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 December 8, 1998, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  October  7,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-031 
 
 
   

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxxxxxxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the 
Board to correct his military record by changing the term of an extension contract he 
signed on May 4, 1998, from three years to one year.  The correction would allow him to 
reenlist and receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that when he received permanent change of station (PCS) 
orders in March 1998, he was told that, to accept the orders, he was required to extend 
his enlistment through the end of his new tour of duty.  Based on this counseling, on 
May 4, 1998, he extended his enlistment for three years, until November 26, 2001.  He 
further alleged that, when he inquired about the effect of that long extension on his eli-
gibility for an SRB, he was told that, if an SRB was authorized for his rating, he could 
cancel the extension and reenlist to receive the SRB. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  later  discovered  that  the  advice  was  wrong.    He 
alleged that regulations required only that he obligate himself to serve through the first 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 21, 1992, for a term of four 
years.    On  November  27,  1995,  he  was  discharged  and  reenlisted  for  a  term  of  three 
years, through November 26, 1998. 
 
On March 19, 1998, the applicant received PCS orders.  The orders instruct the 
 
applicant’s command as follows:  “PRIOR EXECUTION ORDS, ENSURE SNM RENL/ 
EXTS TO HAVE MIN OF ONE YEAR SVC REMAINING UPON RPTG NEW UNIT.” 
 
 
On May 4, 1998, the applicant extended his enlistment for three years, through 
November 26, 2001.  The extension contract indicates that the reason for the extension 
was “OBLIGATED SERVICE FOR TRANSFER” and that there was no SRB authorized 
for the applicant’s rating on that date.  However, it also indicates that he was provided 
a copy of “SRB Questions and Answers”; that he “fully understand[s] the effect of my 
extension/reextension … upon my current and future SRB eligibility”; and that all his 
questions concerning SRBs have been answered. 
 
 
On November 25, 1998, the applicant was discharged and immediately reenlisted 
for  a  term  of  six  years,  through  November  24,  2004.    His  reenlistment contract states 
that  it  entitles  him  to  a  Zone  B  SRB.    He  also  signed  a  page  7  administrative  entry, 
which states that under ALDIST 290/98, his six-year reenlistment qualified him for an 
SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  one  and  based  on  36  months  of  newly  obligated 
service. 
 

full year at his new station, from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1998, rather than through the 
entire  tour.    Furthermore,  once  his  extension  began  to  run,  he  could  not  cancel  it  to 
receive an SRB. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 23, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant the applicant “conditional relief.”   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Board “should grant conditional relief in this 
case because the Applicant signed an extension agreement that exceeded the minimal 
obligation  service  required  to  execute  his  PCS  orders  to  his  new  station.”    The  Chief 
Counsel recommended that the relief be conditional because the applicant did not pre-
sent  any  evidence  of  the  erroneous  advice  he  allegedly  received.    Furthermore,  he 
argued,  “the  Board  should  conclude  that  the  Applicant  had  read  his  PCS  message 
orders  including  paragraph  2  and  was,  therefore,  properly  informed  regarding  his 
options and freely chose to extend for three (03) years.” 
  

 
Therefore, the Chief Counsel stated that the Board should grant relief only if the 
applicant submits “a statement from his former unit’s PERSRU of Command support-
ing his allegation that he was provided inaccurate information regarding the minimum 
obligated service needed to execute his PCS order.  In the alternative, the Board should 
deny relief and inform him of his right to reapply for reconsideration when and if he is 
able to obtain sufficient evidence to support his allegation of error.” 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  from  the 
Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command,  which  pointed  out  that  the  applicant’s  command 
had no authority to discharge and reenlist him on November 25, 1998, because he was 
not within three months of his 6th, 10th, or 14th anniversary on active duty and he was 
not at the end of his enlistment.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 25, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of the 
 
Coast  Guard  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant  did  not 
respond. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Section  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33  (Reenlistment  Bonus  Programs 
 
Administration) provides 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.” 
 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction requires that members sign a page 7 administra-
 
tive  entry  indicating  that  they  have  received  and  read  Enclosure  (5),  entitled  “SRB 
Questions  and  Answers.”    Enclosure  (5)  explains  that  previously  obligated  service 
reduces an applicant’s SRB.  It further advises members, “[w]hen coming up on your 
end of enlistment, carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages of reenlisting vice 
extending.”  
 
 
Paragraph  3.d.(6)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  instruction  states  that  extensions  can-
celed prior to their operative dates for the purpose of receiving an SRB reduce the SRB 
by the number of months of previously obligated service unless the extension is for a 
period of two years or less, in which case the SRB is not diminished.  
 

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 

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

The applicant alleged that he was told he had to extend his enlistment for 
three years to accept his PCS orders rather than just one year.  He also alleged that he 
was told he could cancel the three-year extension to receive a maximum SRB if one was 
later  authorized  for  his  rating.    He  alleged  that  had  the  Coast  Guard  counseled  him 
properly, he would not have extended his contract for three years.  Instead, he would 
have extended his enlistment for just one year, so that he might remain eligible for the 
maximum possible SRB when one became available for his rating. 
 
 
Under  Section  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant  was 
entitled to proper counseling concerning SRBs.  Proper counseling must be documented 
by a page 7 entry in the member’s record stating that he has received “SRB Questions 
and Answers,” which alerts members to the fact that extensions of more than two years 
diminish any SRB for which a member might later become eligible. 
 

There is no page 7 in the applicant’s record with the information concern-
ing SRB counseling.  However, the applicant’s signed extension contract states that he 
had received “SRB Questions and Answers” and that he fully understood the effect of 
his three-year extension on his future SRB eligibility.  The extension contract contains all 
of the information that would have appeared on the page 7. 
 

4. 

5. 

The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant had not proved he had been 
wrongly counseled.  The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant relief if the 
applicant provides evidence of his allegations concerning erroneous counseling. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

 
6. 

 

Although the counseling owed to the applicant was memorialized in his 
extension contract on the day he signed it, rather than on a page 7, the Board finds that 
the applicant was sufficiently and timely counseled concerning the effect of his exten-
sion on his future SRB eligibility.  Because (a) the extension contract contains the same 
information as the required page 7 and (b) the applicant timely received this informa-
tion  when  he  was  making  the  decision  to  extend,1  the  Board  finds  that  the  Coast 
Guard’s failure to memorialize this counseling on a page 7 as well as on the extension 
contract itself was harmless. 

                                                 
1  In this regard, this case is distinguished from other cases before the Board, in which the Coast Guard 
has  argued  that  an  extension  contract  with  SRB  information  signed  many  months  or  years  before  a 
member’s  sixth,  tenth,  or  fourteenth  active  duty  anniversary  should  be  sufficient  to  fulfill  the  Coast 
Guard’s duty to counsel its members regarding SRBs within the three months immediately prior to their 
sixth, tenth, and fourteenth active duty anniversaries. 

7. 

The applicant has not shown by the preponderance of the evidence that 
the  Coast  Guard  committed  any  injustice  in  this  instance.    However,  the  Board  finds 
that it would be in the interest of justice to grant relief if the applicant is able to provide 
substantial evidence, such as a signed statement from whoever wrongly counseled him 
supporting  his  allegation  that  (a)  he  was  mistakenly  told  that  he  had  to  extend  his 
enlistment for more than two years in order to accept his PCS orders; and/or (b) he was 
mistakenly told that he would be able to cancel his extension of three years without any 
reduction of his SRB. 

 
8. 

Therefore, if within 60 days of the date of this Final Decision, the applicant 
submits evidence supporting his allegations of erroneous counseling, the Board should 
give further consideration to his request. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 
Angel Collaku 

The  application  for  correction  of  the  military  record  of  XXXXXX,  USCG,  is 
denied.  However, the Board shall reconsider the applicant’s request if within 60 days of 
the date of this Final Decision, he submits evidence supporting his allegations that he 
was mistakenly counseled that (a) he had to extend his enlistment for more than one 
year  in  order  to  accept  his  PCS  orders,  and/or  (b)  he  would  be  able  to  cancel  his 
extension of three years without any reduction of his SRB. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 
 

 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn