DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-089 
 
 
   

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 April 6, 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  30,  1999,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

 

 
 

 

 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
The  applicant,  a  xxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
 
correct  his  military  record  by  changing  the  reason  for  extension  recorded  on  an 
extension  contract  he  signed  on  September  10,  1998,  from  “request  of  individual”  to 
“obligated  service  for  transfer.”    The  correction  would  entitle  him  to  receive  a  larger 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for a 40-month extension he signed on November 
26, 1998, pursuant to ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to counsel him regarding SRBs 
when he extended his enlistment on September 10, 1998.  Therefore, he alleged, he did 
not know that having “request of individual” recorded as the reason for his first exten-
sion would make him unable to cancel the extension and receive a larger SRB later on.  
He alleged that the true purpose of the September 10 extension was to accept transfer 
orders which he was expecting to arrive.  He stated that because the Coast Guard failed 
to counsel him about the effect the erroneous “request of individual” would have on his 
future SRB eligibility, an SRB he subsequently received was wrongfully diminished. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On March 16, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
 
years, through March 15, 199x.  On September 9, 1994, he extended this enlistment for 
eight  months,  through  November  15,  199x.   On  November  28,  1995,  he  reenlisted  for 
three years, through November 27, 1998.   
 
 
On  September  10,  1998,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years, 
through November 27, 2000.  On November 16, 1998, the applicant received PCS [per-
manent change of station] orders to report to a new unit in December 1998.  To accept 
the orders, the applicant was required to have obligated service through at least one full 
year at the new unit.   
 
 
On  November  24,  1998,  the  Commandant  issued  ALDIST  290/98,  which  pro-
vided a Zone B1 SRB with a multiple of one for members in the xxx rating.  The SRB was 
in effect from November 25, 1998, to June 14, 1999. 
 
 
On  November  26,  1998,  the  applicant  cancelled  the  extension  dated  September 
10th prior to its operative date (November 28, 1998) and signed a new extension con-
tract  for  40  months  (three  years  and  four  months),  through  March  27,  2004.    The 
November 26 extension contract indicates that the applicant could expect to receive an 
SRB under ALDIST 290/98 based on 40 months of newly obligated service. 
 
 
On March 15, 1999, the applicant’s commanding officer from his previous com-
mand, the xxxxxxx, wrote a letter to the Board in which he stated that his command had 
failed to counsel the applicant regarding SRBs prior to the extension dated September 
10,  1998.    The  commanding  officer  stated  that,  although  the  extension  contract  dated 
September  10,  1998,  indicates  that  the  applicant  was  counseled  and  provided  with  a 
copy  of  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST  7220.33,  in  fact,  he  was  not  counseled  or 
provided with the instruction.   
 
 
The  commanding  officer  explained  that  in  September  1998,  the  applicant  was 
“tour  complete”  and  expecting  transfer  orders  to  arrive  soon.    In  addition,  since  his 
enlistment was about to end, the applicant knew he would have to extend it in order to 
accept  his  transfer  orders.    Therefore,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years  in 
anticipation of receiving transfer orders.  However, because his transfer orders had not 
                                                 
1  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
newly obligated service created by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast 
Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills.  Coast Guard members who have more than 21 
months but less than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A,” while those who have more than 6 
but less than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.”  Members may not receive more than one 
bonus per zone. 

actually arrived yet, the purpose for the extension recorded on the September 10, 1998, 
contract was “request of individual” rather than “obligated service for transfer.”  The 
applicant’s commanding officer stated that because the command never properly coun-
seled the applicant, he did not know that signing the extension contract before his trans-
fer orders arrived might negatively affect his future eligibility for an SRB. 
 
 
 
The commanding officer further explained that when ALDIST 290/98 was issued 
on November 24, 1998, the applicant was advised he could receive a maximum SRB by 
canceling the September 10, 1998, extension contract prior to its operative date, Novem-
ber 28, 1998, and extending his enlistment or reenlisting for a longer period of time.  He 
was told that his SRB would be based on all 40 months of service obligated under the 
new  contract.    However,  after  the  applicant  signed  the  new  40-month  extension  con-
tract,  he  learned  that  his  SRB  would  be  based  on  only  one  year  and  four  months  of 
newly obligated service.  The two years of service to which he had obligated himself on 
September  10,  1998,  would  reduce  his  SRB  because  the  purpose  for  the  extension 
recorded on the contract was “request of individual” rather than “obligated service for 
transfer.” 
 
