DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 

 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

BCMR Docket No. 2008-040 

FINAL DECISION 

 

 

 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on December 14, 2007, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated September 11, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that the selective reenlistment 
bonus (SRB)1 he received for extending his enlistment in order to transfer from the CGC ADAK, 
which  was  stationed  in  Bahrain,  to  the  CGC  RUSH  is  tax  exempt.    The  applicant  stated  that 
when he arrived on the RUSH, he learned that the command of the ADAK was supposed to have 
required him to obligate additional service by signing an extension or enlistment contract before 
letting him transfer to the RUSH.  Moreover, if they had done so in compliance with regulations, 
the SRB he received for signing the contract would have been tax exempt because the ADAK 
was in a combat zone.2  However, because the command of the ADAK failed to comply with the 
regulations, he did not sign the necessary contract until he was aboard the RUSH and so his SRB 
was not eligible for the combat-zone tax exemption. 

                                                 
1 SRBs  allow the  Coast Guard to offer a reenlistment incentive to  members  who possess highly desired skills at 
certain  points  during  their  career.    SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the 
number of months of service newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment contract, and the need 
of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB 
authorized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an ALCOAST.  Coast Guard members who have at 
least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A”, while those who have more than 6 
but less than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B”.  Members may not receive more than one SRB per 
zone.  Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Article 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. 
2 Service members may exclude from their gross income any compensation received for any month during any part 
of which the member served in a combat zone, “provided that the member’s entitlement to the compensation fully 
accrued in a month during which the member served in the combat zone.”  26 C.F.R. § 1.112-1. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his transfer orders, which 
were issued on January 31, 2007.  The orders indicate that the applicant was to leave his billet on 
the  ADAK  in  the  Kingdom  of  Bahrain  and  to  report  for  duty  on  the  RUSH  homeported  in 
Honolulu, Hawaii, by August 15, 2007.  The orders note that the applicant’s tour of duty aboard 
the RUSH would be three years; that the “assignment requires minimum three (3) years OBLI-
SERV” (future service obligated by a reenlistment or extension contract); and that Article 4.B.6. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual  would  apply.    The  orders  also  indicate  that  the  applicant  might  be 
required to attend training in Portsmouth, Virginia, prior to reporting to the RUSH. 
 
 
The applicant  also submitted a series of e-mails in which the Executive  Officer of the 
ADAK advised a senior chief in Portsmouth on May 13, 2007, that the applicant “had to leave 
hastily from Bahrain to make a ‘C’ School.  Long story short, he didn’t get a proper check out 
and he needs an extension (see e-mail below).  Was wondering if you could help me out and put 
me in contact with someone there in Portsmouth to help us take care of this before he reports to 
CGC RUSH.  ET1 is attending a school there in Yorktown right now.”  The e-mail string below 
this message indicated that the applicant’s end of enlistment (EOE) date, December 12, 2008, 
was “not good” and that he needed to obligate additional service for his transfer to Hawaii. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The applicant first enlisted on August 10, 1999, and has remained on active duty since 
then.    He  signed  a  four-year  reenlistment  contract  on  December  13,  2004,  with  an  EOE  of 
December 12, 2008, to receive a Zone A SRB.  The applicant reported to the ADAK, stationed in 
Bahrain, on July 1, 2006.  He was transferred and reported to the RUSH on July 5, 2007.  On 
August 24, 2007, while serving aboard the RUSH, he signed a 72-month extension contract to 
get a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.0.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 30, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request but grant 
alternate  relief.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant’s  orders  referenced  Article  4.B.6.  of  the 
Personnel Manual, and under that article, the three-year OBLISERV requirement noted on the 
orders  did  not  apply  to  him.    The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  was  not  required  to  sign  a 
reenlistment or extension contract to accept his transfer orders to the RUSH because he had more 
than six years of service and so was in a “career status.”  Members in a “career status” need to 
have only one year of remaining obligated service upon reporting to a new unit.  Since the appli-
cant reported to the RUSH on July 5, 2007, and his EOE was not until December 12, 2008, he 
already  had  sufficient  obligated  service  to  accept  his  transfer  orders  and  was  not  required  or 
authorized to sign a new contract.  The JAG noted that under Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel 
Manual, members may not sign a reenlistment or extension contract just to get an SRB.  How-
ever, if they are required to sign a contract for another purpose, they may do so and get any SRB 
in  effect.   The  JAG  stated  that  the  applicant  was  not  authorized  to  sign  any  contract  in  2007 
because he had sufficient service remaining on his prior enlistment to accept his transfer orders 
and he was not within three months of the end of his enlistment.  Therefore, the August 24, 2007, 
contract does not make him eligible for any SRB because he signed the contract more than a year 

too early.  The JAG stated that the applicant’s claim that his SRB should be tax exempt “is a 
moot point as the applicant was not qualified for the SRB.” 
 
 
The JAG argued, however, that the 72-month extension contract dated August 24, 2007, 
is erroneous because it was not required for OBLISERV purposes as it indicates.  The JAG stated 
that because the applicant did not need to extend his enlistment at all in 2007, if properly coun-
seled, he would have waited until December 13, 2008, to reenlist to qualify for an SRB.  There-
fore, the JAG recommended that the Board void the August 24, 2007, extension contract so that 
the applicant can reenlist upon his EOE this December. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 2, 2008, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He argued 
that Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual, which states that members in a career status need 
only  one  year  of  OBLISERV  to  accept  transfer  orders,  applies  only  to  INCONUS  transfers.  
Since he was being transferred to Hawaii, that article did not apply.  The applicant stated that his 
assignment to the RUSH was an OUTCONUS transfer and so Article 4.B.6.b. applied.  Article 
4.B.6.b. states that all personnel assigned to OUTCONUS duty stations must have enough obli-
gated service to complete a full tour of duty at the new unit.  A full tour of duty aboard the RUSH 
lasts  three  years.    The  applicant  repeated  his  claim  that  the  regulations  and  transfer  orders 
required him to obligate additional service before transferring to the RUSH and that if the ADAK 
command  had  properly  transferred  him,  he  would  have  signed  the  extension  contract  while 
aboard the ADAK in a designated combat zone, and his SRB would have been tax exempt. 
 

Article 4.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual governs “INCONUS Reassignments” and states 
that  “[u]nless  otherwise  indicated,  these  obligated  service  (OBLISERV)  requirements  apply 
when service members transfer PCS to  INCONUS duty stations.”  Subparagraph 1 states that 
assignment officers will normally not transfer service members E-4 and above with fewer than 
six years of active duty unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service to com-
plete a full tour of duty upon reporting to a new unit.  It also states that “a member must comply 
with OBLISERV requirements before he or she will be permitted to execute his or her preferred 
assignment.”    Subparagraph  2  states  that  “[p]ersonnel  E-4  and  above  with  over  six  years  of 
active duty are considered to be in a career status. Unless otherwise indicated, they are required 
to have one year of OBLISERV remaining upon reporting to the new unit.”   
 

Article 4.B.6.b. of the Personnel Manual governs “OUTCONUS Reassignments.”  Sub-
paragraph 1 states that “[a]ll personnel ordered to OUTCONUS duty stations shall obligate to 
complete the full tour as specified in Article 4.A.5.  The tour commences on the reporting date.”  
Subparagraph  2  states  that  if  a  member  refuses  to  reenlist  or  extend  to  meet  the  OBLISERV 
requirement for an OUTCONUS assignment, his transfer orders may be canceled. 

 
According  to  Appendix  A  of  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulations  and  the  glossary  in 
Exhibit 4.G.1. of the Personnel Manual, CONUS or INCONUS means within the continental (48 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

contiguous) United States and the District of Columbia, while OCONUS or OUTCONUS means 
outside of CONUS and so includes Hawaii. 

 
Article 4.A.5.b. of the Personnel Manual states that a full tour of duty for an E-6 aboard a 

cutter stationed OUTCONUS in Hawaii is three years. 

 
Article 1.G.15.a.2. of the Personnel Manual states that a member may extend his enlist-
ment “[f]or any number of full years and/or full months up to six years to ensure sufficient obli-
gated service  for these  purposes: a.  Attend a resident school. b.  INCONUS and OUTCONUS 
assignments; [see] Article 4.B.6.” 

 
Article  3.C.5.5.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “[u]nder  no  circumstances  will  an 
individual be permitted to extend their enlistment more than 3 months early for SRB purposes 
alone.  However,  a  member  who  must  extend  for  some  other  reason  (i.e.,  transfer,  training, 
advancement, or tuition assistance) may extend for a period greater than the minimum required 
for the purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.” 

 
ALCOAST 283/06 was in effect from July 1, 2006, through July 15, 2007, and it author-
ized a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.0 for members in the ET1 rating.  ALCOAST 
304/07 was in effect from July 16, 2007, through July 15, 2008, and it authorized a Zone B SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 2.0 for members in the ET1 rating.   ALCOAST 286/08 became 
effective on July 16, 2008, and it authorizes a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.7 for 
members in the ET1 rating. 

 
Section 2 of ALPERSRU S/03, issued on September 17, 2003, states that “[c]ombat tax 
exclusion applies to the initial payment, and future installment payments, of a Selective Reenlist-
ment Bonus (SRB) … if a member executes a reenlistment or extension … while serving in a 
combat zone.” 

 
Under Article 8.G.2. of  the Pay Manual, the combat-zone tax exclusion applies to any 
pay or compensation to which a member becomes entitled while serving in Bahrain (as well as 
other countries) and in the waters and air space of the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Gulf of 
Aden, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea north of 10°N latitude and west of 68°E longitude. 

 

1. 

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.  

2. 

The application was timely. 
 
 
The CGC RUSH is homeported in Honolulu, Hawaii, and thus is an OUTCONUS 
assignment because Hawaii is not part of the continental United States.  The record shows that 
on January 31, 2007, the applicant was issued permanent transfer orders from the CGC ADAK in 
Bahrain to the RUSH, and he reported to the RUSH on July 5, 2007.  Therefore, the OBLISERV 

3. 

regulations  for  OUTCONUS  reassignments  under  Article  4.B.6.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual 
applied to his transfer to the RUSH.  The Board notes that in recommending denial of the appli-
cant’s  request,  the  JAG  relied  on  the  regulations  for  INCONUS  reassignments  under  Article 
4.B.6.a., which is inapplicable to this case. 
 

Under  Article  4.B.6.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant  was  required  to 
have sufficient obligated service to complete a full tour of duty on the RUSH before effecting his 
transfer.  The chart in Article 4.A.5.b. shows that a full tour of duty aboard the RUSH for an E-6 
is three years.  This OBLISERV requirement was accurately reflected on the applicant’s transfer 
orders.  As the applicant reported to the RUSH on July 5, 2007, he should have obligated service 
at least through July 4, 2010, before reporting aboard.  However, the applicant’s EOE was then 
December 12, 2008, and so he did not have sufficient obligated service to complete a full tour of 
duty aboard the RUSH when he received the transfer orders.  Therefore, the command of the 
ADAK was required by both Article 4.B.6.b. and the transfer orders to have the applicant obli-
gate additional service before allowing him to transfer to the RUSH.   

 
4. 

6. 

 
7. 

5. 

The applicant’s extension contract is dated August 24, 2007, which is long after 
he transferred from the ADAK to the RUSH.  Therefore, the applicant has proved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred in failing to have him comply with Article 
4.B.6.b. by signing an extension contract to obligate additional service before transferring from 
the ADAK to the RUSH.  This finding is strongly supported by the email of the Executive Offi-
cer of the ADAK dated May 13, 2007, which states that because the applicant’s departure from 
the ADAK was rushed, he was not properly required to sign an extension contract and so still 
needed to sign one.   
 

Article 3.C.5.5. of the Personnel Manual states that “a member who must extend 
for some other reason (i.e., transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance) may extend for 
a period greater than the minimum required for the purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.”  
Article 1.G.15.a.2. states that a member may extend his enlistment for a maximum of six years, 
or 72 months.  Therefore, when the applicant received transfer orders to the RUSH on January 
31, 2007, he was not only required to extend his enlistment at least through July 4, 2010, but he 
was authorized to extend his enlistment for 72 months to receive the maximum possible SRB. 
 

While  the  Board  makes  no  findings  on  tax  law,  we  understand  that  the  Coast 
Guard’s  error  has  harmed  the  applicant  because  an  SRB  resulting  from  an  contract  signed  in 
Hawaii, outside of a combat zone, is not tax exempt under 26 C.F.R. § 1.112-1, whereas Bahrain 
is  a  designated  combat  zone  under  Article  8.G.2.  of  the  Pay  Manual.    Therefore,  pursuant  to 
ALPERSRU S/03, if the applicant had signed his extension contract while aboard the ADAK in 
Bahrain,  prior  to  his  transfer  to  the  RUSH,  as  required  by  Article  4.B.6.b.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual, his SRB under ALCOAST 283/06 would presumably have been tax exempt. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by correcting the date of execution of the 
applicant’s 72-month extension contract to February 1, 2007, when he was serving aboard the 
ADAK in Bahrain, a designated combat zone.  In addition, because the JAG indicated that the 
Coast Guard may have denied the applicant his SRB, the Board should order the Coast Guard to 
pay the applicant the SRB he is due for the 72-month extension under ALCOAST 283/06. 

ORDER 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The application of ET1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

record is granted as follows: 

 
The Coast Guard shall correct his 72-month extension contract to show that he executed 
it  on  February  1,  2007  (instead  of  August  24,  2007),  while  he  was  serving  aboard  the  CGC 
ADAK in Bahrain, a designated combat zone.  The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount due 
under ALCOAST 283/06 as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 Philip B. Busch