DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2009-125 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxx, MK2/E-5 
   

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 after receiving the applicant’s 
completed  application  on  April  10,  2009,  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  June  XX,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

The applicant, a machinery technician, second class (MK2), originally asked the Board to 
correct his record by changing the term of his April 26, 2005, extension contract from 23 months 
to 24 months.  He alleged that if he had been counseled to extend his enlistment for 24 months, 
instead of 23, then he would have been eligible to reenlist or extend his enlistment for a Zone A 
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 after he advanced to MK2 on August 1, 2007.  (Until he 
advanced from MK3 to MK2, the applicant was not eligible for an SRB.) 

 
The applicant later revised his allegations, alleging that if he had been properly counseled 
prior to his transfer from the CGC Farallon to Station Miami Beach in June 2007, he would have 
been able to delay his transfer and wait to reenlist until after he advanced to MK2 on August 1, 
2007, and so would have received an SRB. 
 

                                                 
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, Article 3.C.4. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  August  7,  2001,  for  four  years,  through 

 
 
August 6, 2005.  He advanced to MK3 on April 2, 2002.   
 
 
On April 26, 2005, the applicant signed a 23-month extension contract to obligate service 
for a transfer to the Farallon in June 2005.  The extension obligated him to serve from August 7, 
2005, through July 6, 2007.  As an MK3, he was not then eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 
306/04, which was then in effect. 
 
On March 5, 2007, the Coast Guard issued orders transferring the applicant from the Faral-
 
lon to Station Miami Beach, where he was assigned to serve from June 1, 2007, through July 1, 
2011.  The orders stated that the June 1st reporting date could be adjusted by a maximum of 30 
days  if  both  commands  agreed  to  the  change,  and  the  applicant  actually  reported  to  Station 
Miami  Beach  on  July  1st  instead  of  June  1st.    The  orders  also  stated  that  the  applicant  was 
required to have at least four years of obligated service in his record before reporting to his new 
unit.  Therefore, on June 22, 2007, before reporting to Station Miami Beach, he signed a four-
year  extension  contract  since  his  original  enlistment,  as  extended,  was  due  to  end  on  July  6, 
2007.  As an MK3, the applicant was not eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 283/06, which 
was in effect through July 15, 2007.   
 
 
On June 29, 2007, the Commandant issued the advancement eligibility lists resulting from 
the May 2007 servicewide examination (SWE).  The applicant placed 36th out of 178 MK3s who 
took the SWE and were thus included on the eligibility list for advancement to MK2. 
 
 
new four-year extension contract became operative. 
 
 
ment of the applicant and 135 other MK3s on the list to MK2 as of August 1, 2007. 
 
 
SRB under ALCOAST 304/07, which had gone into effect on July 16, 2007. 
 
 
contain a Page 7 documenting SRB counseling on this date. 
 
 
On  August  27,  2007,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGENL  134/07  announcing  the  initial 
cutoffs for guaranteed advancement from the eligibility lists resulting from the May 2007 SWE.  
The cutoff for MK2s indicates that every MK3 on the list was guaranteed advancement.   
 

The applicant’s 6th anniversary on active duty2 was August 7, 2007.  His record does not 

On July 1, 2007, the applicant reported for duty to Station Miami Beach, and on July 7th his 

On  July  26,  2007,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCGENL  114/07, authorizing the advance-

On  August  1,  2007,  the  applicant  advanced  to  MK2  and  thereby  became  eligible  for  an 

                                                 
2 On a member’s 6th and 10th active duty anniversary, the member is eligible to reenlist for either a Zone A or a Zone 
B  SRB  if  one  is  authorized  for  his  rating  and  the  member  has  not  already  received  one.    The  member  must  be 
counseled about this opportunity, and the counseling must be documented on a Page 7.  Personnel Manual, Article 
3.C.5.9. 

INITIAL ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On August 25, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief because the applicant received trans-
fer orders in March 2007 that required him to obligate four more years of service before reporting 
to a new unit in June 2007, which was weeks before the Commandant issued an announcement 
authorizing the applicant’s advancement to MK2.  The JAG argued that on June 22, 2007, neither 
the applicant nor anyone else could have known that he would be advanced to MK2 and become 
eligible for an SRB on August 1, 2007. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL ADVISORY OPINION 

 

The applicant responded to the JAG’s advisory opinion on December 18, 2009, and stated 

 

 
the following: 
 

I am contesting that I was counseled incorrectly prior to transfer from CGC Far-
allon  to  Station  Miami  Beach.    I  had  taken  the  May  2007  servicewide.    I  was 
above the cut to make MK2 and that I would be advancing on 01Aug07.  Regard-
less of this information, my YN told me that there was absolutely no possible way 
to  receive  an  SRB.    I  was  in  contact  with  the  [station]  I  was  transferring  to 
because it was located on the same pier as CGC Farallon.  Per both commands 
and my orders (if given the proper counseling) I would be have been allowed to 
push back the date of my transfer date 30 days.  This would have enabled me to 
advance  to  MK2  and  then  obligate  the  necessary  time  to  transfer  to  [Station 
Miami  Beach]  and  receive  the  SRB  prior  to reporting to my new unit.  At this 
time I would have reenlisted for a period of six years. 
 
In support of his new allegations and request for relief, the applicant submitted copies of 
his  transfer  orders  and  the  pertinent  ALCGENL  announcements  and  two  statements  from  the 
commanding officers of the Farallon and Station Miami Beach: 

 
In  an  email  dated  December  18,  2009,  the  2007  commanding  officer  of  the  Farallon 
wrote that she would have allowed the applicant to remain attached to the Farallon for an 
extra 30 days so that he could have reenlisted for an SRB and reported to his next duty 
station after advancing to MK2.  

In an email dated December 21, 2009, the commanding officer of Station Miami Beach 
wrote  that  he  would  have  “gladly  allowed  [the  applicant]  to  stay  attached  to  the  CGC 
Farallon for an additional 30 days in order to obtain his SRB prior to reporting to Station 
Miami Beach [in] July 2007.” 

SUPPLEMENTAL ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 23, 2009, the BCMR sent a copy of the applicant’s new allegations and 
evidence to the JAG and invited him to submit a supplemental advisory opinion.  On February 
17, 2010, the JAG submitted a supplemental advisory opinion and recommended that the Board 
grant alternative relief.   

• 

• 

 

 

 

 

The JAG affirmed his earlier finding that “unfortunate time lines” prevented the applicant 
from receiving an SRB when he transferred from the Farallon to Station Miami Beach.  How-
ever, he noted that there is no documentation in the applicant’s record of SRB counseling on his 
6th active duty anniversary, August 7, 2007.  Accordingly, the JAG recommended that the Board 
grant relief by allowing the applicant to reenlist for six years on his 6th anniversary, August 7, 
2007, to receive an SRB in accordance with ALCOAST 304/07.  The JAG noted that because the 
applicant’s four-year extension already obligates him to serve through July 6, 2011, the six-year 
reenlistment would entitle him to an SRB based on 25 months of newly obligated service.  
  

RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL ADVISORY OPINION 

 
 
On February 25, 2010, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s supple-
mental advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The Chair did not receive a 
response. 
  

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual provides that members with less 
than six years of active duty will not normally be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend to 
have enough obligated service for a full tour on reporting to a new unit.”  Under Article 4.A.5.b., 
a full tour of duty at Station Miami Beach is four years. 
 

Article  3.C.5.9.  of  the  manual provides that commanders are authorized to effect early 
discharge and reenlist members within three months prior to their 6th and 10th year anniversaries, 
for the purpose of qualifying for an SRB. 

 
Article  3.C.11.  of  the  manual  requires  that  a  Page  7  entry  regarding  counseling  about 
SRB eligibility be made in a member’s record whenever they reenlist or extend an enlistment and 
within three months prior to his 6th and 10th anniversaries. 

 
ALCOAST 304/07 was issued on June 15, 2007, and was in effect from July 16, 2007, 
through July 15, 2008.  Under ALCOAST 304/07, MK2s in Zone A were authorized an SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 2.0. 
 

 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 submission, and applicable law. 
 

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

application was timely. 
 

2.  On March 5, 2007, the Coast Guard issued orders transferring the applicant from the 
Farallon to Station Miami Beach, with a report date of June 1, 2007, and a four-year OBLISERV 
requirement.  The record shows that he actually reported to Station Miami Beach on July 1, 2007.  
Because his previous enlistment was ending on July 6, 2007, under Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Per-

sonnel Manual, he needed to obligate a minimum of 48 months to accept the orders before report 
to the new unit, and so he signed a 48-month extension contract on June 22, 2007.  As an MK3, 
he was not eligible for an SRB under ALCOAST 283/06. 

 
3.  The applicant originally alleged that he was improperly counseled when he signed an 
extension  contract  on  April  26,  2005,  to  obligate  service  for  a  transfer  to  the  Farallon,  and   
asked the Board to change the term of the  contract from 23 months to 24 months.  However, 
changing  the  term  of  that  extension  would  have  no  positive  impact  on  the  applicant’s  SRB 
eligibility, and in his response to the JAG’s advisory opinion, the applicant made new allegations 
and changed his request for relief.  He alleged that he was incorrectly counseled regarding his 
SRB eligibility when he signed the 48-month extension contract on June 22, 2007.  He alleged 
that  if  properly  counseled  on  June  22,  2007,  he  would  have  requested  and  been  granted 
permission  from  his  losing  and  gaining  commands  to  delay  his  reporting  date  until  August 1, 
2007, and he would not have signed the 48-month extension, but instead would have waited until 
August 1st, when he could then have reenlisted for an SRB as an MK2 before reporting to Station 
Miami Beach. 
 

4.  In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted December 2009 emails from the 
losing and gaining commands, who stated that they would have delayed his reporting date by 30 
days so he could advance to MK2 and reenlist for the SRB.  However, the Board notes that the 
applicant reported to Station Miami Beach on July 1, 2007, which was 30 days after his sched-
uled report date of June 1, 2007.  Therefore, it appears to the Board that the losing and gaining 
commands had already delayed the applicant’s reporting date by 30 days, and the orders clearly 
state that the commands can adjust a report date by a maximum of 30 days.  There is no authority 
under the orders for the commands to delay the reporting date by 61 days, from June 1 to August 
1, 2007.   
 

5.  Moreover,  although  the  applicant  alleged  that  if  properly  counseled  he  would  have 
elected to remain on the Farallon until he advanced to MK2 on August 1, 2007, there was simply 
no way for him to know before the issuance of ALCGENL 114/07 on June 26, 2007, whether and 
when  he would advance to MK2.  On June 22, 2007, the applicant could not know where he 
would place on the advancement list or when the Commandant would authorize advancements 
from the list or how many advancements would be authorized.  When the applicant’s command 
was advising him in June 2007, they could not predict that seeking authority to delay his transfer 
until August 1, 2007, would have enabled him to obligate the required service after advancing to 
MK2 and thus to receive an SRB.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the four-year extension contract he signed on June 22, 
2007, is erroneous or unjust. 
 

6.  As the JAG noted in the advisory opinion, the applicant was eligible to reenlist on his 
6th active duty anniversary, August 7, 2007, for a Zone SRB under ALCOAST 304/07, but there 
is  no  documentation  of  SRB  counseling  in  his  record  as  required  by  Article  3.C.11.2.  of  the 
Personnel Manual. 

 
7.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied, but alternative relief should be 
granted by offering him the opportunity to reenlist on his 6th anniversary for five or six years for a 
Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 304/07. 

ORDER 

 

 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXX, xxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record 
is  denied,  except  that  the  Coast  Guard  shall  counsel  him  about  SRBs  and  offer  him  the 
opportunity to reenlist as of his 6th active duty anniversary for five or six years, at his discretion, 
to receive a Zone A SRB under ALCOAST 304/07.  The Coast Guard shall pay him any amount 
due  under  ALCOAST  304/07  as  a  result  of  his  6th  anniversary  reenlistment  if  he  chooses  to 
reenlist pursuant to this order.