DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 1999-056 

Technical Amendment 

 

 

 
 

 

AMENDMENT TO FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding conducted under 33 C.F.R. § 52.73 at the request of the Chief 
of the Office of Military Justice of the Coast Guard to consider a technical amendment to 
the order issued by the Board in Docket No. 1999-056.   
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  amendment,  dated  March  9,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

HISTORY OF BCMR DOCKET NO. 1999-056 

In Docket No. 1999-056, the applicant asked the Board to correct her military 
record by canceling two extension contracts she signed as a xxxxxx on September 30, 
1998, and December 18, 1998, and instead show that she extended her enlistment for 
four years on December 24, 1998.  The correction entitled her to receive a Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALDIST 290/98. 

 
In December 1998, the applicant was a xxxxx finishing xxxxxxx “A” School, and 

she needed to extend her enlistment in order to accept permanent change of station 
(PCS) orders upon graduation.  At that time, an SRB with a multiple of three was in 
effect for members in the xx rating under ALDIST 290/98.  The applicant alleged that, 
because the Coast Guard failed to advise her regarding the SRB opportunity, she signed 
an extension contract six days before she was promoted into the xx rating.  She alleged 
that, if she had been properly counseled, she would have waited the six days until she 
graduated from xx “A” School before extending her enlistment to qualify for the SRB. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant the applicant relief 
because she “should have been counseled by staff at xx ‘A’ School to wait until 24 

December 1998, the date of her impending advancement to xx/E-4, to enter into an 
extension agreement.”  The Board granted relief, finding that the Coast Guard had 
erred by not informing the applicant that she would be eligible for an SRB if she waited 
six days, until her graduation from xx “A” School, before signing an extension contract 
to obligate service for her PCS orders.  

CHIEF COUNSEL’S REQUEST 

 
 
On  February  24,  2000,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Military  Justice  submitted  a 
Request for Technical Correction.  He asked that the Board’s order be changed to show 
that, instead of extending her enlistment for four years on December 24, 1998, the appli-
cant reenlisted for six years on that date.  He submitted with his request a copy of an 
email message from the applicant requesting the change.1  He stated that, if the appli-
cant  had  requested  this  correction  initially,  the  Coast  Guard  “would  have  favorably 
endorsed this request.” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.73. 

 The Chief Counsel asked the Board to amend its order in BCMR Docket 
No.  1999-056  to  reenlist  the  applicant  for  six  years  on  December  24,  1998,  instead  of 
extending her enlistment for four years, as she originally requested.  The applicant con-
curred in the request. 

The applicant was eligible to be reenlisted on December 24, 1998, for six 
years to receive an SRB under ALDIST 290/98.  It is not apparent in the record why the 
applicant did not request this correction in her original application, as it was clearly to 
her advantage to do so.  However, it is apparent that she did not receive thorough SRB 
counseling, as required by COMDTINST 7220.33. 

Accordingly, the Board’s order in BCMR Docket No. 1999-056 should be 

amended as requested by the Coast Guard and the applicant. 

1. 
 
2. 

  
3. 

 
4. 

 
 
 
 

 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

                                                 
1  In addition, BCMR staff members previously discussed this request over the telephone with the appli-
cant and her PERSRU (the unit’s administrative yeoman). 

AMENDED ORDER 

 

 

 

The Board’s order correcting the military record of XXXXX, USCG, is hereby 

amended to read as follows:   
 

Her record shall be corrected to show that on December 24, 1998, she reenlisted 

The extension contracts signed by the applicant on September 30, 1998, and 

for six years for the purpose of receiving an SRB with a multiple of three under ALDIST 
290/98. 
 
 
December 18, 1998, shall be null and void. 
 
 
correction. 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

      
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
 
Jay R. Gordon 

 

 
Julia A. Rhodes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

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 February 3, 1999, 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  September  23,  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. 1999-056 
 
 
   

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the 
Board to correct her military record by canceling two extension contracts she signed as 
a  seaman  on  September  30,  1998,  and  December  18,  1998,  and  instead  show  that  she 
extended  her  enlistment  for  four  years  on  December  24,  1998,  after  she  had  been 
promoted to xxx.  The correction would entitle her to receive a Selective Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  alleged  that  in  December  1998,  she  needed  to  extend  her  enlist-
ment in order to accept permanent change of station (PCS) orders.  At that time, an SRB 
with  a  multiple  of  three  was  in  effect  for  members  in  the  xx  rating  under  ALDIST 
290/98.    The  applicant  was  completing  xx  “A”  School  and  due  to  be  promoted  from 
seaman to xx on December 24, 1998.  She alleged that the Coast Guard failed to advise 
her regarding the SRB opportunity.  She alleged that, if she had been properly coun-
seled,  she  would  have  waited  the  six  days  until  she  graduated  from  xx  “A”  School 
before extending her enlistment to qualify for the SRB.  The applicant alleged that she 

did not learn about the SRB opportunity under ALDIST 290/98 until she reported to her 
new duty station in January 1999. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 26, 1994, for a term of 
four years.  On June 26, 1998, she extended her enlistment for two years, through Sep-
tember 25, 2000.  On September 30, 1998, the applicant extended her enlistment for 15 
months to meet her “school/training service requirement.” 
 
 
 

On November 23, 1998, the applicant received orders to transfer overseas. 

On  November  24,  1998,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST  290/98.    Under  the 
ALDIST, members in the xx rating who reenlisted or extended their enlistments after 
November 25, 1998, received an SRB with a multiple of three.  Seamen were not eligible 
for an SRB under the ALDIST. 

 
 
 On December 18, 1998, the applicant extended her enlistment for 15 months to 
provide  sufficient  obligated  service  for  her  transfer  overseas.    The  extension  contract 
indicates that as a seaman, the applicant was ineligible for an SRB.  On December 24, 
1998,  the  applicant  graduated  from  xx  “A”  School  and  was  promoted  to  xx,  thereby 
becoming eligible for an SRB under ALDIST 290/98.  On January 11, 1999, the applicant 
began her overseas tour of duty. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 10, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board grant the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should be granted relief because she 
“should have been counseled by staff at xx ‘A’ School to wait until 24 December 1998, 
the  date  of  her  impending  advancement  to  xx/E-4,  to  enter  into  an  extension  agree-
ment.”  Furthermore, the Chief Counsel argued, the applicant took prompt and appro-
priate action to rectify the error after she discovered it, and she is willing to commit her-
self to four more years of service in consideration for the SRB. 
 

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.” 
 

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. 

 
 

 

ALDIST 290/98, issued on November 24, 1998, established SRBs for personnel in 
certain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  after  November  25, 
1998.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members in the xx rating was 
three.  No SRB was available for seamen. 
 

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. 
 

The applicant alleged that she was not properly counseled about her eligi-
bility for an SRB under ALDIST 290/98.  She alleged that the Coast Guard had a duty to 
counsel  her  properly  concerning  her eligibility for an SRB.  She alleged that, had she 
been properly counseled, she would not have extended her enlistment for one year on 
December 18, 1998.  Instead, she would have waited six days, until she was promoted to 
xx, before extending her enlistment as required for accepting PCS orders.  She further 
alleged that with proper counseling, she would have cancelled the extension she signed 
on September 30, 1998, and extended her enlistment for four years to receive an SRB. 
 
 
Under  Section  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant  was 
entitled  to  proper  counseling  concerning  her  eligibility  for  an  SRB  under  ALDIST 
290/98.  As a seaman in xx “A” School, her superiors at that school should have advised 
her that, if she waited six days to extend her contract, she would be eligible under the 
ALDIST to receive an SRB with a multiple of three.  Instead, she was told merely that, as 
a seaman, there was no SRB available for her. 
 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Under Section 3.d.6. of the instruction and ALDIST 290/98, on December 
24, 1998, the applicant was eligible to cancel the one-year extension she signed on Sep-
tember 30, 1998, and sign a new extension contract for four years to receive an SRB with 
a multiple of 3. 
 

The Chief Counsel admitted that, in light of her imminent promotion to 
xx,  the  applicant  should  have  been  counseled  concerning  her  eligibility  for  an  SRB 
under ALDIST 290/98.  Because she acted promptly to correct the error and is willing to 
commit  to  serve  four  years  in  consideration  for  the  SRB,  the  Chief  Counsel  recom-
mended that the Board grant relief. 

The Coast Guard erred by not informing the applicant that she would be 
eligible  for  an  SRB  if  she  waited  six  days,  until  her  graduation  from  xx  “A”  School, 
before signing an extension contract to obligate service for her PCS orders.  If the Coast 
Guard had properly counseled the applicant, she would have extended her enlistment 
for  four  years  on  December  24, 1998, rather than for one year on December 18, 1998.  
The extension contract she signed on September 30, 1998, would have been administra-
tively canceled. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

 

Therefore, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

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

hereby granted as follows.   
 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

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

The  extension  contracts  signed  by  the  applicant  on  September  30,  1998,  and 

Her record shall be corrected to show that on December 24, 1998, she extended 
her  enlistment  for  four  years  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of 
three under ALDIST 290/98. 
 
 
December 18, 1998, shall be null and void. 
 
 
correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis 

 

 
L. L. Sutter