DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-124 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   

 

 
 

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and in 
response to a request by the Judge Advocate General (JAG), dated March 8, 2007, to return the 
Final Decision in Docket No. 2006-124 to the Board for a technical amendment of the order in 
accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 52.73.   
 

BACKGROUND 

 
 
The  applicant  first  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  September  24,  1991.    On  June  15, 
1998, he reenlisted for six years, through June 14, 2004, to receive a Zone B selective reenlist-
ment bonus (SRB).  On February 18, 2000, the applicant accepted a temporary commission as an 
officer,  which  made  him  ineligible  to  receive  further  payments  of  the  SRB.1    However,  the 
commission was revoked on October 26, 2002. 
 
 
Upon revocation of the applicant’s commission, his prior six-year enlistment should have 
been reinstated.2  Instead, he was required to sign a new four-year reenlistment contract dated 
October 26, 2002.  In his application in BCMR Docket No. 2006-124, the applicant asked the 
Board to void the new four-year reenlistment contract and reinstate his 1998 six-year contract.  
He alleged that this correction would entitle him to further installments of his Zone B SRB for 
the period from October 26, 2002, through the end of the 1998 enlistment on June 14, 2004.  
 
In the advisory opinion for BCMR Docket No. 2006-124, the JAG recommended that the 
 
Board grant relief.  He stated that when the applicant’s commission was revoked, he automati-
cally reverted to enlisted status because the six-year enlistment was still in effect.  Therefore, the 
applicant was not required to reenlist and there was no other authorized purpose for the October 

                                                 
1 Article 3.C.5.8.a. of the Personnel Manual states that “[m]embers entering officer procurement programs who have 
reenlisted/extended for an SRB will have remaining installments suspended upon appointment in an officer procure-
ment  program  (i.e.,  OCS,  CWO  appointment,  etc.).  The  time  spent  in  officer  procurement  program  is  creditable 
towards SRB payments.  Members’ SRB entitlement will terminate upon appointment.” 
2 Under Article 1.A.3.c. of the Personnel Manual, when an officer’s temporary commission is revoked, he or she 
reverts to his or her permanent status. 

26, 2002, four-year contract.  The JAG also stated that the applicant was legally entitled to the 
remaining Zone B SRB payments for his 1998 reenlistment although the SRB regulations did not 
expressly address the unusual circumstances of the applicant’s case.3  The JAG recommended 
that the Board void the 2002 contract; reinstate the June 15, 1998, contract to make the applicant 
eligible  for  further SRB installments for his service from October 26, 2002, through June 14, 
2004; and enter an indefinite reenlistment contract dated June 15, 2004, in the applicant’s record. 
 
In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant noted that on October 26, 2006, while 
 
his application was pending, he had signed an indefinite reenlistment4 contract because his Octo-
ber 26, 2002, contract expired.  He also noted that he sold 60 days of leave on October 26, 2006, 
and did not want to lose the opportunity to sell leave.  He asked that the sale of leave be shifted 
to the new contract dated June 15, 2004, that the Board would create if it granted relief. 
 
 
In the Final Decision in Docket No. 2006-124, the Board found that the requested relief 
should be granted because the applicant’s 1998 reenlistment was still in effect when his commis-
sion was revoked and so he “became eligible for the remaining SRB payments from his June 15, 
1998, reenlistment.”  Therefore, the Board issued the following Order: 
 

The Coast Guard shall remove his October 26, 2002, four-year reenlistment from his record as null 
and void.  In addition, the Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he signed an indefinite 
reenlistment contract on June 15, 2004.  The Coast Guard shall pay him the SRB installments for 
which he was eligible as an enlisted member from October 26, 2002, to June 14, 2004, as a result 
of his June 15, 1998, six-year reenlistment as provided under ALDIST 046-98. 
 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  also  correct  his  record  to  show  that,  upon  his  discharge  and  indefinite 
reenlistment on June 15, 2004, he sold the same excess annual leave that  he had  sold upon his 
October 26, 2002,[5] reenlistment, provided that such a sale of leave would not put him in a nega-
tive leave status.  The Coast Guard shall ensure that his leave balances are adjusted, as necessary. 
 

 

REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT 

 

 

 

In his request, the JAG stated that he was seeking a technical amendment of the Order 
because,  after  reviewing  the  applicant’s  pay  records,  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) and the applicant “agreed that even with the relief ordered by the Board, the applicant is 
not entitled to additional SRB payments.”  The JAG stated that before accepting his temporary 
commission, the applicant had already received sufficient installments of the SRB to cover his 
months of enlisted service from October 26, 2002, through June 14, 2004.   Therefore, he had 
received in advance all of the SRB payments to which he became entitled after October 26, 2002.   

                                                 
3 Article 3.C.5.8.b. of the Personnel Manual states that “[m]embers who do not successfully complete the officer 
procurement program and continue in an enlisted status in the same rate will have SRB installments resumed and are 
entitled to receive the SRB payments previously suspended.”  Article 3.C.5.8.c. states that “[f]or those temporary 
commissioned officers who revert to enlisted status in their original rating, who still have time remaining on their 
contract, the time served as a commissioned officer shall not count toward SRB entitlement.” 
4 Article 1.G.2.a.2. of the Personnel Manual states that “[p]ersonnel who have 10 or more years of active service 
shall  be  reenlisted  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time.    Indefinite  reenlistments  are  for  an  indefinite  period  up  to  a 
member’s 30-year active duty anniversary date.” 
5 Note that the year 2002 was a typographical error since the applicant sold the leave on October 26, 2006. 

In support of this argument, the JAG submitted an email from CGPC showing that of the 
applicant’s  six-year  (72-month)  1998  contract,  only  60  months  were  newly  obligated  service 
entitling him to SRB payments because he had reenlisted about 12 months before the end date of 
his prior enlistment.  Of those potential 60 months of newly obligated service, the applicant spent 
32 as a commissioned officer, leaving only 28 months of newly obligated service that he actually 
performed as an enlisted member.  With an SRB multiple of 2 and base pay of $1779.90, the 
applicant was entitled to a total SRB payment of $8,306.20 for those 28 months of enlisted ser-
vice.  However, he received half of his projected total SRB in June 1998 and then an accelerated 
bonus payment in March 1999, so that he actually received $10,679.40 in SRB payments before 
he became an officer.  Thus, the applicant was actually paid for more months of newly obligated 
service than he actually performed as an enlisted member during the term of the contract.   
 
 
The JAG concluded that if the Coast Guard implemented the Order, the applicant would 
not get any additional SRB payments, and his sale of leave would be based on his pay in June 
2004, instead of September 2006, which would significantly reduce his payment for his leave 
because the applicant advanced to E-7 on June 1, 2006.  Therefore, the JAG stated, it might be in 
the applicant’s interest for the Board to rescind its Order.  He recommended that the Board give 
the applicant the option of leaving his record uncorrected pursuant to the Order. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE JAG’S REQUEST 

In response to the JAG’s request, the applicant asked the Board to leave his record as it 

 
 
was before the Order was issued since he is not due further SRB payments. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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 applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552 

and 33 C.F.R. § 52.73. 

1. 

 
2. 

The Board issued the Order in BCMR Docket No. 2006-124 based in large part 
upon the applicant’s and the Coast Guard’s claims that he was still due SRB payments for the 
period October 26, 2002, through June 14, 2004, which were being denied him because of the 
unusual circumstances of his interrupted 1998 enlistment and the lack of a regulation expressly 
entitling him to SRB installments upon the revocation of his commission.  SRBs are paid only 
for months of service “newly obligated”6 and performed7 under a reenlistment contract.  As the 
applicant’s temporary commission did not void his 1998 enlistment contract,8 the Board deter-
mined in the Final Decision that the applicant was entitled to SRB payments for the months of 

                                                 
6  Under  Article  3.C.7.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  SRB  payments  are  only  owed  for  months  of  service  “newly 
obligated”  under  the  contract—i.e.  months  that  the  member  did  not  previously  promise  to  serve  under  a  prior 
reenlistment or extension contract. 
7 Under Article 3.C.9. of the Personnel Manual, SRB payments are not paid and may be recouped if the applicant 
does not perform the promised enlisted service. 
8 Personnel Manual, Article 1.A.3.c.  

3. 

4. 

newly obligated service that he actually performed as an enlisted member under the 1998 con-
tract.    However,  upon  further  review,  CGPC  has  determined,  and  the  applicant  admits,  that 
before he  accepted his commission, the applicant received  advance and  accelerated SRB pay-
ments sufficient to account for all of the months of newly obligated service that he ultimately 
performed as an enlisted member under the 1998 contract. 
 
 
The Board’s Order was intended to affirm his legal entitlement to SRB payments 
for the period October 26, 2002, through June 14, 2004, and the Board did not know that the 
applicant had already received advance and accelerated payments representing most of the SRB 
to which he would have been entitled had he never accepted the temporary commission.  As he 
had already received sufficient SRB payments to cover all the months of newly obligated service 
that  he  performed  under  the  1998  contract  as  an  enlisted  member,  both  before  and  after  his 
commissioned service, the Order is essentially moot with respect to the applicant’s SRB since the 
corrections therein will not entitle him to additional SRB payments. 
 

In indefinitely reenlisting the applicant as of June 15, 2004, however, the Order 
voided his subsequent 2006 indefinite reenlistment and so required the correction of the date of 
his sale of leave from 2006 to 2004.9  Because the applicant’s base pay in 2004 was lower than 
his  base  pay  in  2006,  following  his  advancement  to  E-7,  the  Board’s  Order,  if  implemented, 
would result in a lower payment for the sale of his leave.  Had the applicant been entitled to addi-
tional SRB payments as a result of the Order, he would have benefited from the corrections in 
the Order despite this reduction, but since he is entitled to no further SRB payments, the Order 
apparently works only to his financial detriment, which was not the Board’s intent. 
 
 
The  Board  notes  that  if  it  rescinds  its  Order,  the  applicant’s  unauthorized  four-
year contract dated October 26, 2002, will remain in his record.  However, that contract does not 
harm the applicant, and the Coast Guard does not object to its existence.  Without it, there would 
be  no  contract  covering  his  service  from  June  15,  2004,  when  his  1998  enlistment  ended,  to 
October 26, 2006, when he reenlisted.  Therefore, although the applicant’s 1998 reenlistment was 
still in effect on October 26, 2002, and was not due to end for about 20 months, the Board should 
rescind the entire Order and leave the October 26, 2002, contract in the applicant’s record.  The 
continuing existence of the October 26, 2002, contract will not deprive him of his right to the 
SRB payments for the 1998 contract.10 

5. 

 
6. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to rescind 

the Order issued in its Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2006-124. 

 
 

                                                 
9 Under Article 7.A.20.a. of the Personnel Manual, members are only allowed to sell unused accrued leave “on date 
of discharge, separation from active duty, or the date preceding the effective date of first extension of enlistment 
regardless of duration, to a maximum career total of 60 days.” 
10 Article 3.C.9.2. of the Personnel Manual states that a “member paid any reenlistment bonus who is discharged 
early for the purpose of immediate reenlistment is not required to refund the unearned portion of the bonus provided 
the term of the reenlistment is for a greater period than the obligated service remaining to be served.” 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

The Order of the Board in Final Decision in Docket No. 2006-124, upon the application 
of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record is rescinded.  
The Coast Guard shall not implement the Order in that Final Decision. 
 
 
 
 
October 4, 2007  
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

        

 
 Toby Bishop 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER