DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-015 
 
 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was commenced on October 26, 1998, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s application for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  5,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board 
to correct his military record to show that on January 24, 1996, he was discharged and 
reenlisted  for  two  years  (instead  of  the  six-year  contract  he  actually  signed).    The 
correction  would  allow  the  applicant  to  receive  a  maximum  Selective  Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB) for the six-year reenlistment contract he signed on April 5, 1998, two days 
before his six-year active duty anniversary date.   
 
The applicant also requested that the Board grant him “a waiver of the full tour 
 
service obligation requirement for individuals with less than six years of service upon 
reporting  aboard  to  their  new  PCS  unit.”    The  waiver  would  allow  the  applicant  to 
receive an SRB for all six years of the reenlistment contract he signed on April 5, 1998, 
rather than to have deducted from those six years the three years of obligated service he 
was required to have when he reported to a new unit on February 27, 1998. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant alleged that at the end of his first, four-year enlistment, he reen-
listed for six years because he wanted to pursue a career in the Coast Guard.  He alleged 
that, pursuant to Coast Guard regulations, he should have been counseled at the end of 
his  first  enlistment  regarding  the  effects  of  his  new  enlistment  on  his  eligibility  for  a 
Zone A SRB.  The applicant alleged that if he had been properly counseled, he would 
have  reenlisted  for  the  minimum,  two  years,  rather  than  the  maximum,  six  years,  to 
preserve his eligibility to receive a maximum Zone A SRB on the sixth anniversary of 
his  active  duty  date.    He  alleged  that  because  he  was  not  properly  counseled, on his 
sixth anniversary, he had almost four years of obligated service left to serve.  Therefore, 
he could receive an SRB for only two years of additional service under ALDIST 046/98, 
instead of for all six years of his new enlistment.  The applicant alleged that this was 
unfair because the Coast Guard was required to counsel him properly, but did not.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  April  7,  199x,  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  On January 24, 1996, he was discharged and reenlisted for a term of six years, 
obligating himself to serve through January 23, 2002.  There is no form in the applicant’s 
record indicating that he was counseled concerning SRBs and the effects of his enlist-
ment on his future eligibility for an SRB. 
 

On  February  27,  1998, the applicant accepted orders to the Coast Guard cutter 
xxxxxx.  If the applicant had not already obligated himself to serve through January 23, 
2002, he would have been required to obligate himself for three years before reporting 
to the xxxxx.   
 

On April 5, 199x, two days before the sixth anniversary of his original enlistment, 
the applicant was discharged and reenlisted for another term of six years and thereby 
obligated himself to serve through April 4, 2004.   
 
 
On March 29, 1998, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALDIST 046/98, 
which allowed members to receive an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their current 
enlistments between April 1, 1998 and September 30, 1998.  ALDIST 046/98 provided 
that  members  in  the  xx  rating  who  extended  their  enlistments  or  reenlisted  would 
receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of one-half.  There was no SRB in effect for 
members in the xx rating in the months prior to April 1, 1998.   
 

Under ALDIST 046/98, the applicant’s reenlistment on April 5, 1998, made him 
eligible for an SRB for any additional service to which he obligated himself.  Because the 
applicant had already obligated himself to serve through January 23, 2002, his six-year 
enlistment  on  April  5,  1998,  qualified  him  to  receive  an  SRB  for  only  26  additional 
months of obligated service, from January 23, 2002, to April 4, 2004.   

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 19, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant the applicant’s request subject to an amendment.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should be granted relief because he 
“took appropriate action to rectify the alleged error after its discovery and is now will-
ing to offer a new 6-year re-enlistment as consideration for the SRB he requests.  Appli-
cant’s record also demonstrates that he is a good performer ….” 
 
 
However,  the  Chief  Counsel  noted  that,  if  the  applicant  had  extended  his 
original enlistment contract for two years on January 24, 1996, he would have had to 
execute  another,  38-month  extension  on  January  23,  1998,  in  order  “to  meet  his  PCS 
OBLISERV  for  accepting  orders  to  the  CGC  xxxxxx.”    Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel 
argued, “the Board’s Order should state that the Applicant had prior obligated service 
through  22  March  2001  before  executing  his  six  year  reenlistment  on  his  service 
anniversary date.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
Administration), Section 2 states that “[a]ll personnel with 14 years or less active service 
who  reenlist  or  extend  for  any  period,  however,  brief, shall be counseled on the SRB 
program.    They  shall  sign  a  page  7  service  record  entry,  enclosure  (3),  outlining  the 
effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
 

Section 3.d.(1) of Enclosure (1) states that “[m]embers with exactly 6 years active 
duty on the date of reenlistment or operative date of extension will be entitled to the 
Zone A multiple in effect for their rating if they are otherwise eligible.” 
  
 
Section 3.d.(5) of Enclosure (1) states that “a member who must extend for some 
other reason (i.e., transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance) may extend for 
a period greater than the minimum required for the purpose of gaining entitlement to 
an SRB.” 
 
 
Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officers are authorized 
to effect early discharge and reenlist members within 3 months prior to their 6th, 10th, 
or 14th year active service anniversary dates (not to be confused with the normal expi-
ration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-
tively.  In such cases, SRB payments will be reduced by any portion of unserved service 
obligation.” 
 

 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction states that during the three months prior to the 
end of an enlistment, each member must be counseled concerning his or her eligibility 
for an SRB, have his or her questions concerning SRBs answered, and be provided with 
a copy of Enclosure (5), which is entitled “SRB Questions and Answers.”  The counsel-
ing must be memorialized in the member’s record with a Form CG-3307 signed by the 
member. 
 

ALDIST 046/98, issued on March 29, 1998, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  April  1,  1998, 
and September 30, 1998.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members in 
the xx rating was one-half. 
 

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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

1. 

2. 

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

3. 

The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled about SRBs and 
the effect of his enlistment on his eligibility for a Zone A SRB prior to his reenlistment 
on January 24, 1996.  He alleged that, had he been properly counseled, he would have 
reenlisted for only two years so that on his sixth anniversary, April 7, 1998, he would 
have had no remaining obligated service and therefore been eligible to receive the maxi-
mum possible SRB for his rating.  
 
 
Under  Section  2  of  Enclosure  (1)  and  Enclosure  (3)  to  Commandant 
Instruction 7220.33, the applicant had a right to be counseled concerning SRBs prior to 
his enlistment on January 24, 1996.  There is no evidence that the Coast Guard coun-
seled the applicant concerning his eligibility for an SRB prior to his enlistment.  Had he 
been so counseled, a Form CG-3307 should appear in his record, but there is none.   
  

Under Sections 3.d.(1) and 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction, the 
applicant was eligible to be discharged on January 23, 1998, within three months of the 
sixth anniversary of his enlistment, in order to reenlist.  However, on January 23, 1998, 
ALDIST 046/98 was not yet effective.  The ALDIST did not become effective until after 
the  applicant  reported  to  the  cutter  xxxxx  on  February  27,  1998.   To accept orders to 
serve  on  the  xxxxx,  the  applicant  would  have been required to extend his enlistment 
through February 27, 2001.   
 

4. 

5. 

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s 
relief in part by correcting his record to show that on January 24, 1996, he extended his 
enlistment for two years, through January 23, 1998.  The Chief Counsel further recom-
mended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that on January 23, 1998, 
he  extended  his enlistment for 38 months to obligate himself through the three years 
required for service aboard the cutter xxxxxxx. 

The Coast Guard erred by not properly counseling the applicant concern-
ing  SRBs  prior  to  his  reenlistment  on  January  24,  1996.    Had  he  been properly coun-
seled, the Board is convinced that he would not have reenlisted for six years, through 
January 23, 2002.  However, prior to accepting orders on the cutter xxxxxxx on February 
27, 1998, the applicant would have been required to obligate himself to serve beyond 
that  date  for  at  least  three  years.    Although  the  applicant  asked  for  a  waiver  of  this 
requirement, he did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that implementation 
of the regulation requiring obligated service upon accepting orders to a new unit was 
unfair or in error in his case. 

Therefore,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  granted  subject  to  the 

amendment recommended by the Chief Counsel. 

  
6. 

 
7. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE]

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

ORDER 

 

hereby granted as follows.   

 
His record shall be corrected to show that on January 24, 1996, he extended his 
enlistment for two years. The applicant’s record shall further be corrected to show that 
on January 23, 1998, he extended his enlistment again for 38 months to accept orders on 
the  Coast  Guard  cutter  xxxxx.    His  six-year  reenlistment  contract  dated  January  24, 
1996, shall be null and void.   

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

 
 

correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 

 
 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau