DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2010-217 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application on July 29, 2010, and subsequently prepared the 
final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  April  28,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by reinstating him on active duty and 
by  authorizing  him  to  receive  the  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  that  he  was 
promised  on  November  2,  2009  reenlistment  contract  that  the  Coast  Guard  voided.        The 
applicant alleged that an administrative error delayed his advancement and led to his receipt of 
improper counseling and to his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 

BACKGROUND 

 

 
Prior  to  enlisting  in  the  Coast  Guard,  the  applicant  served  in  the  Marine  Corps.    He 
enlisted in the Coast Guard for 4 years on October 11, 2005.  On May 9, 2009, his commanding 
officer  (CO)  approved  August  19,  2009  as  the  date  for  the  applicant’s  placement  on  the 
supplemental FS2 (food specialist second class) advancement list. To obtain his placement on the 
FS2 supplemental advancement list, the applicant’s command was required to send a message to 
the Commander, Personnel Service Center, Enlisted Personnel Management Branch, authorizing 
placement on that list.  Members are placed on and advanced from the list in the order in which 
PSC receives the messages.  The applicant’s command trusted a FN (pay grade E-3), who was 
temporarily assigned to the administrative shop, with the responsibility to prepare and submit the 
message to PSC for the applicant’s placement on the supplemental list.  The E-3 purportedly did 
this on August 24, 2009, but on September 10, 2009, the command discovered that the message 
had not transmitted to PSC because it was not properly prepared.  Therefore, another individual 

was  placed  on  the  list  ahead  of  the  applicant  and  advanced  on  October  1,  2009,  the  date  the 
applicant  whould  have  been  advanced  if  the  message  had  been  properly  prepared  and 
transmitted.   
 
 
The applicant’s enlistment was due to expire on October 10, 2009.  Therefore, to remain 
on active duty the applicant had to extend or reenlist with an effective date of October 11, 2009.   
The applicant requested a three-month extension to allow for time to resolve the advancement 
issue.    While  waiting  for  PSC  to  approve  the  short-term  extension,  the  applicant’s  ID  card 
expired and the office responsible for issuing a new ID card required him to execute a 12 month 
extension to get one.  The applicant alleged that he was told that once the 3-month extension was 
approved  the  12-month  extension  would  be  voided.    The  applicant  advanced  to  FS2  on 
November  1,  2009  and  subsequently  executed  a  6-year  reenlistment  contract  on  November  2, 
2009, for which he was promised a Zone B SRB.     
 
According  to  the  advisory  opinion,  on  March  15,  2010,  the  applicant’s  command  was 
 
advised that the November 2, 2009 reenlistment contract and the 3-month extension were invalid 
and only the 12-month extension was valid.  As a result of the 12-month extension contract, the 
applicant’s expiration of enlistment was October 10, 2010.    The Coast Guard did not pay the 
SRB promised on the November 2, 2009 enlistment contract, but sent the applicant permanent 
change  of  station  (PSC)  orders.      The  applicant  refused  to  obligate  service  for  the  orders  in 
March  2010.    The  applicant  was  apparently  discharged  on  June  21,  2010,  under ALCOAST 
173/10 because he  failed to obligate service  for PCS orders.  The message dictating this new 
policy about time limits for obligating service for PCS orders was issued on April 6, 2010.  This 
message stated in pertinent part: 
 

For  members  not  in  a  retirement  eligible  status,  or  serving  on  an  indefinite 
enlistment  contract,  the  obligated  service  requirement  for  the  purposes  of  PCS 
orders shall be executed within 5 days of orders issuance.  Otherwise, CG PSC –
EPM shall be notified via message of enlisted members failing to meet obligated 
service requirements. 
 
The  failure  to  obligate  service  may  .  .  .  result  in  the  members  being  separated 
prior  to  the  expiration  of  their  enlistment  by  reason  of  convenience  of  the 
government  . . .   
 
For  members  already  in  receipt  of  PCS  orders  during  AY10  [assignment  year 
2010],  the  voluntary  election  of  obligated  service  must  be  completed  within 
fourteen calendar days of the message [time/date group] above [April 6, 2010].  
Members failing to obligate service for an AY10 assignment shall reconfirm their 
decision under this policy.  Failure to obligate service shall be communicated via 
message to CG PSC-EPM.   

 

The  applicant  changed  his  mind  about  refusing  the  PCS  assignment  and  his  command 
informed PSC on two different occasions, April 19, 2010 and May 3, 2010, that the applicant 
was willing to accept any  worldwide assignment.  On May 20, 2010, PSC responded that the 
applicant should be honorably discharged by June 21, 2010, for miscellaneous/general reasons 

because he had refused orders.  The applicant was advised by his command to seek correction of 
his record through the BCMR.   
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On December 17, 2010, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board grant relief by reinstating the applicant into 
the Coast Guard and reenlisting him for 6 years on October 1, 2009 for a Zone B SRB under 
ALCOAST  353/09.    The  JAG  stated  that  due  to  the  failure  of  the  applicant’s  command  to 
properly transmit the message placing the applicant’s name on the supplemental list as of August 
2009 and not discovering the error until September 2009, another candidate was placed on the 
list and advanced ahead of the applicant causing him to miss advancement in October 2009 and 
the opportunity to reenlist for an SRB prior to or at the expiration of EOE on October 10, 2009.  
The JAG also stated that the administrative error led to the applicant’s undesired discharge from 
the  Coast  Guard.    The  JAG  stated  that  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  had  the  administrative 
errors not occurred, the applicant would have been advanced on October 1, 2009 and reenlisted 
on October 2, 2009, for a Zone B SRB.    
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
applicant for a response.  The Board did not receive a reply from the applicant.   

On  January  4,  2011,  the  Board  sent  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  to  the 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

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

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code.  The application was timely.  
 
 
 
2.   For the reasons discussed below, the Board agrees with the JAG that the applicant is 
entitled to be reinstated on active duty, advanced to FS2 retroactively to October 1, 2009, and 
reenlisted on October 2, 2009 for a Zone B SRB.    
 
3.    The  applicant’s  command  committed  an  error  against  the  applicant  by  failing  to 
 
ensure that the message placing him on the supplemental advancement list for FS2 was properly 
drafted and transmitted to PSC in August 2009.    The command discovered and corrected the 
error made by an E-3 in September 2009.   However, by that time another individual had been 
placed on the list and was advanced on October 1, 2009 ahead of the applicant.  Members are 
advanced from the supplemental list in the order in which messages are received.  The applicant 
was not advanced until November 1, 2009, but would have advanced on October 1, 2009, if not 
for the command’s mistake.    
 

 
4.    The  delay  in  the  applicant’s  advancement  meant  that  he  could  not  reenlist  prior  to 
October 10, 2009, his EOE, for an SRB because under the SRB ALCOAST in effect at that time, 
he was required to be in pay grade E-5 (FS2) to be eligible for the SRB.  The applicant was not 
advanced until November 1, 2009 due to the E-3’s error.  After the applicant advanced to FS2 on 
November  1,  2009,  he  reenlisted  (contract  signed  by  all  necessary  parties)  for  6  years  on 
November 2, 2009 for the Zone B SRB, but the Coast Guard unilaterally voided the contract and 
refused to pay the SRB, for reasons not explained in the record.  On March 15, 2010, the Coast 
not  only  determined  that  the  6-year  enlistment  contract  was  void,  but  so  was  the  3-month 
extension, leaving the 12-month extension as the only valid contract.  The Coast Guard has not 
articulated a basis for unilaterally voiding a duly executed reenlistment contract.  Therefore, the 
Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error and/or injustice against the applicant by 
doing so.    
 
 
5.  During all of the confusion about his advancement date and enlistment/extensions, the 
applicant refused to obligate service for PCS orders.  PSC then ordered the applicant discharged 
under ALCOAST 173/10, for refusing to obligate service for PCS orders, although the applicant 
subsequently indicated on April 19, 2010 and May 3, 2010, that he would accept orders.  The 
ALCOAST issued on April 6, 2010, stated in pertinent part, “members alreadyfailing to [obligate 
service] for an AY10 assignment shall reconfirm their decision under this policy.”  The applicant 
complied with the notice requirement of the ALCOAST for members in his situation.  However, 
PSC refused to accept his change of mind and discharged him on June 21, 2010 stating that his 
orders had been canceled.  The ALCOAST does not mandate discharge for those members who 
refused orders prior to the issuance of ALCOAST 173/10 but subsequently change their minds 
upon  learning  of  the  ALCOAST.  Additionally,  there  is  some  question  whether  ALCOAST 
173/10  applied  to  the  applicant’s  situation  since  he  initially  refused  his  orders  prior  to  the 
issuance  of  the  ALCOAST.    Regardless,  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an 
injustice against the applicant by discharging him under ALCOAST 173/10 despite his timely 
notification that he would accept any orders.  
 
 
6.    To  summarize,  the  Board  finds  that  the  errors  and  injustices  discussed  above  all 
resulted from the command’s error in not ensuring that the applicant’s name was placed on the 
FS2 supplemental list in August 2009, including his wrongful discharge from the Coast Guard.  
Therefore, the Board agrees with the JAG and finds that the applicant is entitled to relief.  As the 
JAG  recommended,  the  applicant  should  be  reinstated  on  active  duty,  advanced  to  FS2  on 
October 1, 2009, and reenlisted on October 2, 2009 for a Zone B SRB.   The Board agrees with 
the  JAG  that  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  advanced  on  October  1,  2009,  he  could  have 
signed the 6-year reenlistment contract on October 2, 2009 instead of November 2, 2009, for a 
Zone B SRB, which would have given him the necessary service for PCS orders.   
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 
granted.  His record shall be corrected to show that he was not discharged on June 21, 2010, but 
has served continuously on active duty in the Coast Guard since his enlistment on October 11, 
2005.  The applicant shall be reinstated on active duty within 90 days from the date of this final 
decision.    

 
His record shall be further corrected, once reinstated, to show that he was advanced to 
FS2  on  October  1,  2009,  and  that  he  reenlisted  for  6  years  on  October  2,  2009  instead  of 
November 2, 2009, for a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 353/09.  Any extension or reenlistment 
contracts  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  are  inconsistent  with  this  order  shall  be  voided  and 
removed, if not removed already.   

 
 The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any back pay and allowances due as a result of 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
Anthony C. DeFelice 

 

 

 

 
Peter G. Hartman 

 

 

 
Vicki J. Ray 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

this correction.