DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1998-045 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 of the United 
States Code.  It was commenced upon the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s application 
on January 13, 1998. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  10,  1998,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the 
Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  he  had  extended  his  enlistment  for 
three years on October 1, 1997.  The correction would entitle him to receive a Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALDIST 226/97. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant signed a form to extend his enlistment on September 28, 1997.  He 
alleged that, “when [he] signed the [extension form, he] was under the impression that 
[he]  was  extending  [his]  enlistment  for  3  years  and  [he]  would  receive  a  SRB.    [He]  
assumed the PERSU had prepared the correct paperwork to reflect [his] intentions and 
[he] signed it.”  On December 30, 1997, however, he discovered that the district Person-
nel Unit (PERSU) had incorrectly dated the form September 30, 1997, instead of October 
1, 1997, as required by ALDIST 226/97.  In addition, the PERSU incorrectly extended his 
enlistment for only two years instead of three.   

 

The applicant stated that he had originally intended to extend his enlistment for 
two years.  However, after having been counseled by his ship’s chief yeoman about an 
upcoming  SRB  opportunity,  he  changed  his  mind.    The  applicant  stated  that  he  
“believe[s] that the PERSU was working off an old Career Intentions Worksheet . . . .”  
He alleged that  “[a]fter the SRB message was released, the ship’s office and the PERSU 
sent emails discussing my extension [and] changing it from 2 to 3 [years].”1   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  November  2,  199x,  for  a term of 
four years. His rating and pay grade at the time ALDIST 226/97 was issued were xxx 
and E-4.  The termination date of his enlistment was November 1, 199x. 
 
On April 15, 1997, the applicant signed a form acknowledging that he had read 
 
and  fully  understood  the  contents  and  explanation  of  COMDTINST  7220.33  (series).  
That instruction contains the Coast Guard’s regulations concerning SRBs. 
 
 
On  September  28,  199x,  the  applicant  signed  and  dated  a  one-page  extension 
form CG-3301B.  The form shows clearly in three different places that the term of the 
extension is two years and zero months.  The effective date of the extension is shown as 
“9x SEP 30.”  The authorizing official signed a statement reflecting that the form had 
been “[s]ubscribed and sworn to before me this  30 day of  SEP 9x     . . . .”  
The date October 1, 199x, does not appear anywhere on the form.  The new expiration 
date of the enlistment is shown as “9x NOV 1.”   
 

In  addition,  under  the  heading  “Reason  for  Extension/Reextension  of  Enlist-
ment,” the form lists nine possible reasons for extending, as well as “Other (Specify).”  
Members are supposed to check one of the reasons.  The reason marked on the appli-
cant’s extension form is “Request of Individual.”  The eighth listed reason, which is not 
checked, is “Obligated Service for SRB Bonus.” 

 
The form also contains four paragraphs, one of which states the following: 
 

SRB ELIGIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

 
I have been provided with a copy  [of] “SRB Questions and Answers” based on Comman-
dant Instruction 7220.33 (series).  I have been informed that:  My current Selective Reen-
listment  Bonus  (SRB)  multiple  under  zone    NA    is    NA    and  is  listed  in  ALDIST 
     NA    , which has been made available for review.  I further understand the eligi-
bility requirements for Zone A, B, and C SRB’s and that the maximum SRB paid to my 
current pay grade is $  NA       .  My SRB will be computed based on  NA   months 
newly obligated service. 

 
                                                 
1   The applicant did not submit a copy of the alleged e-mail message indicating that he wanted to extend 
his enlistment for three years. 

 
On  September  30,  1997,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST 
226/97, 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 between October 
1, 1997, and March 31, 1998.  The members had to reenlist or extend their enlistments 
for terms of at least three years.  The SRB provided for xxxx who extended their enlist-
ments or reenlisted was calculated with a multiple of one.  
 
Affidavit of YN2 X. of the Applicant’s PERSRU 
 
 
Integrated Support Command, who stated the following: 
 

The Coast Guard submitted an affidavit by a yeoman second-class (YN2 x.) of the 

On October 1, 199x at 10:15 a.m. I sent an email (see copy of email attached) to 
[YNC Y.] letting her know that a SRB message dated 302330Z Sep 9x, ALDIST 
226/97 was out.  I also stated in the email that it was very important that she call 
me regarding [the applicant].  To the best of my memory [YNC Y.] returned my 
call that day or day after.  In our conversation I explained to [her] the contents of 
the SRB message and that member is eligible for a SRB.  [She] told me that mem-
ber did not want to extend or reenlist beyond 2 years and that the member said 
that it wasn’t that much money due the SRB being only a multiple of 1.  I told 
[her] that I needed to know member’s career intentions due to the fact that his 
expiration of enlistment was 9xNOV01. 

 
Affidavit of YNC Y., the Ship’s Chief Yeoman 
 
 
Y.), who stated the following: 
 

The  Coast Guard also submitted an affidavit by the ship’s chief yeoman (YNC  

.  .  .  [The]  old  ALDIST  was  to  expire  on  30  Sept[ember  199x,]  which  usually 
means a new one was coming out.  This prompted me to talk with all personnel 
who were near to their DOS to see if come 1 Oct[ober] they wanted to reenlist, 
because there was a good chance that an SRB would be available.  I’m stating 
this from 20 years of service and dealing with SRB’s.  I had a pretty good feeling 
that xx’s were going to get an SRB because they were in demand. (i.e. xx bonus 
for completion of ‘A’ school) 
 
I  talked  with  [the  applicant]  about  reenlisting  and  he  agreed  that  if  he  got  a  
bonus he would reenlist for 3 years. I then talked with him about bonuses and 
showed  him  the  SRB  instruction  (7220.13).    He  did  not  want  to  read  it  and 
seemed  to  understand  the  bonus  process.    He  then  said  to  sign  him  up  for  3 
years and get him a bonus. 
 
Upon receiving ALDIST 226/97 I contacted the PERSU via email and told them 
that [the applicant] wanted to reenlist for 3 years to receive a bonus.  [YN2 x.] 
agreed that the paperwork would be done and sent to the ship. 
 

The paperwork arrived and I did not review it for accuracy because [YN2 x.] had 
been a student of mine a YN “A” School and I had all the confidence in him that 
he completed it as I had asked. . . .  I had many things on my mind and allowed 
[YN2 x.’s] work to go unchecked.  This in no way is [the applicant’s] fault.  He 
conveyed to me and I conveyed to the PERSRU what his intentions were, which 
was to reenlist for 3 years after 1 Oct[ober] to take advantage of the bonus for 
xxx’s. 
 
When it came time to sign the paperwork, [the applicant] came to the office and I 
showed him where to sign.  [ENS x.] was in the office at the time and he signed 
as verifying official.  Both individuals assumed that I had reviewed the form and 
it was accurate. 
 
I’m not sure what day this all took place, but I’m assuming it was on or around  
1 Oct[ober]. . . . 
 
The bottom line here is that [the applicant] reenlisted in the Coast Guard with 
the understanding that he was going to receive a bonus.  I assisted him in that 
reenlistment  never  questioning  the  paperwork  I  received  until  several  months 
later while underway, when [the applicant] asked me why he had not received 
his bonus yet. 
 
This in no way was the member’s fault and he reenlisted with the faith that he 
was to receive a bonus.  I should never have allowed him to sign a document 
that was not correct. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 12, 1998, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board deny the applicant’s request for lack of proof.  He alleged that the evidence 
shows that the applicant was properly counseled concerning his SRB rights and options 
and that he signed an extension contract on September 28, 199x, knowing that there was 
no SRB in effect for his rating on that date. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that prior to September 28, 199x, the applicant’s ship’s 
PERSRU had prepared the extension form based on information provided by his unit.  
On  September  28,  199x,  the  applicant  received  additional  SRB  counseling  and  signed 
the form.   Therefore, the Chief Counsel alleged that September 28, 199x, is the true ef-
fective date of the applicant’s extension. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that ALDIST 226/97 was released at 3:20 p.m. Pacific 
Time  on  September  30,  1997,  and  that  no  information  about  upcoming  SRBs  was  
released prior to that time.2  On October 1, 1997, the applicant’s PERSRU sent an e-mail 
                                                 
2      The  Chief  Counsel  submitted  an  affidavit  from  the  officer  who  presided  over  the  1997  SRB  Board, 
which  convened  on  August  22,  1997.    That  officer  stated  that  the  board  had  a  total  of  eight  members,  

to his ship’s chief yeoman (YNC Y.) with the subject line “xxx [applicant’s last name].”  
The message stated, “Please call me as soon as you can on member. It [is] very impor-
tant and it’s in regards to SRB.  Message just came out [dated] 302330Z Sep 97.”  
 
 
The Chief Counsel alleged that between October 1, 1997 and November 1, 1997, 
the  applicant  was  free  to  cancel  his  two-year  extension  and  reenlist  or  extend  his  
enlistment for three years to qualify for the SRB.  He also alleged that the applicant was 
“clearly  informed  of  this  option  given  his  previously  documented  counseling  on  the 
SRB  program.”    Moreover,  “the  evidence  indicates  that  Applicant  did  affirmatively  
reject reenlisting or extending during the period 1 October 1997 through 1 November 
1997 for an SRB.” 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Chief  Counsel  alleged,  on  November  x,  199x,  the  PERSRU  
e-mailed the Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center (PPC) asking for a special payment 
for  the  applicant  and  stating  that  the  applicant  “was  beginning  a  2-year  extension  in  
accordance with his CG-3301B and a Statement of Intent.”  The Chief Counsel submitted 
a copy of this message.  The special payment was necessary because the PPC had termi-
nated the applicant’s pay at the end of his enlistment since it had not received any pa-
perwork concerning his extension. 
 
In  regard  to  the  affidavits,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  YN2  X.’s  affidavit 
 
shows that the applicant was informed of the SRB opportunity on or soon after October 
1, 1997, but affirmatively rejected it.  Most of YNC Y.’s statements, he alleged, are not 
credible.  He said that YNC Y.’s claim to “pre-release knowledge of the contents of this 
closely  held  ALDIST”  was  “highly  improbable.”    Moreover,  prior  to  the  actual  an-
nouncement of the SRB, it is unlikely that she would have asked the PERSRU to prepare 
an extension form indicating that an SRB actually existed and that the applicant agreed 
to extend for three years.  The Chief Counsel also dismissed her allegation that YN2 x. 
had incorrectly typed the applicant’s extension contract.  “[E]xtension contracts are not 
everyday  occurrences  in  a  yeoman’s  routine  and,  consequently,  are  subject  to  careful 
scrutiny.”   
 
 
The Chief Counsel also questioned the allegation that YNC Y., the applicant, and 
ENS x.  all failed to notice the contents of the single-page extension form.  He alleged 
that, as the authorizing official, ENS x. would have explained the form’s contents to the 
applicant. 
 
Furthermore,  to  accept  the  applicant’s  version  of  events,  the  Chief  Counsel  
 
alleged, one must assume that YN2 x.’s characterization of his telephone call with YNC 
y. was untrue and that YNC y. never responded to YN2 x.’s e-mail message of October 
1, 1997.  He said it was very unlikely that YNC y. would not have responded to YN2 x.’s 
                                                                                                                                                             
including himself.  Only the officer himself and his immediate supervisor knew the results of the board’s 
vote on SRBs until the message was released on September 30, 1997. 

e-mail.    He  said  it  was  also  very  unlikely  that  for  more  than  a  month,  no  one  
involved would have discovered the “major error” on the applicant’s extension form, 
which was not officially submitted until November x, 199x. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond.  The applicant did not respond. 

On November 19, 1998, the Chairman forwarded a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
 
Section 3.a. of Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
Administration) lists as one criterion for an SRB that the member “[r]eenlist or extend 
enlistment in the Regular Coast Guard for a period of at least 3 full years.” 
 
 
 

Section 3.d.6. of the instruction states the following: 

Extensions  previously  executed  by  members  may  be  canceled  prior  to  their  
operative date for the purpose of executing a longer extension or reenlistment in 
accordance with article 1-G-36 of [the Personnel Manual].  Members should be 
informed that their SRB entitlement will be based only on newly acquired obli-
gated service.  For example, a member cancels a 3-year extension to reenlist for 6 
years, the member will only be paid SRB entitlement for the additional 3 years of 
service.  An exception to this rule is made for extensions of 2 years or less, or 
multiple  extensions  (each  of  which  is  2  years  or  less  in  length),  required  of  a 
member for transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance.  These exten-
sions may be canceled prior to their operative date for the purpose of immediate 
reenlistment or longer extension without any loss of SRB entitlement. 

Section 3.d.11. of the instruction states the following: 

Entitlement to SRB multiple and bonus ceiling is established on the actual date of 
reenlistment  or  the  date  the  member  executes  an  Agreement  to  Extend  Enlist-
ment by signing Form CG-3301B. . . . 

  
 
 

 

ALDIST 226/97, issued on September 30, 1997, established SRBs for personnel in 
certain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  October  1, 
1997 and March 31, 1998.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members in 
the xxx rating was one. 
 

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 appli-
cable law: 

 

1. 

2. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that,  prior  to  September  28,  1997,  he  intended  to  
extend his enlistment for a term of two years.  After being counseled by his ship’s chief 
yeoman concerning the possibility that an SRB would be established for members with 
his rating, the applicant told her that he would extend for three years to earn the SRB.  
He  alleged  that  on  September  28,  1997,  he  signed  an  extension  form  believing  that  it 
would  extend  his  enlistment  for  three  years  and  earn  him  the  SRB.    He  also  alleged, 
however,  that  after  ALDIST  226/97  was  issued  on  October  1,  1997,  his  ship’s  office  
e-mailed the PERSRU that he wanted to change his extension from two years to three 
years.  He further alleged that he did not discover the PERSRU’s mistake until Decem-
ber 30, 1997.  
 

The evidence indicates that on April 15, 199x, the applicant was properly 
counseled about the Coast Guard’s SRB regulations.  In addition, the evidence indicates 
that the applicant’s chief yeoman further counseled him on a possible upcoming SRB 
opportunity  sometime  prior  to  October  1997.    On  September  28,  1997,  the  applicant 
signed a contract that extended his enlistment for two years and showed that the exten-
sion would not entitle the applicant to an SRB.  The applicant had a duty to read the 
contract, the relevant terms of which were clear at a glance.   

3. 

The chief yeoman of the applicant’s ship stated that she had foreseen that 
an  SRB  would  be  announced  for  the  applicant’s  rating.    She  stated  that  she  did  not 
check  the  extension  form  when  it  arrived  because  she  assumed  it  would  be  correctly 
prepared.  The Board does not doubt that experienced members might be able to pre-
dict fairly accurately which ratings will receive SRBs for extending or reenlisting in the 
near future.  However, the Coast Guard’s extension form requires the exact multiple of 
the SRB to be received to be typed on the form.  In addition, the regulations state that 
entitlement to an SRB depends on the date the member executes an extension or reen-
listment form.  In light of these facts, the Board discredits the allegation that the appli-
cant and the chief yeoman, who were or should have been reasonably familiar with the 
Coast  Guard’s  SRB  regulations,  expected  an  extension  form  signed  on  September  28, 
1997, to entitle the applicant to an SRB that had not yet been announced. 

 The chief yeoman also stated that, after ALDIST 226/97 was issued, she 
asked the PERSRU to prepare paperwork that would extend the applicant’s enlistment 
for three years and entitle him to an extension.  However, the evidence indicates that 
the applicant signed the extension form three days before the chief yeoman learned the 
terms of ALDIST 226/97.  The applicant did not allege and there is no evidence that a 
second extension form was ever requested or executed. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 

6. 

7. 

The  applicant  may  have,  either  before  or  after  he  signed  the  contract,  
intended to take advantage of any new SRB established for his rating.  However, the 
applicant  never  canceled the contract he signed on September 28, 1997.  Likewise, he 
never signed a new contract to take advantage of the SRB opportunity that began on 
October 1, 1997.   
 

The PERSRU did not forward the extension form signed on September 28, 
1997, to the PPC until November 6, 1997.  There clearly was some confusion surround-
ing the applicant’s intent to extend and the processing of the paperwork for the exten-
sion.  The Board finds, however, that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice that would entitle 
him to the relief requested. 

 
8. 

 

 

Therefore, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXXX, USCG, is 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
Robert C. Ashby 

 

 
 
Walter K. Myers 

 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

ORDER 

hereby denied.