DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-022 
 
 
   

 

 
 

 

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 docketed on November 10, 1998, follow-
ing the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  9,  1999,  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, in 1982, he extended his enlistment so 
that he could receive a Zone B Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALDISTs 
340/81 and 004/82.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

In  his  application  to  the  BCMR,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  never  coun-
seled  about  his  eligibility  to  receive  an  SRB  by  extending  his  enlistment  in  1982.    He 
alleged that, if he had been counseled, he would have extended his enlistment to receive 
the maximum possible bonus.  The applicant stated that he did not discover his eligibil-
ity for this SRB until December 8, 1997. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on February 23, 197x, for a term of four 
years. On February 5, 1980, he reenlisted for a term of three years, through February 4, 

1983, and received a Zone A1  reenlistment bonus.  He was then transferred to xxxxxxx 
for a two-year tour of duty.   
 
On    January  12,  1982,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST 
 
004/82, 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 Zone B SRBs authorized for xx who extended their enlistments or reenlisted 
under  ALDIST  004/82  were  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  one.    ALDIST  004/82  also 
temporarily 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 enlist-
ments.  To take advantage of ALDIST 004/82, members had to extend their enlistments 
before February 15, 1982.  On March 3, 1982, the Commandant issued ALDIST 068/82, 
which made members in the xx rating ineligible for Zone B SRBs. 
 
 
The applicant did not extend his enlistment or reenlist while 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.  The applicant’s rating and pay 
grade at this time were xx and E-6. 

In the summer of 1982, the applicant was transferred from xxx to xxxxx.  He was 
counseled concerning reenlistment and SRB opportunities on September 29, 1982.  On 
January  24,  1983,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  for  12  months,  through 
February 4, 1984. 

 
In April 1983, the applicant’s command apparently noticed that he had not been 
required,  prior  to  reporting  to  xxxxxxx,  to  sign  a  reenlistment  or  extension  contract 
obligating  himself  to  enough  years  of  duty  to  complete  his  tour  at  the  station.    The 
personnel officer at xxxxxxxxx should have required him to sign such an extension or 
reenlistment contract prior to permitting the transfer.  The command at xxxxxxxx asked 
the applicant to sign a four-year extension contract.  He refused to do so, stating that it 
was not now required because he had already reported to the unit.  On April 6, 1983, 
the administration officer at xxxxxxxxxx documented the applicant’s refusal to sign a 
four-year extension contract in his record. 
 

                                                 
1 The amounts of 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 at least 21 months but less than 6 years 
of active duty service are in “Zone A,” while those who have at least 6 but less than 10 years of active 
duty service are in “Zone B.”  At the time ALDIST 004/82 was issued, the applicant was in Zone A, with 
approximately 5 years and 11 months of active duty service and 1 year remaining on his enlistment con-
tract.  Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone, and the applicant had already received a 
Zone A SRB.  However, if the applicant had extended his enlistment under ALDIST 004/82, the extension 
would have gone into effect after his sixth anniversary on active duty, when he was in Zone B. 
 

Subsequently, the applicant signed the following extension and reenlistment con-

 
tracts: 

 
April 19, 19842 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 months 
April 17, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 months 
April 14, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 years     
April 14, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 years 
March 24, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 years  
 
Although  there  are  no  further  reenlistment  or  extension contracts in the appli-

 
cant’s military record, he apparently remains on active duty. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On July 26, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard issued an advisory opin-

 
 
ion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request for lack of proof.   
 

The Chief Counsel argued that COMDTINST 7220.13E did not require the Coast 
Guard to counsel the applicant concerning his eligibility to extend his enlistment and 
receive a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 004/82.3  Furthermore, he argued, neither statu-
tory nor common law required the Coast Guard to counsel its members concerning this 
opportunity.  Therefore, the Chief Counsel argued, the Coast Guard’s duty to counsel 
its members concerning SRB opportunities is entirely self-imposed and must be left to 
the Coast Guard to interpret. 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  “the  Coast  Guard  has  interpreted  its  policy  to 
mean that it may fulfill its self-imposed notice procedures through a variety of proce-
dural  mechanisms,  not  solely  through  documented  counseling  sessions.”    He  argued 
that under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the Board 
should defer to the Coast Guard’s interpretation and “find that there was no single pro-
cedure required to inform a service member of the option to reenlist or extend under 
ALDIST  004/82.”    To  do  otherwise  would  mean  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  a duty to 
counsel  the  more  than  20,000  enlisted  members  who  were  eligible  under  ALDIST 
004/82  during  the  one-month  period  between  when  it  became  effective,  January  12, 
1982, and February 14, 1982.  Therefore, the Chief Counsel urged the Board to find that 
the  applicant  had  received  constructive  notice  of  the  SRB  opportunity  through  the 

                                                 
2   The applicant’s previous enlistment contract was extended only through February 4, 1984.  Although 
the applicant apparently remained on active duty between February 5, 1984, and April 19, 1984, there is 
no enlistment or extension contract in his file that covers the period. 
 
3  COMDTINST 7220.13E required the Coast Guard to counsel potential reenlistees of their SRB opportu-
nities but not potential extendees. 

ALDIST message system, and that this constructive notice fulfilled any perceived duty 
on the part of the Coast Guard to counsel the applicant. 

 
The Chief Counsel also argued that, even if the Board were to find that the Coast 
Guard had a duty, but failed, to counsel the applicant, the Board could not presume, 
based on the member’s word and subsequent years of service, that the applicant would 
have,  in  fact,  chosen  to  extend  his contract.  The Chief Counsel stated that the appli-
cant’s word is not substantial evidence, “particularly considering that it speculates on 
what  he  would  have  done  some  sixteen  years  earlier  under  different  circumstances.”  
He urged the Board to require the applicant to “articulate specific, fact-based reasons 
for  his  conclusion”  that  he  would  have  extended  had  he  been  counseled  concerning 
ALDIST 004/82.   

 
The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  applicant’s  series  of  one-year  extensions  in 
the mid 1980s and his refusal to sign a four-year extension after reporting to xxxxxxxxx 
in  April  1983  demonstrate  that  he  was  disinclined  in  1982  to  commit  himself  to  the 
Coast Guard for a long period.  

 
Finally, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s request “involves a signifi-
cant  issue  of  Coast  Guard  policy.”    Therefore,  any  decision  by  the  Board  other  than 
denial must be reviewed by the Secretary’s delegate under 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On July 27, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant requested 
an extension because the advisory opinion had arrived while he was on vacation out of 
town.  He responded on August 31, 1999.  In his response, the applicant stated the fol-
lowing: 
 
When I transferred from xxxxx in the summer of 1982, I had full intentions of 
remaining  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  at  least  an  additional  four  years  and  would 
have done so if properly counseled on SRB’s in effect at the time.  I was recently 
divorced with custody of my two sons and in no financial or emotional shape to 
separate from the service. …  I cannot honestly say I would have obligated for 
more than four years. 
 
The applicant further stated that he was not aware when he arrived in xxxxxx 
that the proper paperwork was not in place.  When the discovery was made “almost 
twelve months after [he] was transferred,” his refusal to sign a long-term extension was 
not due to any uncertainty on his part concerning his career intentions.  The applicant 
explained that “[a]s was common practice at the time, [short] extension of enlistment’s, 
[sic] were used in an attempt to possibly fall into the zone of a reenlistment bonus.  I 
used  that  practice  on  numerous  occasions  through  the  80’s.    To  the  best  of  my 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

knowledge, at the 10-year point in my career with no possibility of an SRB, I began to 
reenlist in increments of four to six years.” 

 
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.d.(2) of Enclosure (1) 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 fol-
lowing 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 opera-
tive 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,  must 
yield a total of at least ten years of active duty.  [Emphasis in original] 
 
(d)  Has not previously received a Zone B SRB, nor previously enlisted, 
reenlisted, or extended (extensions that have become effective) beyond 
ten years of active duty. . . .  
 

