DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-034 
 
 
   

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 16, 1998, after 
the Board received the applicant’s complete application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  23,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the 
Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  voiding  his  current  reenlistment  contract  and 
releasing him  from his military obligation due to an administrative error.  He asked 
that  “a  new  contract  be  drawn  up”  so  that  he  may  receive  a  Selective  Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB).  “If this is not possible, I request that my reenlistment date of 31 March 
1998 be changed to 01 April 1998 in order to qualify for the [SRB].” 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that prior to his sixth anniversary on active duty, his com-
mand counseled him that he could receive an SRB by reenlisting for up to six years.  He 
was advised that under ALDIST 046/98, he would receive a Zone A SRB with a multi-
ple of two if he reenlisted on March 31, 1998.  Therefore, the applicant signed a reenlist-
ment  contract  on  that  day.    However,  the  Coast  Guard  thereafter  informed  his  com-
mand that he would not receive the SRB because ALDIST 046/98 did not become effec-
tive until April 1, 1998, the day after he had signed his reenlistment contract.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on June 30, 199x, for four years.  On 
February  19,  1996,  he  reenlisted  for  three  years.    Therefore,  his  sixth  anniversary  on 
active duty fell on  June 30, 199x.   

 
 
On March 2, 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 two. 
 

On March 5, 1998, the applicant’s Personnel Unit sent his command a message 
that indicated that, if the applicant reenlisted after March 30, 1998, he would receive an 
SRB with a multiple of two under ALDIST 046/98.  On March 31, 1998, the applicant 
reenlisted for six years.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 26, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant partial relief in this case.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  should  be  granted  partial  relief 
because he was eligible to receive the SRB and clearly desired to commit himself to an 
additional six years of service.  The Chief Counsel also stated that the “evidence pre-
sented fully supports Applicant’s allegations of plain error and also demonstrates that 
the Applicant and his command took prompt action to rectify the alleged error after its 
discovery.”   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued,  however,  that  the  applicant  has  presented  no  evi-
dence supporting his request that his reenlistment contract be voided altogether.  The 
Chief Counsel stated that the applicant freely signed his reenlistment contract, commit-
ting himself to six years of service, and only the date of that contract should be changed. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 27, 1999, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant did 
not respond. 
 

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.(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 2, 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 two. 
 

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

2. 

The applicant was improperly counseled that he could receive a Zone A 
SRB under ALDIST 046/98 if he reenlisted between March 30, 1998, and June 30, 199x, 
his sixth active duty anniversary.  ALDIST 046/98 did not become effective until April 
1, 1998.  However, based on the erroneous advice, the applicant reenlisted for six years 
on March 31, 1998, instead of on April 1st.  Therefore, the applicant has been unfairly 
denied the SRB that was promised to him. 
 

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 concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

4. 

5. 

3. 

 
Although the applicant requested that his enlistment contract and military 
obligation be voided altogether, there is no basis in the record for granting this request. 
 

The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant relief because the 
evidence  indicates  the  Coast  Guard  made  an  administrative  error  and  because  the 
applicant acted promptly in seeking correction of the error. 
 
 
Under Sections 3.d.(1) and 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction, the 
applicant  was  eligible  to  be  discharged  on  April  1,  1998,  within  three  months  of  the 
sixth  anniversary  of  his  enlistment,  in  order  to  reenlist.    Under  ALDIST  046/98,  he 
would have received a Zone A SRB with a multiple of two.  
  

6. 

 The Coast Guard erred by advising the applicant to reenlist to receive an 
SRB one day before ALDIST 046/98 became effective.  Had he been properly counseled, 
the applicant would have been discharged and reenlisted on April 1, 1998. 

Therefore, the applicant’s record should be corrected by changing the date 

of his reenlistment contract from March 31, 1998, to April 1, 1998. 

 
7. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

hereby granted as follows.   

ORDER 

 

 
The date of the six-year reenlistment contract signed by the applicant on March 

31, 1998, shall be changed to April 1, 1998.   

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

 
 

correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter