DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-059 
 
 
   

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 5, 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  October  7,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The applicant, an xxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
correct his military record by canceling a four-year reenlistment contract he signed on 
February  11,  1998,  so  that  he  may  reenlist  and  receive  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus 
(SRB). 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on February 11, 1998, he was not 
properly counseled concerning SRBs.  He alleged that there is no page 7 in his record 
documenting the required counseling.  He alleged that, if he had been properly coun-
seled, he would not have reenlisted for four years.  Instead, he would have extended his 
enlistment and reenlisted later when an SRB became available.  The applicant alleged 
that he is now eligible for an SRB, although he did not provide a copy of an ALDIST 
authorizing an SRB for his rating. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 16, 199x, for a term of four 
years.  Prior to October 16, 199x, he extended his enlistment for one year, through Octo-
ber 15, 199x.  On April 20, 199x, he further extended the enlistment for another three 
years, through October 15, 199x. 
 
 
In  February  1998,  the  applicant  received  permanent  change  of  station  (PCS) 
orders, which were to be executed on June 25, 1998.  The orders required the applicant 
to have obligated service for at least one full year at his new station, through June 24, 
1999, or more than eight months past the end of his enlistment, October 15, 199x.  How-
ever, instead of extending service for the minimum required by the PCS orders (nine 
months,  through  July  15,  1999),  the  applicant  apparently  reenlisted  for  four  years  on 
February 11, 1998, although no documentation of this reenlistment appears in the paper 
copy of his military record. 
 

No SRB was in effect for members in the xx rating on that date, and there is no 
page 7 entry in his record to show that he was properly counseled concerning the effect 
of this reenlistment on his SRB opportunities.   

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 “[a]lthough there is sufficient legal basis to deny 
relief in this case, the totality of the circumstances indicate that it would be proper for 
the  Board  to  grant  relief  in  this  case  by  voiding  the  Applicant’s  11  February  1998 
reenlistment contract and replacing it with a third extension of ten (10) [sic] months.” 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the Board should grant relief because (1) the four-
 
year reenlistment was not necessary under the applicant’s PCS orders and (2) in a tele-
phone conversation with the applicant, he stated that he was willing to sign a new long-
term reenlistment as consideration for the SRB. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel suggested that the Board should ask the applicant “to state his 
reenlistment or extension intentions for the period after 25 June 1999, the date when his 
‘new’ extension agreement expires.  If the Applicant chooses to reenlist for three, four, 
five or six years, he may qualify to receive an SRB.”   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On September 28, 1999, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  
He stated that he wanted the Board to correct his record to show that on February 11, 

1998, he extended his enlistment through July 15, 1999, to accept his PCS orders.  He 
also stated that he wished his record to show that, at the end of this extension, on July 
15, 1999, he reenlisted for six years for the purpose of receiving an 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.” 
 
 
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.”  
 
 
ALDIST 184/99, issued by the Commandant on May 13, 1999, authorized SRBs 
for members who reenlisted or extended their enlistments after June 15, 1999.  An SRB 
with  a  multiple  of  one  was  authorized  for  members  in  the xx rating in Zone B (with 
more than six years of active duty service). 
 

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. 
 

1. 

2. 

The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled about the effect 
of his four-year reenlistment on his future eligibility for an SRB.  He alleged that the 
Coast Guard had a duty to counsel him and that had he been properly counseled, he 
would  not  have  extended  his  contract  through  October  15,  2002.    Instead,  he  would 
have extended his enlistment for only nine months 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 includes the receipt 
of  “SRB  Questions  and  Answers,”  which  alerts  members  to  the  fact  that  previously 
obligated service diminishes any SRB for which a member might later become eligible.  
This counseling must be documented in a page 7 entry in the applicant’s record. 
 

There is no page 7 in the applicant’s record documenting SRB counseling 
at the time of his reenlistment on February 11, 1998.  The Coast Guard apparently erred 

4. 

3. 

by  failing  to  counsel  the  applicant  and  memorializing  that  counseling  with  a  page  7 
entry. 
 

The Chief Counsel stated that, “[a]lthough there is sufficient basis to deny 
relief in this case, the totality of the circumstances indicate [sic] that it would be proper 
for the Board to grant relief in this case.”  He recommended that the Board correct the 
applicant’s record to show that he extended his contract by only ten months.  The Board 
notes, however, that to obligate himself to serve at least one full year at his new station, 
from June 25, 1998, through June 24, 1999, the applicant would have had to extend his 
enlistment for only nine months, from October 16, 1998, through July 15, 1999. 

The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  not 
properly counseled concerning SRBs when he reenlisted for four years on February 11, 
1998.    If  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would  have  extended  his 
enlistment for nine months, from October 16, 1998, through July 15, 1999, to accept his 
PCS  orders.    The  evidence  further  indicates  that,  upon  the  end  of  this  extension,  the 
applicant would have reenlisted for six years and received a Zone B SRB with a multi-
ple of one under ALDIST 184/99. 

5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

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

hereby granted.   
 

ORDER 

 

 

The applicant’s record shall be corrected to show that on February 11, 1998, he 

extended his enlistment for nine months, from October 16, 1998, through July 15, 1999. 

 
The applicant’s record shall further be corrected to show that on July 15, 1999, 

the applicant reenlisted for a term of six years for the purpose of receiving an SRB. 
 
 
shall be null and void. 
 

The four-year reenlistment contract signed by the applicant on February 11, 1998, 

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Angel Collaku 

 

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
Sharon Y. Vaughn 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

correction.