Section 1.g. of Enclosure (1) 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.” 
  
ALDIST 004/82 
 
 
ALDIST 004/82, issued on January 12, 1982, authorized members in the xx rating 
to  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their 
enlistments for 3 or more years.  ALDIST 004/82 also suspended the provisions of Arti-
cle 1-G-83 of the Personnel Manual (Execution of Agreement to Extend Enlistment) until 
February 15, 1982, and therefore allowed members to extend enlistments that were not 
within 30 days of termination.   

 
Personnel Manual Provisions 
 
 
 

Article 1-G-83 of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual stated the following, in part: 

(b)  Generally, an individual should not be permitted to agree to extend 
his/her enlistment until approximately 30 days prior to the date of expira-
tion 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 indi-
vidual  to  agree  to  extend  his/her  enlistment  a  considerable  time  in 
advance.  

 
 
Article 4-C-5(d) stated that a “member on a second or subsequent enlist-
ment is considered to be in a career status and, unless otherwise indicated, may 
be selected for assignment irrespective of expiration of enlistment date.  All per-
sonnel  ordered  overseas  shall  have  the  required  obligated  active  duty  for  the 
overseas tour of duty prior to transfer, unless waived by Commandant (G-PE).” 
[Emphasis added.] 
 
 
Article 4-E-3(a) stated that “[e]nlisted personnel selected for transfer out-
side  CONUS  [the  continental  United  States  xxxxxxxx]  must  have  sufficient 
obligated active duty service as of date of departure from CONUS as follows: (1) 
Personnel  must  have  required  service  to  complete  the  prescribed  tour  for  the 
area  or  reenlist  or  extend  enlistment,  unless  otherwise  authorized  by  the 
Commandant….” [Emphasis added.] 
 

APPLICABLE BCMR DECISIONS 

 
Decision in BCMR Docket No. 121-93 
 
 
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 
military record to show that he had extended his service on February 14, 1982, and was 
therefore due an SRB. Although the Board again denied the requested relief, the Deputy 
General Counsel (acting as the Secretary’s delegate) granted relief, finding in part that  
 
  
because the Coast Guard had presented no evidence as to how the appli-
cant 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 

1. 

2. 

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

provisions of ALDIST 004/82 came from contact with [the ‘C’ school] are common, and 
have often been accepted without challenge in the past”;4  
 
 
opportunities”;5 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.” 
 
Decision 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 exten-
sion of his enlistment for a period of six years on February 14, 1982, in order to receive a 
Zone B SRB.  He stated 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.”  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 recommended that the requested relief be granted.  That recommen-
dation was based in part 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 enlist-
ments  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; and (4) the Coast Guard’s failure to reveal if and how informa-
tion about ALDIST 004/82 had been disseminated to the members. 

3. 

1. 

 
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.  She concluded 
                                                 
4 In support of this statement, the Deputy General Counsel cited the decision in BCMR Docket No. 151-91. 
5 The Deputy General Counsel cited BCMR Nos. 224-87, 263-87, 268-87, 285-87 for this position. 

that the “Coast Guard erred in drafting COMDTINST 7220.13E when it failed to require 
mandatory counseling for potential extendees . . . .”  BCMR Docket No. 69-97, Deputy 
General Counsel’s Concurring Decision, at 3. 

In response to the argument that the applicant’s statements were insuffi-
cient to overcome the presumption of regularity in administrative matters such as coun-
seling, 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.   

 
2. 

 
3. 

The Deputy General Counsel found unpersuasive the argument that the 
applicant’s short extensions showed that he was not, in fact, committed to a career in 
the Coast Guard and therefore was not likely to seek a maximum SRB.  She reasoned 
that short extensions are made frequently for the convenience of the government and 
do  not  necessarily  reflect  negatively  on  a  member’s  career  commitment  to  the  Coast 
Guard. 
 
4. 

Finally,  the  Deputy  General Counsel cited several “Comptroller General 
cases that authorize government agencies to correct errors of wrongful advice or failure 
to advise when an employee otherwise meets the statutory criteria for obtaining a bene-
fit.”6  BCMR Docket No. 69-97, Deputy General Counsel’s Concurring Decision, at 11. 
 
Decision in BCMR Docket No. 103-97 
 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  103-97,  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled 
concerning his eligibility for a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 004/82.  He was in Zone A 
when the ALDIST was in effect from January 12, 1982, to February 14, 1982, but he did 
not reenlist or extend his enlistment during that time.  However, on March 26, 1982, just 
prior to the end of his enlistment, he reenlisted for 3 years and received a Zone A SRB.  
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he would receive a Zone B 
SRB under the ALDIST.  The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard explained that, in the-
ory, if the applicant had reenlisted while the ALDIST was in effect to receive a Zone A 
SRB, he might then have immediately extended that new enlistment to receive a Zone B 
SRB  as  well.    The  Board  granted  the  applicant’s  request  because  the  Deputy  General 
Counsel  had  previously  ruled  that  members  had  a  right  to be “fully counseled” con-
cerning their SRB opportunities. 

 
The Deputy General Counsel, however, reversed the Board’s decision.  She ruled 
“that  applicant  has  not  demonstrated:  (1)  that the Coast Guard knew or should have 
known that members in applicant’s situation might be eligible for both a Zone A and a 
                                                 
6 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. 

Zone B SRB during the effective period of ALDIST 004/82, or (2) that he was treated in 
a  manner  differently  than  other  members  during  the  effective  period  of  ALDIST 
004/82.”  BCMR Docket No. 103-97, Deputy General Counsel’s Concurring Decision, at 
2.  The Deputy General Counsel also found that the applicant had not suffered an injus-
tice because “he was within three months of expiration of contract, [and] he could have 
reenlisted for three or more years and thus qualify for the Zone A SRB.”  BCMR Docket 
No.  103-97,  Deputy  General  Counsel’s  Concurring  Decision,  at  3.    Furthermore,  she 
stated, “When applicant did not reenlist or extend prior to or during ALDIST 004/82’s 
effective period, applicant was simply ineligible for a Zone B SRB because he had no 
enlistment contract in place: (a) which would end after his completion of the minimum 
six years active duty and (b) on which he could extend his obligated service for a mini-
mum of three years.”  Id. 
 

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. 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

 

2. 

The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error that he has asked 
the Board to correct on December 8, 1997.  The Coast Guard did not present any evi-
dence  indicating  that  the  applicant  knew  or  might  have  learned  of  his  eligibility  to 
receive an SRB under ALDIST 004/82 any earlier than the date of discovery alleged by 
the applicant.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application was timely as it was filed 
within three years of the date of discovery of the alleged error. 
 

3. 

Under ALDIST 004/82,  the applicant was eligible to extend his enlistment 
for  up  to  six  years,  from  the  end  of  his  then-current  enlistment  in  1983  to  1989,  to 
receive a Zone B SRB.  The applicant alleged that he was not counseled concerning his 
eligibility for the SRB.  He further alleged that he would have extended his enlistment 
for at least four years had he known of his eligibility for the SRB.  
 

The SRB statute, 37 U.S.C. § 308(a), expressly includes members who “vol-
untarily extend[] [their] enlistment[s]” among those who may be eligible for SRBs.  The 
Coast Guard cannot achieve Congress’s goals unless it informs members who are eligi-
ble to receive a bonus of their eligibility.   

4. 

 
5. 

In COMDTINST 7220.13E, the Coast Guard obligated itself to counsel all 
potential  reenlistees,  but  not  potential  extendees,  regarding  their  SRB  opportunities.  
The  fact  that  the  Coast  Guard  neglected  to  specify  in  its  regulations  how  potential 
extendees should be informed of their eligibility under ALDIST 004/82 does not mean 

potential extendees had less right to be informed than did the potential reenlistees.  The 
Chief Counsel argued, however, that the Coast Guard’s obligation to counsel its mem-
bers  concerning  SRBs  is  self-imposed  and  that  the  Board  must  defer  to  the  Coast 
Guard’s  determination  of  how  it  may  fulfill  this  self-imposed  duty  to  counsel.    The 
Coast  Guard,  he  argued,  fulfilled  its  duty  to  counsel  potential  extendees  by  issuing 
ALDIST 004/82 and thereby giving all members constructive notice of the opportunity.   

 
6. 

 

The  Deputy  General  Counsel  has  held  that  the  “Coast  Guard  erred  in 
drafting  COMDTINST  7220.13E  when  it  failed  to  require  mandatory  counseling  for 
potential extendees on an equal basis with potential reenlistees.” BCMR Docket No. 69-
97, Deputy General Counsel’s Concurring Decision, at 3.  Furthermore, the Deputy Gen-
eral  Counsel  has  held  that  “Coast  Guard  regulations  require  that  members  be  ‘fully 
advised’ of SRB opportunities.”  BCMR Docket No. 121-93, Decision of the Deputy Gen-
eral Counsel, at 2.  Thus, the Board finds that the Coast Guard did have a duty to coun-
sel  the  applicant  about  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB  by  extending  his  enlistment  under 
ALDIST  004/82.    In  addition,  the  Board  finds  that  the  “constructive  notice”  that  the 
Chief  Counsel  alleged  the  applicant  had  received  was  insufficient  to  fulfill  the  Coast 
Guard’s  duty  to  counsel  because  the  Coast  Guard  was  obligated  to  inform  potential 
extendees of their eligibility under ALDIST 004/82 on an equal footing with potential 
reenlistees.  The Chief Counsel’s claim that, because the Coast Guard waived the three-
month rule for extensions in ALDIST 004/82, more than 20,000 members were eligible 
for an SRB, does not justify failing in its duty to counsel potential extendees on an equal 
footing with potential reenlistees. 
 

The Coast Guard has submitted no evidence to rebut the applicant’s claim 
that  he  was  not informed of his eligibility for a Zone B SRB.  With a credible, sworn 
statement by the applicant to the effect that he was not counseled, and with no contrary 
evidence presented by the Coast Guard, the Board finds that the preponderance of the 
evidence indicates that the applicant was not properly counseled in 1982 about his eli-
gibility for a Zone B SRB. 
 

7. 

8. 

The Chief Counsel  alleged that the applicant’s refusal to sign a four-year 
extension  contract  in  April  1983  showed  that  the  applicant  was  not  committed  to  a 
career  in  the  Coast  Guard  and  that  he  would  not  have  extended  his  contract  under 
ALDIST  004/82  even  if  he  had  been  counseled.    However,  the  regulations  did  not 
require  an  enlisted member who had already reported to an overseas duty station to 
reenlist for the term of his or her tour.  See Articles 4-C-5(d) and 4-E-3(a) of the Person-
nel Manual.  The applicant reported to xxxxxxxxxxx in the summer of 1982.  Despite 
having  counseled  him  regarding  reenlistment  in  September  1982  and  extending  his 
reenlistment  in  January  1983,  the  command  did  not  notice  the  previous  command’s 
failure to reenlist him for the length of his tour at xxxxxxxxx until April 1983, at least 
eight months after he reported there.   

9. 

The applicant’s refusal to fix the Coast Guard’s mistake by reenlisting for 
four years does not necessarily indicate that he was uncommitted to the Coast Guard.  
He had already received a Zone A SRB and was aware of the advantage of reenlisting 
while an SRB opportunity was in effect for his rating. If the applicant had executed a 
long-term extension in April 1983, he could not have canceled it to reenlist and obtain 
an SRB if one had become available.  And if an SRB had become available to the appli-
cant in the mid-1980s and he executed an extension to receive the SRB, the bonus pay-
ment  would  have  been reduced by the amount of obligated service remaining on his 
four-year  April  1993  reenlistment.    Enlisted  personnel  are  often  counseled  about  the 
financial disadvantages of obligating themselves to long reenlistments when no SRB is 
in effect for their rating at their reenlistment interviews, such as the one the applicant 
had in September 1982, six months prior to his refusal to reenlist for four years.  The 
Board has held in many similar cases that an enlisted member’s short-term extensions, 
including  those  executed  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  future  SRB  payment,  are  not 
proof  of  the  member’s  lack  of  a  commitment  to  the  Coast  Guard.    See,  e.g.,  BCMR 
Docket Nos. 1998-008, 1997-123, 1997-062, and 69-97. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

 
12. 

Finally, the facts in this case are not dissimilar to those in BCMR Docket 
No. 69-97, wherein the  Deputy General Counsel found that two two-year extensions 
and  one  ten-month  extension  did  not  establish  that  the  applicant  would  not  have 
extended for six years if he had been counseled on ALDIST 004/82. In support of that 
finding, the Deputy General Counsel looked to the purpose of the extensions and found 
that  each  one  was  for  a  particular purpose and was for the convenience of the Coast 
Guard.  In the Board’s view, the difference between that applicant’s extensions and this 
applicant’s short-term extensions is not so significant as to require the Board to reach a 
different result in this case.  

The Board also notes that the applicant had no break in service whatso-
ever  during  this  period  even  though  a  member  may  have  a  three-month  break  in 
service with no loss of eligibility for an SRB or loss of time in pay grade in rating for 
advancement.  The lack of any break in service during this period—as well as the appli-
cant’s approximately 24 years of continuous service—demonstrates his commitment to 
the Coast Guard.  Furthermore, the applicant signed a sworn statement to the effect that 
he would have extended his reenlistment for four years under ALDIST 004/82 had he 
been  properly  counseled.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence indicates that the applicant would have extended his enlistment for four years 
had he been counseled about ALDIST 004/82 while it was in effect. 

Like the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 103-97, this applicant was in Zone 
A when ALDIST 004/82 was in effect and is asking the Board to correct his record so 
that he may receive a Zone B SRB.  However, the applicant in Docket No. 103-97 argued 
that the Coast Guard erred by failing to counsel him that he could receive both a Zone 
A and a Zone B SRB by reenlisting and immediately extending that reenlistment while 

the  ALDIST  was  in  effect.    The  Deputy  General  Counsel  ruled  in  that  case  that  the 
applicant had not demonstrated that the Coast Guard knew or should have known that 
members in applicant’s situation might be eligible for both a Zone A and a Zone B SRB 
during  the  effective  period  of  ALDIST  004/82.    In  this  case,  however,  the  applicant 
argued merely that he should have been counseled concerning his eligibility for a Zone 
B  SRB.    He  had  already  received  a  Zone  A SRB and was within a month of entering 
Zone  B.    Moreover,  unlike  the  applicant  in  Docket  No.  103-97,  this  applicant  had  an 
enlistment contract in place that would terminate while he was in Zone B and that he 
could easily have extended to receive a Zone B SRB. 

 
13. 

 

The Coast Guard erred in 1982 by failing to counsel the applicant of his 
eligibility to receive a Zone B SRB by extending his enlistment under ALDIST 004/82.   
 

14.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.  

15. 

Because the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s request “involves a 
significant issue of Coast Guard policy,” this decision must be reviewed by the Secre-
tary’s delegate under 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, 

is hereby granted. 

ORDER 

 

 
The applicant’s record shall be corrected to show that on February 14, 1982, the 
applicant extended his enlistment for four years, through February 4, 1987.  The record 
shall  further  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  February  5,  1987,  the  applicant  was  dis-
charged and reenlisted for a period of five years and two months.   

 
The extension and enlistment contracts signed by the applicant from January 23, 

1983 through April 14, 1989, shall be null and void and removed from his record. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum he is due as a result of this cor-

rection. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
Charles Medalen 

 

 

 
 
James G. Parks 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan