DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2008-148 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
 

FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 

 

 
 

 

 

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 June 9, 2008, upon deter-
mining  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration  met  the  requirements  of  33  C.F.R.  
§ 52.67(a), and assigned it to staff members D. Hale and  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 February 26, 2009, is approved and signed by the three duly 

BACKGROUND:  BCMR DOCKET NO. 2007-088 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2007-088,  the  applicant,  who  alleged  that  he  had  been 
miscounseled about his eligibility for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1, asked the Board to 
cancel his June 21, 2006, extension contract and reenlist him for six years on February 14, 2007, 
to receive a Zone “A” SRB.  He alleged that he was told by the executive petty officer (XPO) 
and officer in charge (OINC) at Station Valdez, Alaska, that he could cancel the extension after 
he advanced to E-5 and reenlist for an SRB not reduced by any previously obligated service.  He 
also alleged that when he arrived at his new duty station in Florida and attempted to cancel the 
extension  contract  and  reenlist  as  an  E-5,  he  was  told  that  his  SRB  would  be  reduced  by  the 
service  obligated  by  the June  21,  2006,  extension  contract.    Finally,  he  alleged  that  if  he  had 
known that his SRB would be reduced by previously obligated service, he would have refused 
                                                 
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.  Personnel Manual, Articles 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. 
 

the transfer orders, continued serving at Station Valdez until he advanced to E-5 on November 1, 
2006, and signed a six-year reenlistment contract when his enlistment expired on February 14, 
2007, to receive an SRB not reduced by previously obligated service.   
 

The Board denied the applicant's request in Docket No. 2007-088 because it found that 
(a) the applicant had not proved that the XPO and OINC had inaccurately counseled him about 
the effect of his extension contract on his future SRB entitlement; and (b) the applicant had not 
proved that he would have rejected his transfer orders from Valdez, Alaska, to Ponce de Leon, 
Florida, if he had fully understood the SRB regulations.     
 

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

In his request for reconsideration, the applicant argued that 

… if I had been properly counseled, under no circumstances would I have transferred to Station 
Ponce de Leon Inlet, FL, knowing that I would lose out on the full SRB that I would have been 
entitled to.  I could and would have stayed at Station Valdez until I made E-5 and then re-enlisted 
and  transferred  the  following  summer.    Staying  in  Alaska  for  one  more  year  and  turning  down 
orders to Florida so I could have received the $25,000 authorized by the SRB entitlement, would 
have been an easy decision for me.  Once I arrived at Station Ponce de Leon inlet I immediately 
passed the BM2 EOCT [end of course test] and was promoted to BM2/E5 very quickly and within 
the time frames of my first enlistment. 
 
The  applicant  also  submitted  an  e-mail  from  BMC  G  to  BMC  B  dated  December  26, 
 
2007.  In the e-mail, BMC G asked BMC B the following questions, and BMC B responded by 
typing his answer in the original e-mail and sending it back to BMC G: 
 

Would  you  have recommended [applicant] for reenlistment upon  his expiration of enlistment in Feb 07, 
even if he had cancelled his orders to STA Ponce? 

Answer – “Yes” 
 

Would you have recommended [applicant] for advancement to E5 if he had completed all requirements to 
advance? 

 
 
 

 

 

 Answer – “Yes, as indicated on EER” 
 

The applicant also submitted an e-mail from BMC B to BMC G dated January 24, 2008, 
in which BMC B stated that he was the one  who would have made the  decision to allow the 
applicant  to  reenlist,  and  that  the  XPO  (BM1  S)  counseled  the  applicant  regarding  SRB 
requirements and eligibility.   
 

DECISION OF THE CHAIR TO GRANT RECONSIDERATION 

 
 
The Chair advised the applicant that, in accordance with the Board’s regulations under  
33 C.F.R. § 52.67, she granted reconsideration on the basis of the e-mail from BMC B which 
supports the applicant’s allegation that the Board wrongly concluded in Finding 5 of the Final 
Decision  that  he  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  reject  his  transfer  orders  to  Florida.    The 
Board’s Finding 5, stated the following: 
 

Even if the applicant did not understand the effect the 40-month extension could have on 
a possible future SRB, the Board is not persuaded that he would have rejected his transfer 
orders from Valdez, Alaska, to Ponce de Leon, Florida, by refusing to sign the extension 
contract.  Under Article 4.A.6.a. of the Personnel Manual, members must be available for 
unrestricted duty assignments worldwide, and the Coast Guard is not required to reenlist 
a member who has rejected transfer orders.    

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  22,  2008,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 

 
 
recommended that the Board deny the requested relief. 
 
 
The  JAG  argued  that  although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  would  have  remained  at 
Station Valdez until he advanced to E-5 and then reenlisted for an SRB, the applicant could not 
have predicted his advancement.  The JAG stated that the applicant's claim "is not supported by 
his  test  results,  as  applicant  had  attempted  unsuccessfully  to  pass  the  BM2  EOCT,  on  two 
separate occasions while stationed at Station Valdez (See Test Results for [applicant’s name]).  It 
was not until after he had reported for duty at Station Ponce de Leon Inlet, and even with two 
more test attempts there, that he successfully passed the BM2 EOCT."  The JAG also argued that 
the statements from BMC B have “no relevance to the full SRB entitlement issue, as there is no 
way of knowing that applicant would have made BM2 (E-5) at Station Valdez, even if he had 
continued to stay.  Therefore, the JAG concluded, “the Applicant’s claim to a future full SRB 
entitlement by remaining at Station Valdez until he made E-5 is unfounded” because he had no 
way of knowing that he would advance to E-5 prior to the end of his enlistment on February 14, 
2007.   
 
 
The records submitted by the JAG indicate that the applicant failed the BM2 EOCT on 
April 6, 2006, July 12, 2006, and August 30, 2006, and passed it on September 25, 2006.  He 
signed a signed a six-year reenlistment contract on February 14, 2007, for which he received a 
Zone “A” SRB, reduced by the service obligated by his June 21, 2006, extension contract. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

In  his  response  to  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  provided  the  following 

 

 

statement: 
 
 

Per the Coast Guard’s recommendation, I would like to share my final thoughts with the 
Board regarding my case.  I was counseled on the potential outcomes that my extension 
to  transfer  could  have  on  me  once  I  made  second  class  and  was  eligible  for  an  SRB.  
From the beginning I have been making the same point; I was improperly counseled plain 
and simple.  With that said I realize that I wasn’t a second class yet at that time, and that I 
wasn’t eligible for an SRB before making second class.  I’ll state my case one more time. 
 
On the day I was counseled, I repeatedly asked my XPO if he was sure that I could cancel 
the extension orders once I made second class for the purpose of reenlisting for the full 
amount of the SRB.  He said he was sure.  Wanting a second opinion, I asked my OINC.  
He also stated that I could cancel the extension once I transferred and made second class.  
After all my research on this subject, both my OINC and XPO were not aware of the 

change in 2005 regarding SRB entitlements stating that you could no longer transfer on 
extensions then cancel and reenlist for the purpose of a full SRB.[2]  I have been dealing 
with this for  2  and  ½  years  and  I  have  gotten every  bit  of  information that  I  could to 
support my case.  Even my OINC’s statements supporting my claims that I could have 
stayed in Alaska for another year, and been recommended for advancement.  The only 
statement that I couldn’t get, when I knew all along that this is what it would have come 
down to, was the statement of my former XPO, the one who counseled me.  I believe it is 
unjust that I’ve done all of this work to get where I’m at in my career, put this much time 
and energy into this case, and then this guy doesn’t have to tell the truth.  There’s no way 
anyone would transfer if they knew they were going to lose out on $25,000 dollars. 

My XPO extended me there in Alaska for 30 days because he needed me.  They asked me 
several times to extend another year.  My XPO states in the email (documented in this 
case) that I was counting the days before I left and that it seems I may have left there not 
recommended for advancement.  Well that is completely absurd.  Direct Access shows 
that  I  received  good  marks  3  months  prior  to  leaving  Station Valdez,  and  my  transfer 
marks show that I was recommended for advancement by the OINC of Station Valdez.  
Also  there  is  no  documentation  between  the  time  of  those  last  set  of  marks  and  my 
transfer marks of me being a bad performer or not performing my duties.  So my XPO’s 
remarks  above  are irrelevant  and are  without  supporting  evidence.    I  remember  that  it 
seemed like, once they knew I was leaving I was given the cold shoulder every day.  But 
they still let me run the station as the Officer of the Day and Duty Coxsn.  They didn’t 
replace my position with someone else until the last week I was there.  I feel it’s only fair 
that my former XPO provides an honest statement on the counseling that happened that 
day.    Furthermore, he  did not  complete a  Page  7  (3307)  documenting  that  I  was  even 
counseled.  That demonstrates discrepancies on his part. 

In response to the Coast Guard’s Advisory Opinion, I would like to say it doesn’t make 
much sense.  The first time around the Coast Guard recommended relief in my case.  The 
BCMR did not.  I appealed and it went back to the Coast Guard.  This time the Coast 
Guard did not recommend relief.  When I was notified I was concerned, so I contacted 
the Coast Guard.  I was told that the Coast Guard didn’t grant relief this time due to new 
evidence.  The new evidence was that it wasn’t clear I was going to pass the BM2 EOCT.  
My  test scores  were  brought  up.   This is  not  new  evidence.   This  same  evidence  was 
present the first time the Coast Guard made a decision when they recommended to the 
BCMR  to  grant  relief.    So  if  the  test  scores  were  present  the  first  time  and  they 
recommended me for relief why not the second time.  This doesn’t make any sense.  Plus 
after speaking to the BCMR recently I have reason to believe that the Coast Guard wasn’t 
even aware of the new supporting evidence provided in my case by my former OINC.  
My test scores had improved each time.  I will also add that transferring in July, from 
Alaska to Florida is not the quickest or easiest move.  If I would have had more time in 
one location, I would have passed the [EOCT] test a lot sooner than I did. 

This ordeal has affected my whole career greatly, both financially and emotionally.  The 
transfer  from  Alaska  to  Florida  and  making  rank  was  all  based  on  qualifying  for  that 
SRB.  That’s why I transferred, and that was my motivation to pass the test and advance.  
I  don’t  think  it’s  right  to  have  someone  in  a  management  position  such  as  an  XPO 
counseling  a  member  on  SRB’s,  when  they  don’t  specialize  on  the  subject  matter, 

 

 

 

                                                 
2 Actually, there have not been any significant changes to the SRB regulations in more than 20 years. 

especially when it is concerning large amounts of money.  There should be a Yeoman 
assigned to handling those matters, but in this case it was a Boatswain’s Mate.  In Valdez, 
Alaska  there  was  a  MSO  unit  who  had  Officers  and  Yeomans  who  could  have  better 
assisted  me  with  that  counseling  and  transfer  process.    So  to  me  there’s  another 
discrepancy.  I could have been afforded the opportunity to speak with someone more 
qualified. 

It was recommended to me by the Coast Guard that I share my thoughts and speak freely 
on this matter as I have in this letter.  I greatly appreciate the time that the BCMR has 
spent dealing with my case and I hope that I have provided sufficient information for the 
Board to grant relief.  

 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

1. 

 
2. 

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

The applicant’s request for reconsideration was timely submitted under 33 C.F.R. § 52.67(e). 

3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  BMC  B’s  e-mail  stating  that  he  would  have 
recommended  the  applicant  for  advancement  to  E-5  and  would  have  recommended  him  for 
reenlistment upon the expiration of his enlistment on February 14, 2007, support his allegation 
that he could have refused the transfer orders to Florida and remained at his unit in Alaska for a 
year  without  negative  repercussion.    The  applicant  further  alleged  that  if  he  had  remained  in 
Alaska,  then  after  advancing  to  BM2  (E-5)  on  November  1,  2006,  he  would  have  signed  a 
reenlistment  contract  at  the  end  of  his  enlistment  to  receive  an  SRB  not  reduced  by  any 
previously obligated service.   
 
 
The applicant submitted a copy of an e-mail in which BMC B acknowledged that 
he would have recommended the applicant for reenlistment and for advancement to BM2 even if 
the applicant had rejected his transfer orders.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the additional 
evidence submitted by the applicant proves that his OINC would have reenlisted the applicant 
when his enlistment expired on February 14, 2007, even if the applicant had refused his transfer 
orders in June 2006.   
 
 
The  Board  granted  reconsideration  in  this  case  because  the  applicant  submitted 
evidence  to  refute  the  Board’s  finding  in  BCMR  Docket  No.  2007-088,  which  stated  that  he 
would not likely have been allowed to reenlist if he had rejected his transfer orders to Florida.  
However, to prevail in the instant case the applicant also needs to refute the Board’s finding that 
he  failed  to  prove  that  he  was  miscounseled  about  the  effect  of  his  June  21,  2006,  extension 
contract on his future SRB eligibility.  In BCMR Docket No. 2007-088, the Board found that the 
applicant  did  not  prove  that  he  was  erroneously  counseled  by  the  XPO  and  OINC  about  the 
effect his extension contract would have on his future SRB entitlement.  The Board stated that  
 
 

[b]y signing the contract, the applicant affirmed that he understood the effect of 
the  extension  on  his  future  SRB  eligibility.    Therefore,  although  his  command 

4. 

failed to document the applicant’s SRB counseling on a Page 7, the Board finds 
that  he  has  not  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  received 
inaccurate  counseling  about  the  effect  the  40-month  extension  could  have  on  a 
possible future SRB.  

 
 
The  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  additional  evidence  to  prove  that  he  was 
inaccurately counseled regarding his SRB eligibility when he signed the extension contract on 
June 21, 2006.  Thus, the applicant has not overcome the presumption that he was accurately 
counseled regarding the effect his June, 21, 2006, extension contract would have on his future 
SRB eligibility.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d. 1034, 1037 (1992); Sanders v. United States, 
594 F.2d. 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 
 
 
After  reviewing  the  additional  evidence  submitted  by  the  applicant,  the  JAG 
recommended that the Board deny relief.  The JAG argued that there is no way the applicant 
could have known that he would be advanced to E-5 before the end of his enlistment on February 
14, 2007.  The JAG further argued that the applicant had “attempted unsuccessfully to pass the 
BM2 EOCT on two separate occasions while stationed at Station Valdez.  It was not until after 
he had reported for duty at station Ponce de Leon Inlet, and even with two more test attempts 
there, that he successfully passed the BM2 EOCT.  Therefore, the applicant’s claim to a future 
full SRB entitlement by remaining at Station Valdez until he made E-5 is unfounded.”   
 
 
The  applicant  has  submitted  evidence  which  proves  that  he  would  have  been 
allowed to remain in Alaska and reenlist in February 2007 if he had refused the transfer orders to 
Florida.  However, the applicant has not provided the Board with any evidence to show that the 
Board was incorrect in finding that he had failed to prove that he was miscounseled about the 
SRB regulations.   

7. 

5. 

6. 

 
8. 

Accordingly, relief should be denied.  

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  BM2  XXXXXXXXXX,  xxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Randall J. Kaplan 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 Ryan J. Wedlund