 
The commanding officer concluded that the real purpose for the September 10, 
1998, extension was to permit the applicant to accept his anticipated transfer orders and 
that,  had  he  been  properly  counseled,  the  applicant  would  have  waited  until  he 
received his orders before extending his enlistment.  Therefore, the commanding officer 
recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s  request  for  relief  by  voiding  the 
September 10, 1998, extension contract. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 17, 1999, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard in which he recommended that the Board grant relief in this 
case by changing the applicant’s extension contract dated September 10, 1998, to show 
that  the  purpose  of  the  extension  was  “Obligated  Service  for  Transfer  (INCONUS/ 
OUTCONUS)” and that the term of the extension was one year and one month, rather 
than two years. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant “has provided sufficient evidence to 
show that he intended to extend for the sole purpose of OBLISERV when he signed his 
extension agreement on 10 September 1998.”   
 

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 par-
ticular 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. 

  
Article  4.B.6.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  (COMDTINST  M1000.6A)  states  that 
 
members in pay grade E-4 or above with more than six years of active duty service “are 
considered  to  be  in  a  career  status.    Unless  otherwise  indicated,  they  are  required  to 
have one year of OBLISERV remaining upon reporting to the new unit.” 
 

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 Zone B SRBs for members in the xx rating 
was one. 

 

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. 
 

2. 

The evidence indicates that the applicant extended his enlistment for two 
years on September 10, 1998, because he was near the end of his enlistment and his tour 
of duty and was expecting to receive transfer orders soon.  Under Article 4.B.6.a.2. of 
the Personnel Manual, members with more than six years of active duty service must 
obligate themselves to serve at least one full year at a new unit before accepting transfer 
orders to that unit.  Therefore, the applicant knew he would have to extend his enlist-
ment in order to accept his transfer orders. 
 

4. 

3. 

 
Although the applicant’s September 10, 1998, extension contract indicates 
he was properly counseled concerning the effect of the extension on his future SRB eli-
gibility,  the  applicant’s  commanding  officer  admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to 
counsel  the  applicant  properly.    Because  the  Coast  Guard  failed  to  counsel  him,  the 
applicant extended his enlistment prior to receiving his transfer orders and has unjustly 
been  denied  an  SRB  based  on  all  40  months  of  the  extension  contract  he  signed  on 
November 26, 1998. 
 

Had he been properly counseled, the applicant would have waited until 
he had received his transfer orders before extending his enlistment.  Furthermore, he 
would likely have extended his enlistment for the minimum time required by his trans-
fer orders, and the purpose of the extension recorded on the contract would have been 
“Obligated Service for Transfer (INCONUS/OUTCONUS).”  As a result, under Section 
3.d.(6)  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  SRB  received  by  the  applicant  for  the 
extension he executed on November 26, 1998, would have been based on all 40 months 
of service for which he obligated himself under the new extension. 
 

Accordingly, relief should be granted.  The applicant’s extension contract 
dated September 10, 1998, should be corrected to show that he extended his enlistment 
for only one year and one month and to show that the purpose of the extension was 
“Obligated Service for Transfer (INCONUS/OUTCONUS).” 
 
 

5. 

ORDER 

 

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

Block 7 of the extension contract shall be corrected to show that his enlistment 

hereby granted as follows.   
 
 
Block 5 of the extension contract signed by the applicant on September 10, 1998, 
shall be corrected to show that he extended his enlistment for only one year and one 
month. 
 
 
had been extended for a total of one year and one month. 
 
 
tion date of his enlistment was December 27, 1999. 
 
 
Block 9 of the extension contract shall be corrected to show that the reason for the 
extension  was  “Obligated  Service  for  Transfer  (INCONUS/OUTCONUS),”  instead  of 
“Request of Individual.” 
 
 

As a result of these corrections, the one year and one month of service obligated 

Block 8 of the extension contract shall be corrected to show that the new expira-

 
 

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

by the September 10, 1998, extension contract shall not reduce the SRB received by the 
applicant as a result of his extension contract dated November 26, 1998, under ALDIST 
290/98. 
 
 
correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Michael J. McMorrow 

        

 
Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 
 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis