DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2009-016 
 
XXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxx, IT1/E-6 
   

 

 

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 November 14, 2008, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, 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  July  16,  2009,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  an  information  systems  technician,  first  class  (IT1),  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his record by canceling the 30-month extension contract that he signed on June 23, 2007, 
to obligate service (OBLISERV) for transfer.  He stated that after he received transfer orders to 
the Coast Guard Training Center (TRACEN) in Petaluma, CA, he was told that he would need to 
obligate 30 months of service to accept the orders.  However, the applicant alleged that he never 
received  counseling  regarding  the  effect  his  extension  contract  would  have  on  his  future 
eligibility for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).1  He stated that if had known that he could 
not  cancel  the  30-month  extension  contract  without  affecting  his  SRB,  then  “I  would  have 
requested an assignment listed in COMDTINST M1000.6A.4.A.5., which would have required a 
2 or 3 year tour length and still allowed me to take advantage of the 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, Articles 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On  March  10,  2003,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the Coast Guard for a term of six years, 
through March 9, 2009.  On June 25, 2007, the Coast Guard issued orders for the applicant to 
transfer to TRACEN Petaluma on or about October 1, 2007, and the orders required that he have 
at least four years of OBLISERV remaining upon reporting to the unit.  The applicant extended 
his enlistment on June 23, 2007, for 30 months to accept the transfer orders. There is no Page 7 
in his record to document that he was counseled regarding his eligibility for an SRB.  He reported 
to Petaluma on September 4, 2007.  On March 9, 2009, he signed a six-year reenlistment contract 
and received a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0 but reduced by the 30 months of 
service obligated by the June 23, 2007, extension contract. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 26, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory opinion and recommended that the Board grant alternative relief.  The JAG stated that 
the applicant was not properly counseled regarding the SRB program and that the Coast Guard 
failed  to  document  counseling  on  a  Page  7.2    The  JAG  argued  that  if  the  applicant  had  been 
properly counseled, then he would have signed a six-year extension contract on July 17, 2007, to 
receive a Zone A SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 304/07.  Accordingly, the JAG recommended that 
the Board correct the applicant’s record by voiding his June 23, 2007, extension contract and his 
March 9, 2009, reenlistment contract, and entering a six-year extension contract dated July 17, 
2007, for a Zone A SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 304/07. 
 

RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
invited him to respond within 30 days.  The Chair did not receive a response.   

On April 2, 2009, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of the views of the Coast Guard and 

 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual requires that all personnel with 10 years or less of 
active service who reenlist or extend for any period shall be counseled on the SRB program and 
shall sign a Page 7 outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement. 
 

Article 3.C.11.1. of the manual provides the administrative remarks that must be made 
any time a member reenlists of extends their enlistment.  The Page 7 that a member must sign 
after receiving SRB counseling states the following:  
 

DATE:  I have reviewed Article 3.C.12. of the Personnel Manual entitled “Frequently Asked SRB 
Questions and Answers.”  I have been informed that: 
 
My  current  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)  multiple  is  ____  and  is  listed  in  ALCOAST 
______, which has been made available for my review. 

                                                 
2  A  CG-3307  (Page  7,  or  Administrative  Remarks)  entry  documents  any  counseling  that  is  provided  to  a  service 
member as well as any other noteworthy events that occur during that member’s military career. 

 
In accordance with article 12.B.4 I am eligible to reenlist/extend my enlistment for a maximum of 
____ years. 
 
My SRB will be computed based on ____ years newly obligated service.  (If extension/reenlist-
ment is for less than 36 months, enter “00.”) 
 
The  following  SRB  policies  were  unclear  to  me,  but  my  SRB  counselor  provided  me  with  the 
corresponding answers:  (list specifics)  

_________________________ 
(Signature of Member/date) 

 
 

 
 

 
 

________________________ 
(Signature of Counselor) 

 

 

 

 

 

Article 4.B.6.a. of the manual 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 complete a full tour upon reporting to a new unit.   
 

ALCOAST 283/06 was issued on May 15, 2006, and went into effect on July 1, 2006. 
Under ALCOAST 283/06, IT1s were eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of .5. 
 

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,  IT1s  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  SRB 
calculated with a multiple of 1.0. 

 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.  The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled regarding the effect his June 
23, 2007, 30-month extension contract would have on his future SRB eligibility, and asked the 
Board to void the extension contract.  He stated that if he had known that he could not cancel the 
30-month extension contract without affecting his SRB eligibility, then he would have asked for 
an  assignment  with  a  two  or  three-year  tour  length,  instead  of  the  four-year  assignment  to 
Petaluma. 

 
3.  The Board finds that when the applicant signed the 30-month extension contract on 
June  23,  2007,  to  obligate  service  for  the  transfer  to  Petaluma,  he  should  have  received  SRB 
counseling pursuant to Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, and the counseling should have 
been documented on a Page 7, in accordance with Article 3.C.11.1. of the manual.  There is no 
such  Page  7  in  his  record.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  proved  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that he was not properly counseled when he signed the 30-month 
extension contract on June 23, 2007.   

4.  If the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have been told that cancelling 
an extension contract of more than two years duration by reenlisting for an SRB would reduce 
the SRB by all periods of unserved obligated service.  Therefore, upon receiving the orders to 
Petaluma, he should have been advised to sign a six-year extension contract on July 17, 2007, to 
receive a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 1.0 pursuant to ALCOAST 304/07.  This 
action  would  have  provided  the  applicant  sufficient  service  for  the  transfer  to  Petaluma  and 
allowed him to maximize his SRB.  The Board notes that the JAG also stated that the applicant 
should have waited until ALCOAST 304/07 went into effect on July 16, 2007, before signing an 
extension contract because the SRB multiple of the applicant’s rating rose from 0.5 to 1.0 on that 
date.  The Board notes in this regard that ALCOAST 304/07 was issued on June 15, 2007, so the 
applicant’s  command  knew,  or  should  have  known  –  and  told  him  –  that  the  multiple  would 
double when the new ALCOAST went into effect on July 16, 2007.    
 

5.  Accordingly, relief should be granted.  The Coast Guard should correct his record to 
show that he signed a six-year extension contract on July 17, 2007, to receive a Zone A SRB 
calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1.0  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  304/07.    The  Coast  Guard  should 
remove  his  June  23,  2007,  30-month  extension  contract  and  his  March  9,  2009,  six-year 
reenlistment contract from his record as null and void.   

 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The application of XXXXXXXX, xxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record is 

granted as follows: 

 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  signed  a  six-year  extension 
contract on July 17, 2007, for a Zone A SRB pursuant to ALCOAST 304/07.  The Coast Guard 
shall  remove  his  June  23,  2007,  30-month  extension  contract  and  March  9,  2009,  six-year 
reenlistment contract from his record as null and void, and shall pay him the amount due as a 
result of these corrections. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 
 Vicki J. Ray 

        

 
 Lillian Cheng