DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

BCMR Docket  
No. 1998-008 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
 
 
 
 

FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is an action for reconsideration.  The original proceeding in this case, BCMR 
Docket  No.  1991-213,  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title 10, United States Code.  A final decision in the original proceeding was issued by 
the Board on December 13, 1991. 
 
 
33 CFR 52.67 (stating rules for reconsideration). 
 
 
three duly appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision  on  reconsideration,  dated  August  27,  1998,  is  signed  by  the 

This  reconsideration  proceeding  has  been  conducted  under  the  provisions  of 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
In his original application, filed on March 20, 1991, the applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx in 
the United States Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show 
that  he  had  extended  his  enlistment  or  reenlisted  in  February  1982  for  a  period  of  6 
years, so that he could receive a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) with a multiple of 
three pursuant to ALDIST 340/81 and ALDIST 004/82. 
 
 
In his application for reconsideration, received June 3, 1997, the applicant, now 
retired  from  the  Coast  Guard,  requested  the  same  relief,  alleging  that  the  Board  had 
made a legal error.  Despite the untimeliness of the request, made more than five years 
after the final decision was issued, the Chairman of the BCMR accepted and docketed 
the application on October 29, 1997, after further correspondence with the applicant and 
a cursory review of the case indicated that the applicant might prevail. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

In his original application to the BCMR, the applicant alleged that, in 1981 and 
1982,  he  was  never  counseled  about  two  instructions,  ALDIST  340/81  and  ALDIST 
004/82,  which  allowed  Coast  Guard  members  in  his  rating  to  receive  SRBs  with  a 
multiple of three if they reenlisted or extended the terms of their enlistments for more 
than three years.  He alleged that the Coast Guard was required to inform him of those 
opportunities.  He stated that, if he had been informed in January or February 1982 of 
the opportunity to receive an SRB, he would have reenlisted or extended his enlistment 
for the maximum six more years, as evidenced by his continued active duty in the Coast 
Guard.  He explained that he had first learned of ALDIST 340/81 and ALDIST 004/82 
from  fellow  xx  petty  officers  and  chiefs  who  attended  a  “C”  school  with  him  in 
February 1991 and that, therefore, his original application had been filed within three 
years  of  when  he  discovered  the  injustice  and  should  not  have  been  denied  due  to 
untimeliness. 
 
 
Since his application for reconsideration was filed, the applicant has sent letters 
to the BCMR and the Commander of the Military Personnel Command alleging that the 
Board  committed  legal  error  in  denying  his  request.  The  applicant  argued  that  the 
decision in Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.C.C. 1992), issued soon after the Board’s 
denial of his application, required the BCMR to conduct at least a cursory review of the 
merits of his case before denying the application based on untimeliness.  He also argued 
that,  based  on  the  decision  of  the  Deputy  General  Counsel  in  Docket  No. 121-93, the 
relief  he  requested  should  be  granted.    He  explained  the  delay  in  his  application  for 
reconsideration  by  stating  that  he  could not be expected to know that the Board had 
made a legal error.  The Allen  case and the final decision in BCMR Docket No. 121-93 
were not decided until after the applicant’s request was denied. 
 

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
The  applicant  filed  his  initial  application  for  relief  on  March  20,  1991,  within 
three years of his alleged discovery of the error but nine years after the alleged error.  
The Board denied the applicant’s request for relief on December 13, 1991, “under the 
equitable  defense  of  laches,  as  well  as  under  the  statute  of  limitations.”    The  Board 
stated that “[i]n this case, the applicant’s delay in filing an application is so great that he 
has a very high burden of demonstrating lack of prejudice to the Coast Guard. . . .  The 
applicant has not met that burden. . . .  Finally, the applicant has not demonstrated a 
lack  of  prejudice  to  the  Coast  Guard  by  his  applying  for  an  SRB  nine  years  after  the 
issuance of ALDIST 004/82.” 

 
On June 3, 1997, the applicant filed an application for reconsideration.  On June 9, 
1997, the Chairman sent the applicant a letter advising him that, under 33 CFR 52.67(e), 
applications for reconsideration “must be filed within two years after the issuance of a 
final decision, except as otherwise required by law.”   

 

 
On  September  5,  1997,  the  applicant  sent  a  letter  protesting  the  Chairman’s 
refusal to docket his application for reconsideration. He argued that the Allen decision, 
issued  soon  after  the  Board  denied  his  original  application,  required  the  Board  to 
conduct  at  least  a  cursory  review  of  the  merits  before  denying  his  case  due  to 
untimeliness.  He also stated that others in his position had been granted relief by the 
Board in earlier decisions.  In a December 30, 1997, letter to the Coast Guard Military 
Personnel Command, he stated that he had been told that the law regarding the statute 
of  limitations  had  changed  since  his  request  was  denied.    In  light  of  the  applicant’s 
arguments concerning potential legal error,1 on October 29, 1997, the Chairman sent the 
applicant  a  letter  informing  him  that  his  application  for  reconsideration  would  be 
docketed and considered by the Board. 
 

SUMMARY OF RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve on December 30, 197x, for a 
term of six years.  On July 24, 197x, his enlistment was terminated so that he could enlist 
in  the  regular  Coast  Guard  for  a  period  of  four  years.    According  to  the  applicant’s 
military record, he reenlisted on May 1, 1981, for a period of six years, obligating him to 
serve through April 30, 1987, and he received a Zone A SRB as a result.2  His rating and 
pay grade at the time of the ALDISTs discussed herein were issued were xxx and E-5. 
 
 
On    October  1,  1981,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST 
340/81, which allowed members within 30 days of the end of their enlistment periods to 
receive an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their current enlistments for at least three 
years.  The SRBs provided for xxxs who extended their enlistments or reenlisted under 
ALDIST 340/81 were calculated with a multiple of three.  On January 12, 1982, ALDIST 
004/82 temporarily locked in the multiples issued under ALDIST 340/81 and waived 
the requirement that members be within 30 days of the end of their enlistment periods 
in  order  to  be  eligible  to  receive  the  SRB  for  extending  their  enlistments.    To  take 
advantage of ALDIST 004/82, members had to extend their enlistments before February 
15, 1982. 
 
 
The applicant did not extend his enlistment or reenlist during the month when 
ALDIST 004/82 was in effect.  There is nothing in his military record to indicate that he 
was ever counseled about the terms of ALDIST 340/81 or ALDIST 004/82.   
 

                                                 
1 See summary of BCMR regulations concerning evidence of legal error and requests for reconsideration 
on page 5 below. 
2  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s 
particular skills.  Coast Guard members who have more than 21 months but less 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 bonus per zone. 

 
The applicant remained on active duty with the Coast Guard until he retired on 
August 1, 1997.  Subsequent to his six-year reenlistment on May 1, 1981, the applicant’s 
military record shows that he either reenlisted or agreed to extend his enlistment on the 
following dates for the periods indicated: 
 

December 5, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10 months 
January 29, 1988 . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year 
May 1, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year 
March 7, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year 
March 12, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year 
April 1, 1992  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 years 
April 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 months 
June 28, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 years 
 
 
A Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty in the applicant’s military 
record lists his extensions dated December 5, 1986, January 29, 1988, May 1, 1989, March 
7,  1990,  and  March  12,  1991,3  and  states  that  all  “were  at  the  request  of  and  for  the 
convenience of the [government].” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 16, 1998, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended denial 

 
 
of the applicant’s request for relief.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request for 
reconsideration on the basis of untimeliness on the ground that the request was filed 
more  than  two  years  after  the  final  decision  was  issued.    Under  33  CFR  52.67(e),  an 
application for reconsideration must be filed within two years of the date of the final 
decision. 
 
In the event that the Board finds it is in the interest of justice to waive the two-
 
year  statute  of  limitations for reconsiderations, the Chief Counsel urged the Board to 
deny relief for lack of proof that (1) the Coast Guard owed him a duty to counsel him 
regarding his eligibility for an SRB under ALDIST 004/82, (2) the Coast Guard did not 
so  counsel  him,  and  (3)  had  he  been  so  counseled,  the  applicant  would  have  been 
willing, in 1982, to extend his service from 1987 through 1993.  Regarding these issues, 
the  Chief  Counsel  argued  first  that,  under  ALDIST  004/82,  the  Coast  Guard  had  no 
duty to inform potential extendees of their eligibility. COMDTINST 7220.13E required 
the  Coast  Guard  to  inform  only  potential  reenlistees,  and  the  applicant  was  not  a 
potential reenlistee in February 1982 because he was not within three months of the end 
of his existing enlistment.  
                                                 
3 The applicant’s 1991 agreement to extend was signed on February 1, 1991.  There is no agreement to 
extend dated March 12, 1991, in his record. 

Even if the Board were to find that the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel the 
applicant, the Chief Counsel argued that a lack of memory of counseling is particularly 
unreliable after so many years, and the applicant’s statement about his lack of memory 
of counseling should be “insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that military 
officials carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”   Moreover, even 
if  the  Board  were to find that the Coast Guard had failed to counsel the applicant, it 
could not presume, based on the member’s word and subsequent years of service, that 
the applicant would have, in fact, chosen to obligate himself to serve through 1993.  The 
Chief Counsel cited the applicant’s series of short-term extensions of his enlistment in 
the  late  1980s  and  early  1990s  and  his  retirement  after  only  20  years  of  service4  as 
evidence that the applicant had not committed himself to a career in the Coast Guard.   

 
Finally,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued  that,  even  if  the  Board found that the Coast 
Guard had erred and that the applicant would have extended his service if he had been 
counseled,  the  Board  should  still  deny  relief  because  violations  of  agency  procedural 
regulations do not create private rights of action5 and because Congress intended the 
SRB program to reward members who obligated themselves to future service, and the 
applicant had not done so in 1982. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 

 
Reconsideration 
 
 
33 CFR 52.67(a)(2) provides that the Board shall reconsider an application if an 
applicant  requests  it  and  the  applicant  “presents  evidence  or  information  that  the 
Board,  or  the  Secretary  as  the  case  may  be,  committed  legal  or  factual  error  in  the 
original  determination  that  could  have  resulted  in  a  determination  other  than  that 
originally  made.”    Section  52.67(b)  provides  that the Board shall docket a request for 
consideration if it meets the requirements of Section 52.56(a)(2).  
 
 
33 CFR 52.67(e) provides that “[a]n applicant’s request for reconsideration must 
be  filed  within  two  years  after  the  issuance  of  a  final  decision,  except  as  otherwise 
required by law.  If the Chairman dockets an applicant’s request for reconsideration, the 
two-year requirement may be waived if the Board finds that it would be in the interest 
of justice to consider the request despite its untimeliness.”  
 
Decision in Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.C.C. 1992), (cited by the applicant). 
 

                                                 
4  Members  with  the  applicant’s  final  pay  grade  xxxxx  do  not  attain  high  year  tenure  until  they  have 
completed 26 years of service. 
5 The Coast Guard cited United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979), and Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 
(1975), for this proposition. 

 
In Allen, the court held that, because 10 USC § 1552(b) and 33 CFR 52.22 permit 
the BCMR to waive the statute of limitations if it is “in the interest of justice” to do so, 
the BCMR must, in deciding whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the 
statute of limitations, “analyze both the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of 
the claim based on a cursory review.”  Allen, at 164. The court also held that the Board 
could  not  deny  relief  based  on  the  doctrine  of  laches  without  evidence  that  the 
defendant had actually been prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay.  “The government bears 
the burden of proving its affirmative defense of laches; therefore, it must prove not only 
delay, but also prejudice to the government.”  Id. at 165. 
 
SRB Regulations 
 
 
Commandant  Instruction  7220.13E  (Administration  of  the  Reenlistment  Bonus 
Program)  was  released  on  May  4,  1979,  and  was  in  effect  when  ALDIST  340/81  and 
ALDIST 004/82 were distributed.  Section 1-c-(4) of the Instruction stated that “[e]ntitle-
ment  to  an  SRB  vests  only  on  the  date  the  member  reenlists  or  makes  operative  an 
extension  of  enlistment  .  .  .  .”    Section  1-c-(6)  of  the  Instruction  stated  that  early 
separation  could  only  occur  “within  three  months  of  [the  end  of]  activated  obligated 
service, in accordance with Article 12-B-7 [of the] Personnel Manual . . . .”  Section 1-d-
(2) of the Instruction provided the criteria for SRB eligibility in Zone B.  It stated the 
following, in part: 
 

(2)    Zone  B  Eligibility.    [To  be  eligible,  a  member  must  meet  all  of  the 
following criteria:] 
 

(a)  Be serving on active duty in pay grade E-3 or higher in a military 
specialty designated [in the SRB announcement].  
 
(b)  Must have completed more than six but not more than ten years of 
active  duty  immediately  preceding  the  date  of  reenlistment  or 
operative date of extension of enlistment. 
 
(c)  The extension of enlistment or reenlistment must be at least THREE 
YEARS in length and, when combined with prior active duty, will total 
at least ten years of total active duty.  [Emphasis in original] 
 
(d)  Has not previously received a Zone B SRB, nor previously enlisted 
or reenlisted beyond ten years of active duty. . . .  
 

 
Section 1-g of the Instruction stated that in order to “attain the objectives of the 
SRB program, each potential reenlistee who would be eligible for SRB must be informed 
of their eligibility and the monetary benefits of the SRB program.  It is expected that the 

reenlistment interview, held approximately six months before expiration of enlistment, 
will provide the potential reenlistee with complete information on SRB.” 
  
Early Separation of Enlisted Personnel 
 

Article  12-B-7  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
allows a member to be separated up to 3 months before the end of the term of his or her 
enlistment  if  the  early  separation  is  “in  the  best  interest  of  the  Government.”    It 
specifically  authorizes  commanding  officers  to  make  use  of  this  provision  “when  a 
member requests, in writing, discharge for the purpose of immediate reenlistment . . . .” 
 
ALDIST 340/81 
 
ALDIST 340/81, issued on October 2, 1981, changed the existing multiples of the 
 
SRBs members could receive to reflect the degree to which the Coast Guard needed to 
retain personnel in each skill rating.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for 
reenlisting or extending members in the xx rating was three. 
 
ALDIST 004/82 
 
ALDIST  004/82,  issued  on  January  12,  1982,  locked  in  the  multiples  used  for 
 
calculating  SRBs  under  ALDIST  340/81  until  February  15,  1982.    Thereafter,  the 
multiples  were  to  change  to  reflect  the  degree  to  which  the  Coast  Guard  needed  to 
retain personnel in each skill rating.  ALDIST 004/82 also suspended the provisions of 
Article  1-G-83  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (Cancellation  of  Agreement  to  Extend)  until 
February 15, 1982, and therefore allowed members to extend enlistments that were not 
within 30 days of termination.   
 
 
stated the following, in part: 
 

Article 1-G-83 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 

(b)  Generally, an individual should not be permitted to agree to extend 
his/her  enlistment  until  approximately  30  days  prior  to  the  date  of 
expiration of the then existing enlistment.  For certain purposes, however, 
such  as  qualifying  for  assignment  to  a  service  school,  duty  outside 
CONUS, assignment to active duty in the case of a Reservist, or for other 
duty requiring additional obligated service, it is permissible to permit an 
individual  to  agree  to  extend  his/her  enlistment  a  considerable  time  in 
advance.  

 
Precedent Decision in BCMR Docket No. 121-93 (cited by the applicant). 
 
 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  121-93,  the  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  reconsider  its 
denial of his request (in the final decision in BCMR Docket No. 237-91) to correct his 

1. 

2. 

5. 

military record to show that he had extended his service on February 14, 1982, and was 
therefore due an SRB.  The applicant had learned about ALDIST 004/82 in 1991, and he 
cited  four  previous  BCMR  decisions  in  which  the  Board  had  granted  this  relief  to 
members  in  similar  circumstances.    The  Board  again  denied  the  requested  relief, 
however, because of the lateness of the original filing and because the applicant had not 
met the “very high burden of demonstrating lack of prejudice to the Coast Guard.”  (As 
the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration  was  filed  within  two  years  of  the  Board’s 
final decision, its timeliness was not at issue.)  Thereafter, the Deputy General Counsel 
granted relief, finding in part that  
 

 the application was timely because it was submitted within three years of 

4. 

3. 

“Coast Guard regulations require that members be ‘fully advised’ of SRB 

the applicant’s discovery of the error;  
 
because  the  Coast  Guard  had  presented  no  evidence  as  to  how  the 
applicant could or should have learned of ALDIST 004/82 any earlier than he claimed, 
the applicant’s sworn statement that he learned of it in 1991 would be accepted at face 
value, especially since “[a]llegations that the first knowledge members have had of the 
provisions of ALDIST 004/82 came from contact with [the ‘C’ school] are common, and 
have often been accepted without challenge in the past”;6  
 
opportunities”;7  
the  financial  hardship  borne  upon  the  Coast  Guard  by  such  late  claims 
 
would not justify use of the doctrine of laches because “virtually any party resisting a 
claim  on  the  basis  of  laches  can  argue  that  having  to  pay  sums  due  would  create  an 
unexpected financial hardship”; and  
 
the Board had “commonly afforded relief under similar circumstances in 
the past, and . . . reversal of such precedents without a firm basis in the record would be 
clearly unreasonable here.” 
 

The  Deputy  General  Counsel’s  decision  in  this  case  did  not  address  the  Coast 
Guard’s  claim  that  the  doctrine  of  laches  should  apply  because  “personnel  transfers, 
retirements, etc., and the passage of time” had left the Coast Guard unable to determine 
the actual facts about SRB counseling in Applicant’s case.” 
 
Precedent Decisions in BCMR Docket No. 69-97 
 

In BCMR Docket No. 69-97, the applicant had reenlisted on May 2, 1980, for a six-
year term, after completing his first, four-year enlistment.  Subsequently, the applicant 
extended his enlistment three times for periods of two years or less before reenlisting 
for  three  years  on  March  1,  1991,  and  for  another  six  years  on  January  6,  1994.    The 
applicant  asked  the  BCMR  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  had  requested  an 
extension of his enlistment for a period of six years on February 14, 1982, in order to 
                                                 
6 The Deputy General Counsel cited BCMR Docket No. 151-91. 
7 The Deputy General Counsel cited BCMR Nos. 224-87, 263-87, 268-87, 285-87 for this position. 

receive  a  Zone  B  SRB.    He  stated  that  he  had  learned  about  ALDIST  004/82  on 
January 23, 1997, and that, if he had been properly counseled and made aware of the 
provisions of ALDIST 004/82, he “would have taken the necessary steps to secure [a] 
zone  ‘B’  bonus”  under  the  ALDIST.  There  was  no  documentation  in  the  applicant’s 
record to indicate that he was ever advised of the provisions of ALDIST 004/82 while it 
was in effect.  
 
 
The  Board  granted  the  requested  relief  based  on  (1)  the  applicant’s  sworn 
statement that he had not been properly counseled about ALDIST 004/82 when it was 
in effect and had not learned of it until 1997; (2) the applicant’s statement that he would 
have  extended  his  enlistment  to  receive  the  SRB  had  he  known  of  the  opportunity; 
(3) the  applicant’s  previous  enlistments  and  subsequent  years  of  service,  which 
provided  a  reasonable  basis  to  believe  that  he  would  have  extended  his  service 
obligation  had  he  been  properly  counseled  about  ALDIST  004/82;  (4)  the  Deputy 
General Counsel’s decision in BCMR Docket No. 121-93 (see above), which found that 
the  doctrine  of  laches  did  not  apply  to  a  claim  based  on  ALDIST  004/82  which  was 
valid  but  for the fact that it did not meet the statute of limitations; and (5) the Coast 
Guard’s long-term refusal (despite many such claims) to reveal if and how information 
about ALDIST 004/82 had been disseminated to the members: 

 

The Board has been reviewing ALDIST 004/82 cases for close to 15 
years.  In that time, the Coast Guard has provided no evidence to show 
how information regarding SRB eligibility is disseminated to Coast Guard 
members,  what  efforts  were  taken  to  inform  members  of  their  rights 
under  ALDIST  004/82,  or  how  some  individuals  learned  of  their  SRB 
eligibility under ALDIST 004/82, while others did not.  
 
 
Given the number of cases that have been before the Board on this 
exact issue, it seems that by now the Coast Guard would have been able to 
compile  some  evidence  to  refute  the  SRB  claims  of  BCMR  applicants.  
Since they have not, and since the Board has commonly afforded relief to 
applicants whose SRB eligibility has been established, we find no basis on 
which to rule differently in this case. . . . 

 

The  Deputy  General  Counsel  wrote  a  concurring  decision  which  responded  to 
several of the Coast Guard’s arguments that were not mentioned in the Board’s decision 
but are pertinent to the case in hand:   
 

In  response  to  the  argument  that the Coast Guard was only required to 
counsel  potential  reenlistees,  not  potential  extendees,  she  found  that  Congress  had 
intended both groups to benefit from the SRB program and that the Coast Guard had 
presented no rational basis for counseling one group but not the other.  

1. 

 

2. 

In  response  to  the  argument  that  the  applicant’s  statements  were 
insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in administrative matters such as 
counseling,  she  stated  that  the  applicant’s  history  of  service  and  his  statements 
concerning the lack of proper counseling and what he would have done had he been 
properly counseled were sufficient to nullify the presumption in this case.   

The Deputy General Counsel found unpersuasive the argument that the 
applicant’s subsequent, short extensions show that he was not, in fact, committed to a 
career  in  the  Coast  Guard,  because  short  extensions  for  particular  purposes,  such  as 
enrollment  in  school  or  transfer  to  a  different  station,  are  made  frequently  for  the 
convenience of the government and do not necessarily reflect a member’s commitment 
to the Service. 

In response to the Coast Guard’s claim that the applicant had no private 
right of action under its regulations, she found that Congress had created a private right 
of action in the SRB statute (37 USC § 308) and the BCMR statute (10 USC § 1552). 

In response to the argument that paying SRBs many years after ALDIST 
was inconsistent with the purpose of the statute, which was to benefit the Coast Guard, 
she  cited  the  decision  in  Larinoff,  which  held  that  “[t]he  intention  of  Congress  in 
enacting  the  [reenlistment  bonus  statute]  was  specifically  to  promise  to  those  who 
extended their enlistments that a [reenlistment bonus] award would be paid to them at 
the  expiration of their original enlistment in return for their commitment to lengthen 
their period of service.”  United States v. Larinoff, 431 U.S. 864, 878-79 (1997). 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

As to the doctrine of laches, the Deputy General Counsel held that, absent 
proof that the Coast Guard informed the applicant about his eligibility under ALDIST 
004/82  and  absent  proof  that  the  applicant  learned  of  his  eligibility  more  than  three 
years  prior  to  the  date  he  filed  his  application,  she  could  not  find  that  he  had 
inexcusably  delayed  informing  the  Coast  Guard  of  his  claim,  which  is  the  first 
requirement  for  applying  the  doctrine.    As  to  the  second  requirement—that  the 
defendant must be substantially prejudiced by the delay—the Deputy General Counsel 
found that the Coast Guard had just speculated on its inability to find the applicant’s 
commanding  officer  and,  if  it  could  find  him,  the  officer’s  inability  to  remember  his 
communications regarding ALDIST 004/82 in 1982.  Furthermore, she stated, the mere 
passage of time does not give rise to a presumption of prejudice, so the Coast Guard 
must demonstrate actual prejudice.8 

Finally,  the  Deputy  General Counsel cited several “Comptroller General 
cases that authorize government agencies to correct errors of wrongful advice or failure 

                                                 
8  The  Deputy  General  Counsel  cited  Hoover  v.  Dep’t  of  Navy,  957  F.2d  861  (Fed.  Cir.  1992),  for  this 
position. 

to  advise  when  an  employee  otherwise  meets  the  statutory  criteria  for  obtaining  a 
benefit.”9 

 

                                                 
9 The Deputy General Counsel cited Matter of Hanley, B-202112, November 16, 1981; Matter of Anthony 
M. Ragunas, 68 Comp. Gen. 97 (1988); and Matter of Dale Ziegler and Joseph Rebo, B-199774, November 
12, 1980. 

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  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10, United States Code. 
 

1. 

2. 

4. 

3. 

The application for reconsideration was not timely.  However, in light of 
the decisions in Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.C.C. 1992), and BCMR Docket Nos. 
121-93 and 69-97, which were issued after the Board’s original decision in this case, it is 
in the interest of justice for the Board to waive the statute of limitations in this instance. 
 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 CFR 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition of 
the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 

 As determined by the Deputy General Counsel in her concurrence to the 
final  decision  in  BCMR  Docket  No.  69-97,  the  applicant  has  a  private  right  of  action 
under  the  SRB statute (37 USC § 308) and the BCMR statute (10 USC § 1552) to seek 
relief from the Coast Guard’s error. 
 

The applicant made a sworn statement on his DD Form 149 that he had 
not  been  counseled  on  the  provisions  of  ALDIST  340/81  and  ALDIST  004/82.10    He 
asserted  that,  if  he  had  been  aware  of  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB,  he  would  have 
reenlisted or extended his enlistment for six years to take advantage of the opportunity 
to receive a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of three. 
 

5. 

7. 

6. 

The applicant was not eligible for an SRB under ALDIST 340/81.  Under 
ALDIST 004/82, however, he was eligible to extend his enlistment for up to six years, 
from the end of his then-current enlistment in 1987 to 1993. 
 

In BCMR Docket Nos. 121-93 and 69-97, the Deputy General Counsel has 
held that Coast Guard regulations require that members be “fully advised” about SRB 
opportunities, whether they are potential reenlistees or potential extendees. 
 

The  Coast  Guard  has  made  no  statement  and  submitted  no  evidence  to 
rebut the applicant’s claim that he was not informed about ALDIST 004/82.  With no 
                                                 
10    The  BCMR  application, DD Form 149, contains a warning for applicants regarding the penalties for 
willfully making a false statement or claim, pursuant to 18 USC §§ 287 and 1001.  The Board therefore 
accepts  as  true  the  applicant’s  statement  that  he  did  not  discover  his  eligibility  under  ALDIST 004/82 
until  1991.   

8. 

9. 

contrary evidence and a sworn statement by the applicant, the Board accepts as true the 
applicant’s statement that he was not properly counseled about his eligibility for an SRB 
under ALDIST 004/82. 
 

The  applicant’s  series  of  short-term  extensions  subsequent  to  the 
expiration  of  his  second,  six-year  enlistment  does  not  necessarily  reflect  a  lack  of 
commitment  to  continue  to  serve  in  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Board  finds  that  the 
statement  in  the  applicant’s  military  record  that  the  short  extensions  were  all  “at  the 
request of and for the convenience of the [government]” fully rebuts the Coast Guard’s 
argument.  The applicant’s decision in 1981, after completing a four-year enlistment, to 
reenlist for a six-year period reflects an early intention to have a career serving in the 
Coast  Guard.    This  apparent  intention, in combination with the applicant’s statement 
that he would have extended his enlistment if he had been informed of his eligibility 
and with the applicant’s subsequent long years of service, persuades the Board that the 
applicant  would  have  extended  his  enlistment  by  six  years  if  he  had  been  properly 
counseled about ALDIST 004/82. 
 

10. 

The Coast Guard erred in 1982 by failing to counsel the applicant of his 

eligibility to receive an SRB by extending his enlistment. 
 

11.  Accordingly, the applicant’s record should be corrected to show that, on 
February 14, 1982, he extended his enlistment for another six years and thereby became 
entitled to receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of three.  
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the amount due him as a result of these 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXXXXX,  shall  be 
granted as follows:  The military record shall be corrected to indicate that the applicant 
agreed to extend his enlistment for six years on February 14, 1982, and he thus became 
entitled to receive a Zone B Selective Reenlistment Bonus with a multiple of three.  The 
applicant’s extensions and reenlistments dated December 5, 1986, January 29, 1988, May 
1, 1989, March 7, 1990, February 1, 1991, and April 1, 1992, will be canceled.  These shall 
be null and void and shall have no effect on his SRB entitlement.  The applicant’s record 
will be corrected to show that, at the end of the six-year extension of his enlistment, on 
May  1,  1993,  the  applicant  reenlisted  for  two  years.    All  other  extensions  and 
reenlistments shall remain as they now appear in the record, with no break in service 
shown.    
 
 
corrections to his record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

         

 
Walter K. Myers 

 

 
L. L. Sutter