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 16, 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  December  9,  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. 1999-062 
 
 
   

 
 
The applicant, an xxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board 
to correct his military record by canceling a two-year extension contract he signed on 
October 20, 1998, and reenlisting him for three years to receive a Selective Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB) under ALDIST 290/98 with no reduction for prior obligated service. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant stated that on November 24, 1998, the Coast Guard issued ALDIST 
290/98,  which  changed  which  ratings  were  authorized to receive SRBs as of the next 
day,  November  25,  1998.    He  alleged  that  under  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST 
7220.33, the Coast Guard is required to issue such ALDISTs at least 30 days before they 
become  effective  and  that  previous  SRB  ALDISTs  had  been  issued  at  least  30  days 
before they became effective.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that,  had  the  ALDIST  been  properly  issued  at  least  one 
month  before  its  effective  date,  he  would  have  canceled  the  extension  he  signed  on 

October 20, 1998, and extended his contract for just a month in order to remain eligible 
to receive an SRB under ALDIST 290/98 for three full years of service.  He alleged that 
such an action would have been authorized under ALDIST 245/98.  The applicant con-
cluded  that,  because  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  issue  ALDIST  290/98  at  least  30  days 
prior to its effective date, he did not cancel his extension prior to its effective date and 
was unable to take advantage of the SRB opportunity. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 31, 199x, for a term of four 

 
 
years, through October 30, 199x.   
 
 
voluntarily extended his enlistment for two years. 
 

On  October  20,  199x,  ten  days  before  his  enlistment  was  to  end,  the  applicant 

On  November  24,  1998,  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST  290/98.    Under  the 
ALDIST,  members  in  the  xx  rating  in  Zone  A1  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their 
enlistments on or after November 25, 1998, received an SRB with a multiple of one.  

 
On  February  2,  1999,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
BCMR “strongly endors[ing] his request that this matter be addressed by the Board.”  
He stated that if the Coast Guard had promulgated ALDIST 290/98 by October 25, 1998, 
“I am certain that [the applicant] would have taken the steps to extend his enlistment 
for a short period of time in order to qualify for a Zone “A” reenlistment bonus.” 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Section 2.b. of Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
 
Administration)  provides  that  “[c]hanges  to  SRB  multiples  will  be  announced  via 
ALDIST at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of the amendment.” 
 
 
 

Section 3.d.6. of the SRB Instruction states the following: 

Extensions  previously  executed  by  members  may  be  canceled  prior 
their  
operative date for the purpose of executing a longer extension or reenlistment in accor-
dance with article 1-G-36 of [the Personnel Manual].  [Emphasis added.] 
 
Article 1.G.19 of the Personnel Manual states the following: 

to 

 

                                                 
1 SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service 
newly  obligated  by  the  reenlistment  or  extension  of  enlistment,  and  the  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  for 
personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB authorized 
for  the  member’s  skill/rating.    Coast  Guard  members  who  have  more  than  21  months  but  less  than  6 
years of active duty service are in “Zone A.”  Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. 

An  extension  of  enlistment  may  not  be  canceled  after  it  begins  to  run, 

either for the convenience of the Government or the person concerned. 

An appropriate authority may cancel an Agreement to Extend Enlistment 

at any time before the extension begins to run if any of these situations applies. 

•  •  • 

1. 

 
2. 

 

 

b. 

The  commanding  officer  may  cancel  an  Agreement  to  Extend 
Enlistment on the effective extension date when the individual concerned has reenlisted 
or extended on that date for any authorized enlistment longer than the original extension 
agreement. …  Extensions of two years or less for a member to receive PCS orders, attend 
training,  or  obligate  for  advancement  may  be  canceled  before  their  operative  date  for 
immediate  reenlistment  or  longer  extension  without  any  loss  of  Selective  Reenlistment 
Bonus eligibility.  [Emphasis added.] 
 
ALDIST 290/98, issued on November 24, 1998, established SRBs for personnel in 
certain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments on or after November 
25, 1998.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members in the xx rating in 
Zone A was one.  The ALDIST stated that data gathered over the previous three months 
showed continuing workforce shortages and lower reenlistment rates.  In addition, the 
fiscal year 1999 budget created new billets that needed to be filled immediately.  The 
new multiples were issued “to preserve our intellectual capital and keep the workforce 
filled  with  trained  and  skilled  personnel  to  mitigate  the  immediate  gaps  these  new 
billets create.” 

 
ALDIST 245/98, issued on October 8, 1998, stated that the Coast Guard Person-
nel  Command  was  authorized  to  approve  requests  for  extensions  of  reenlistments  of 
less than two years’ duration “in response to personnel shortages and in an attempt to 
alleviate short-term gaps in billets.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 12, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant was required to reenlist or extend his 
enlistment by October 30, 1998, if he wished to remain on active duty.  There was no 
SRB authorized for xx in October 1998. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the language in Section 2.b. of the SRB Instruc-
tion,  COMDTINST  7220.33,  “did  not  create  the  entitlement  to  notice  that  Applicant 
alleges.”  The Section is part of the Instruction’s introductory “Discussion” as a state-
ment  of  general  intent  and  did  not  establish  a  binding  duty  on  the  part  of  the  Coast 
Guard.  The Chief Counsel alleged that only the “Action” and “Procedures” sections of 
Coast Guard instructions create a mandatory duty, and such duties are identifiable by 
the use of the word “shall.”  Section 2.b. uses the word “will.” 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  further  argued  that,  “[a]ssuming  arguendo  that  Applicant 
could prove that the Coast Guard had a general duty to provide notice of an impending 
SRB multiple change, ALDIST 290/98 was an exception to that duty.”  He argued that 
evidence that the ALDIST is a special exception is contained in the ALDIST itself, which 
states that “this ALDIST announces the results of a special SRB Review Panel convened 
to address continuing workforce shortages.  SRB Review Panels are normally convened 
approximately every 6 months.”  Therefore, “ALDIST 290/98 was an exception to the 
normal  promulgation  of  semiannual  SRB  multiple  announcements  and  its  expedited 
implementation was not an arbitrary and capricious action,” but a necessary, reasoned 
action to a preserve its workforce, which was at risk. 
 
 
The  Chief Counsel also stated that the results of the special SRB Review Panel 
were not even approved until November 18, 1998.  Therefore, they could not have been 
made  known  to  the  applicant  prior  to  the  effective  date  of  his extension, October 31, 
1998.  The Chief Counsel further argued that, even if the results had been approved and 
issued on October 25, 1998, the applicant has not proved that he could have canceled 
the extension he signed on October 20, 1998, in order to sign a shorter extension that 
would keep him on active duty until ALDIST 290/98 went into effect.  The Chief Coun-
sel argued that ALDIST 245/98 is inapplicable to the applicant’s situation because  “the 
plain language of the policy clearly addresses the Service’s need to fill gaps in a unit’s 
authorized  billet  strength  and  not  to  bridge  short  periods  of  time  so  members  might 
qualify for an SRB.” 
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel argued, “this entire discussion is moot based on the 
fact  that  Applicant  signed  his  extension  agreement  on  20  October  1998,  five  (5)  days 
before the date he alleges the Coast Guard should have promulgated the SRB informa-
tion.    Notwithstanding  all  of  the  matters  discussed  above,  Applicant  has  failed  to 
explain how this alleged future announcement on 25 October 1998 would have changed 
his decision to extend on 20 October 1998.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 19, 1999, the BCMR 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. 
 

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 

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

 

 

 
3. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

2. 

The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 

Section 2.b. of the SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33, states that SRB 
announcements will be promulgated at least 30 days prior to the day they become effec-
tive.    The  Coast  Guard  did  not  comply  with  this  provision  when  it  issued  ALDIST 
290/98. 
 
4. 

Even if the Coast Guard had acted in accordance with Section 2.b. of the 
SRB  Instruction,  however,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard  would 
have or could have issued the ALDIST prior to the end of his enlistment on October 30, 
1998.  More likely, since the results of the special SRB Review Panel were approved on 
November 18, 1998, the ALDIST’s effective date would have been set one month later, 
in December.  Therefore, even if the Coast Guard had complied with the terms of Sec-
tion  2.b.,  the  30-day  delay  between  the  promulgation of the ALDIST and its effective 
date would not have aided the applicant. 

The applicant has failed to prove that, if ALDIST 290/98 had been prom-
ulgated 30 days in advance, on October 25, 1998, he could have canceled the extension 
he signed on October 20, 1998.  Section 3.d.6. of the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual  permit  cancellation  of  such  extensions  only  if  the  member 
immediately signs a longer extension or reenlistment contract.  The one-month exten-
sion the applicant claimed he would have signed to bridge the gap between the end of 
his enlistment and the effective date of ALDIST 290/98 would not have justified can-
celing the applicant’s two-year extension. 

The applicant also failed to prove that, if he had been permitted to cancel 
his extension, the Coast Guard Personnel Command would have approved a short-term 
extension contract under the provisions ALDIST 245/98.  As the Chief Counsel stated, 
that ALDIST authorized the Personnel Command to approve short-term extensions if 
needed  to  alleviate  personnel  shortages  and  short-term  gaps  in  billets,  not  to  permit 
members to manipulate the termination dates of their enlistments in order to qualify for 
SRBs. 

Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove that the Coast Guard erred or 
committed an injustice by failing to pay him an SRB under ALDIST 290/98 or by hold-
ing him to the terms of the two-year extension contract he signed on October 20, 1998. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

 

 

 
 
Pamela M. Pelcovits 

 

 

 
David M. Wiegand