DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2010-057 
 

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 December 8, 2009, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to pre-
pare 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  October  8,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  FS2  advancement  date  from  September  1, 
2009,  to  July  1,  2009,  so  that  he  will  be  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus 
(SRB).1    The  applicant  alleged  that  his  command  sent  the  message  reporting  his  eligibility  for 
advancement to the wrong electronic address on May 20, 2009, and so his name did not appear 
on the supplemental FS2 advancement list issued in June 2009, which authorized advancements 
on  July  1,  2009.    On  June  11,  2009,  when  his  command  saw  that  his  name  was  not  on  the 
advancement list, it discovered the error and sent the message to the correct address.  However, 
because  of  the  delay,  he  was  not  authorized  advancement  until  September  1,  2009.    If  he  had 
advanced to FS2 on July 1, 2009, the applicant could have reenlisted for an SRB between July 2, 
2009,  and  his  10th  active  duty  anniversary,  July  20,  2009.    However,  because  he  was  still  an 
FS3/E-4 in July 2009, he was never eligible for a Zone B SRB.2 

                                                 
1  SRBs  are  bonuses  the  Coast  Guard  offers  to  members  in  certain  skill  ratings  as  an  extra  inducement  to  reenlist.  
SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s service, the number of months of service newly obligated by 
the  reenlistment  or  extension  contract,  and  the  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  retain  personnel  with  the  member’s 
particular  skills,  which  is  reflected  in  the  “multiple”  of  the  SRB  authorized  for  the  member’s  rating,  which  is 
published in an ALCOAST.  Members who have at least 17 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service 
are in “Zone A.”  Members who have completed at least 6 years but no more than 10 years of active duty service are 
in “Zone B.”  Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone.  Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4. 
2  Being  in  pay  grade  E-5  or  higher  is  one  of  the  basic  criteria  for  receipt  of  a  Zone  B  SRB.    Personnel  Manual, 
Article 3.C.4.b.4. 

 

 

 
In support of these allegations, the applicant submitted copies of the electronic messages 
that his command sent on May 20 and June 11, 2009, regarding his eligibility for advancement, 
and  copies  of  the  advancement  lists  at  issue  and  the  bulletins  authorizing  advancements.    The 
message dated May 20, 2009, shows that the applicant completed the final eligibility requirement 
on May 15, 2009. 

 
The  applicant  also  submitted  a  memorandum  from  his  commanding  officer  (CO),  who 
strongly supported the applicant’s request and explained the circumstances of the error in detail.  
The CO stated that the command’s message of May 20, 2009, went astray because the Pay and 
Personnel  Center  (PPC)  and  Personnel  Service  Center  (PSC)  received  new  electronic  message 
addresses  while  their  cutter  was  underway  on  a  long  deployment.    He  recommended  that  the 
Board backdate the applicant’s date of advancement to July 1, 2009, and award him backpay and 
allowances.    The  CO  further  explained  that  because  the  applicant’s  enlistment  was  ending  on 
July 27, 2009, he needed to  reenlist.   Because the applicant  was still an FS3 in  July 2009, and 
FS3s  were  ineligible  for  SRBs,  he  reenlisted  on  July  23,  2009,  with  no  promise  of  an  SRB.  
Moreover,  because  the  applicant’s  10th  active  duty  anniversary  was  July  20,  2009,  he  would 
never be eligible for a Zone B SRB.  However, the CO stated, if the applicant had advanced to 
FS2 on July 1, 2009, he would have been eligible to reenlist for six years on July 15, 2009, for a 
Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  3  under  ALCOAST  286/08.    (On  July  16,  2009, 
ALCOAST 353/09 went into effect and the Zone B SRB multiple for FS2s fell to 1.5.) 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On July 20, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  He advanced 
to  FS3/E-4  on  July  7,  2000.    On  May  28,  2003,  he  reenlisted  for  six  years,  through  May  27, 
2009,  and  received  a  Zone  A  SRB.    On  April  7,  2008,  he  extended  his  six-year  enlistment  for 
two months, from May 28, 2009, to July 27, 2009.   
 

July 20, 2009, was the applicant’s 10th anniversary on active duty and the end of Zone B 
for  him.    On  July  23,  2009,  the  applicant  signed  an  indefinite  reenlistment  contract  with  no 
promise of an SRB.  On September 1, 2009, he advanced to FS2. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

The  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  stated  that  typically  when  the 
proper  personnel  office  receives  a  message  about  a  member’s  eligibility  for  advancement  on  a 
supplemental advancement list one month, the member’s name is added to the list the following 
month,  and  “the  member  is  advanced  the  third  month.”    Therefore,  when  the  applicant’s  com-
mand  sent  a  message  about  his  eligibility  for  advancement  to  an  electronic  address  that  had 
recently become invalid, the applicant’s advancement to FS2 was delayed to September 1, 2009.  
However, the JAG stated that the Coast Guard does not backdate dates of advancement caused 
by such administrative errors.   

 
The  JAG  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  not  by  backdating  the  applicant’s 
advancement but by reenlisting him for six years on his 10th anniversary, July 20, 2009, instead 

 

 

of July 23, 2009, and instructing him to request a waiver of the temporary suspension of the SRB 
program that went into effect on July 16, 2009, under ALCOAST 393/09.3  The JAG alleged that 
this correction would cause the applicant to be eligible for an SRB. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 17, 2010, the applicant responded to the JAG’s advisory opinion and said he had 

 
 
no objection to the recommendation therein. 
 

FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE BCMR 

 
 
On September 19, 2010, the BCMR asked the PSC for (1) the date stamp of the message 
sent by the command of the last FS3 authorized advancement to FS2 on July 1, 2009, to the PPC 
about that member’s eligibility for advancement to FS2; and (2)  the date stamp of the message 
sent by the command of the first FS3 authorized advancement to FS2 on August 1, 2009, to the 
PPC about that member’s eligibility for advancement to FS2. 
 
 
In response, the PPC stated that the date stamp of the message received by the PPC from 
the command of the last FS3 authorized advancement to FS2 on July 1, 2009, was May 21, 2009, 
which was after the date the applicant’s command first attempted to send the message regarding 
his  eligibility  for  advancement.    The  PPC  further  stated  that  the  date  stamp  of  the  message 
received from the command of the first FS3 authorized advancement to FS2 on August 1, 2009, 
was June 3, 2009.  The PPC also noted that both of these members completed all of the eligibility 
requirements for advancement prior to May 15, 2009, which is the date that the applicant com-
pleted his final eligibility requirement, but their commands were slower to send their messages to 
the PPC. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Under Article 5.C.26.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, the PSC may authorize advancements 
 
of  enlisted  members  to  pay  grades  E-4  through  E-9  to  fill  vacancies.    Under  Article  5.C.3.b., 
members are normally  advanced in  order  off an  advancement list  of  eligible members who are 
listed in accordance with a “final multiple,” which is calculated based upon each member’s score 
on  a  servicewide  examination  (SWE)  conducted  each  May,  performance  evaluations,  time  in 
grade, time in service, medals, and sea or surf duty time.  However, Article 5.C.3.d. authorizes 
the advancement of members off supplemental advancement lists compiled without participation 
in an SWE by special authority of the Commandant.   
 

On  January  24,  2009,  the  Commandant  issued  ALCOAST  050/09,  which  waived  the 
SWE and established supplemental advancement lists for the FS2 rating and a few other ratings.  
ALCOAST 050/09 states that if members completed the rating-specific advancement eligibility 
requirements, their commands should send messages to the PPC noting the dates of completion 

                                                 
3  Due  to  a  lack  of  funds,  the  SRB  program  was  temporarily  suspended  through  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  by 
ALCOAST 393/09, but paragraph D of the ALCOAST allowed personnel who were otherwise eligible for an SRB 
and whose 6th or 10th anniversary fell between July 16 and September 30, 2009, to request and receive a waiver of 
the suspension so that they could receive an SRB by reenlisting on their anniversary. 

 

 

of each requirement and requesting the member’s placement on a supplemental advancement list.  
Paragraph 10 of the ALCOAST states that members are listed on supplemental advancement lists 
“based solely on the date-time-group (DTG) of the request msg.  Commands should send a msg 
as  soon  as  the  member  meets  all  advancement  eligibility  requirements  and  should  contact 
PPC(ADV) if an acknowledgement msg is not received within five working days.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS  

1. 

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

2. 

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: 
 
 
The application was timely.  
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  because  of  an  administrative  error,  his  advancement 
 
was delayed from July 1, 2009, to September 1, 2009, and that the delay rendered him ineligible 
for a Zone B SRB in July 2009.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that 
the disputed information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, 
and the applicant  bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the  evidence that  the dis-
puted information is erroneous or unjust. 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b).  Absent evidence to the contrary, 
the Board presumes that Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out 
their duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 
(Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

 
3. 

The applicant submitted his command’s messages requesting his placement on the 
supplemental advancement list dated May 20, 2009, and June 11, 2009.  In addition, the appli-
cant’s allegations are strongly supported by his CO, who explained that the message dated May 
20, 2009, was mistakenly sent to the wrong electronic address for PPC because of the renaming 
of the PSC and PPC.  Under ALCOAST 050/09,  members were listed on supplemental lists in 
chronological order according to when their commands’ messages requesting their placement on 
the supplemental lists were received by the PPC.  The PPC has stated that the message request-
ing placement on the supplemental list for the last FS3 authorized advancement on July 1, 2009, 
was dated May 21, 2009.  Therefore, if the message sent by the applicant’s command on May 20, 
2009, had not been misdirected, the applicant’s name would have been above that FS3’s name on 
the  supplemental  advancement  list,  and  the  applicant  would  have  advanced  to  FS2  on  July  1, 
2009, instead of him.  Thus, the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
advancement was delayed from July 1, 2009, to September 1, 2009, because of an administrative 
error. 

 
4. 

According to the PPC, however, the last FS3 authorized advancement on July 1, 
2009, actually completed his eligibility requirements before the applicant did.  The same is true 
of  the  first  FS3  authorized  advancement  on  August  1,  2009.    Therefore,  their  commands  also 
may have erred by misdirecting their messages regarding their members’ eligibility for advance-
ment, or their commands could be said to have erred by unduly delaying these messages.  Pre-
sumably,  the  arrival  time  of  every  such  message  received  by  the  PPC  is  affected  by  numerous 
factors within the members’ commands.  

 

 

 
5. 

Under  ALCOAST  050/09,  the  PPC  places  members  on  supplemental  advance-
ment lists in an order “based solely on the date-time-group (DTG) of the request msg.”  This rule 
was apparently chosen for reasons of administrability because many other bases for ranking eli-
gible members could have been adopted, such as the members’ time in service, time in grade, or 
time  of  completion  of  the  advancement  eligibility  requirements.    The  Board  notes  that  any  of 
these other criteria would likely appear fairer to enlisted members, who have little if any control 
over  how  fast  their  request  chits  are  processed  by  their  chains  of  command.    Using  the  DTG 
stamp may be easiest for the PPC, but it clearly leaves members’ advancements at the mercy of 
their commands’ administrative efficiency, which apparently varies greatly.  The Board recom-
mends  to  the  Coast  Guard  that  it  strongly  consider  requiring  members’  commands  to  submit 
messages  requesting  placement  on  the  supplemental  advancement  list  within  a  specific  time 
frame of the member’s completion of his or her final requirement.  It is also the Board’s recom-
mendation that this time frame be a matter of days, and not weeks or months. 

 
6. 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  2006-116,  the  applicant  was  an  MK3  whose  command 
mistakenly  delayed  sending  the  message  requesting  his  placement  on  an  MK2  supplemental 
advancement list for three months.  In that case, the Coast Guard stated that the policy applied in 
ALCOAST 359/05 of using only DTGs to sequence members on the supplemental advancement 
list was intended to ensure that names are sequenced on the list by a standard procedure and that 
“strict  adherence  to  the  date-time-group  criteria  is  essential  to  the  overall  fairness  of  the 
process.”  The Coast Guard further argued the following: 
 

If the Coast Guard were to deviate from policy in this case, the 38 personnel who  would be dis-
placed on the list would be unfairly disadvantaged.  Additionally, it is very likely that any of those 
displaced personnel could claim that their message submission was delayed by their command by 
matters of days, weeks or even months as in the case of this Applicant.  Therefore, any digression 
from  policy  would  create  significant  disruptions  within  the  advancement  system  and  undermine 
fairness.  The supplemental advancement lists are published on the CG Personnel Command Web-
site  and  [ALCOAST  359/05]  provides  a  mechanism  for  units  and  members  to  ensure  that  their 
Supplemental Advancement List placement was properly executed. 

 

The  Board  recommended  granting  relief  in  Docket  No.  2006-116,  finding  that  the  cir-
cumstances  of  the  case  shocked  their  sense  of  justice,  but  the  delegate  of  the  Secretary  disap-
proved the Board’s decision and denied relief because “[t]he regulations are written to promote 
appropriate  sequencing,  fairness,  and  uniformity.    Deviations  from  policy  have  the  potential  to 
create  disruptions.  …  That  the  applicant  was  not  able  to  obtain  an  early  promotion  under  the 
facts of this petition, and instead, was only able to receive a promotion through the SWE within a 
year does not ‘shock my sense of justice’ and I do not find it an ‘injustice’.” 

 
7. 

The Board dislikes the PPC’s reliance on DTGs in ordering members on supple-
mental advancement lists.  However, the facts of this case are substantially similar to the facts in 
Docket No. 2006-116, in which the delegate of the Secretary upheld the Coast Guard’s use of the 
DTG as a bright-line rule.  Therefore, in accordance with the decision of the delegate of the Sec-
retary  in  that  case,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  is  not  entitled  to  have  his  advancement 
backdated  from  September  1,  2009,  to  July  1,  2009,  even  though  he  presumably  would  have 
advanced on the earlier date if his command had known and used the correct electronic address 
on May 20, 2009. 

 

 

 
8. 

The delay of the  applicant’s advancement, however, had a very harsh secondary 
effect  that  also  shocks  the  Board’s  sense  of  justice.4    Because  of  the  misdirected  message,  the 
applicant’s  advancement  to  FS2/E-5  was  delayed  until  after  his  10th  active  duty  anniversary, 
July  20,  2009.    Therefore,  he  lost  the  opportunity  to  reenlist  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  because  under 
Article  3.C.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  only  members  in  pay  grades  E-5  and  above  may  be 
eligible for Zone B SRBs. 

 
9. 

The JAG recommended that the Board grant relief by backdating the applicant’s 
reenlistment from July 23, 2009, to July 20, 2009, his  10th active duty anniversary.  The appli-
cant  agreed  with  this  recommendation.    However,  this  correction  alone  would  not  cause  the 
applicant  to  be entitled to an SRB because he was  in  pay  grade E-4 throughout  July 2009, and 
under  Article  3.C.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  E-4s  are  never  eligible  for  Zone  B  SRBs.    In 
addition, under ALCOAST 393/09, the SRB program was suspended from July 16 to September 
30, 2009, and members whose 6th or 10th active duty anniversary fell during that period needed 
waivers  to  be  entitled  to  SRBs.    However,  given  the  JAG’s  recommendation  for  relief,  the 
applicant’s  agreement,  and  the  unjust  loss  of  SRB  eligibility  resulting  from  his  command’s 
misdirected  message,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  should  be  paid  the  Zone  B  SRB  for 
which he would have been eligible on his 10th anniversary had he been an FS2/E-5 on that date. 

 
10. 

Accordingly, partial relief should be granted by correcting the applicant’s record 
to show that he reenlisted for six years on his 10th active duty anniversary, instead of signing the 
indefinite  reenlistment  contract  on  July  23,  2009,  and  to  show  that  he  was  eligible  for  and 
entitled to an SRB under ALCOAST 353/09 as if he had been an FS2/E-5 on the anniversary and 
had been granted a waiver pursuant to ALCOAST 393/09. 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

                                                 
4 Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, the Board is authorized not only to correct errors but to remove injustices from any Coast 
Guard  military  record.   For  the  purposes  of  the  BCMRs,  “‘[i]njustice’,  when  not  also  ‘error’,  is  treatment  by  the 
military authorities, that shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.” Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 
1010,  1011  (1976).    The  Board  has  authority  to  determine  whether  an  injustice  exists  on  a  “case-by-case  basis.” 
Docket  No.  2002-040  (DOT  BCMR,  Decision  of  the  Deputy  General  Counsel,  Dec.  4,  2002).    “Indeed,  ‘when  a 
correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its 
mandate.’” Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting  Yee v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 
388,  397  (1975)).  And  “[w]hen  a  board  does  not  act  to  redress  clear  injustice,  its  decision  is  arbitrary  and 
capricious.” Boyer v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 188, 194 (2008). 

 

 

 

ORDER 

The  application  of  FS2  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
The Coast  Guard shall correct  his  record to  show that he reenlisted for  six  years on his 
10th active duty anniversary and to show that he was eligible for and entitled to an SRB under 
ALCOAST  353/09  as  if  he  had  been  an  FS2/E-5  on  the  anniversary  and  had  been  granted  a 
waiver  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  393/09.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  remove  his  July  23,  2009, 
indefinite reenlistment contract from his record as null and void and shall pay him the SRB he is 
due as a result of these corrections. 
 
 
 

 

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Erin McMunigal 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger