Guard regulations.  The 
JAG further stated as follows: 
 

As  mentioned  above,  the  ALCOAST  and  CGPC’s  letter  only  mention  a  4-year 
enlistment.    Coast  Guard  regulations  in  effect  at  the  time  of  the  applicant’s 
enlistment only authorized enlistments into the regular Coast Guard for periods 
of 3, 4, 5, or 6 years.  If the Coast Guard wanted to enlist the applicant for 2 years, 
ALCOAST 080/02 would  not  have  offered  the  incentive  of  integration into  the 
regular  Coast  Guard,  which  opened  the  door  to  potential  advancement, 
retirement, and education opportunities.  Instead, the Coast Guard would have 
offered  him  another  2-year  extended  active  duty  contract.    Clearly,  the  Coast 
Guard’s intention was to enlist the applicant for 4 years.  As for the applicant’s 
intention, the evidence does not substantiate the claim that he intended to enlist 
for 2 years when he executed the contract.  ALCOAST 080/02 required eligible 
reservists to apply for integration into the regular Coast Guard by using a CG-
3472 form.  The applicant submitted CG-3472 on February 18, 2003.  Applicant’s 
awareness  of  the  integration  opportunity  and  his  compliance  with  the 

 

requirements of ALCOAST 080/02 support a presumption that he had read the 
ALCOAST.    Therefore,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  applicant  knew  or 
should have known that he was enlisting for 4 years.  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On February 2, 2006, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the JAG’s advisory 

 
 
opinion and invited him to respond.  The Chair did not receive a response.  
 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

2. 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the provisions of 

 
 
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 appli-
cable law: 
 
 
10 U.S.C. § 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he intended to enlist for 2 years when he signed 
an enlistment contract on April 1, 2003, to integrate into the regular Coast Guard.  He 
also alleged that his unit’s executive officer counseled him that he was signing a 2-year 
enlistment contract.  In addition, the applicant’s CO stated in a letter to CGPC that the 
applicant  had  been  counseled  that  he  was  signing  a  2-year  enlistment  contract.  
However, the applicant’s CO did not reveal his basis for his allegation that the applicant 
had  been  counseled  that  he  was  enlisting  for  2  years.    The  Coast  Guard’s  database 
indicates  that  the  Coast  Guard  enlisted  the  applicant  for  a  period  of  4  years.    The 
enlistment contract that the applicant signed on April 1, 2003, is silent with respect to 
the length of the enlistment.   
 

3. 

Although the applicant alleged that he signed a 2-year enlistment contract 
—  an  allegation  supported  by  his  CO  —  there  was  simply  no  authority  to  enlist  the 
applicant for a term of 2 years.  Article 1.G.2.A. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
provides that personnel with less than 10 years of active service can reenlist for a period 
of  3,  4,  5,  or  6  years.    Paragraph  8  of  ALCOAST  080/02  clearly  states  that  following 
approval of a member’s request to integrate into the regular Coast Guard, CGPC will 
authorize  members  to  “enlist/reenlist  into  the  regular  Coast  Guard  for  a  period  of  4 
years.”    The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  suggests  that  the  applicant  sought 
integration into the regular Coast Guard after learning about the opportunity to do so 
via  ALCOAST  080/02.    By  completing  and  submitting  form  CG-3472,  the  applicant 
applied for integration in accordance with the terms of ALCOAST 080/02.  The form, 
however, is not in his record, and it is not clear whether he read the ALCOAST before 
signing the contract.  

 

4. 

During  the  week  before  signing  the  contract,  LT  R  presumably  received 
the  letter  from  CGPC  authorizing  him  to  reenlist  the  applicant  for  four  years.    The 
applicant submitted no statement from LT R regarding the term of the contract.  Absent 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  must  presume  that  LT  R  and  the  applicant’s 
command  acted  correctly  and  in  good  faith  in  enlisting  the  applicant  for  four  years.  
Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 
F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979); 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Although the contract is silent as to the 
terms of the enlistment and the applicant’s CO supports his allegation, the Board finds 
that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of 
the evidence that he reenlisted for less than four years on April 1, 2003.2    

 
5. 
   

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

                                                 
2 A member of the BCMR staff spoke with the applicant on several occasions during which the applicant 
was encouraged to submit additional evidence in support of his allegations.  The BCMR did not receive 
any additional evidence or supporting documentation. 

The  application  of  MK1  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 George J. Jordan  

 

 

 
  Adrian Sevier 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton