DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-094 
 
 
   

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  7,  1999,  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  February  10,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  xxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his military record by canceling a three-year reenlistment contract he signed on 
July 23, 1997, and reenlisting him for six years beginning at the end of his enlistment on 
February  27,  1998.    The  correction  would  allow  the  applicant  to  receive  a  Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) under ALDIST 226/97.   

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant alleged that in July 1997 a master chief in his unit told him that he 
had to reenlist even though his enlistment was not scheduled to end until February 26, 
1998.  He alleged that  he was told if he did not reenlist in July  1997, he would not be 
allowed to reenlist when his enlistment ended in February 1998.  Instead, he would be 
discharged.  He alleged that he later learned the master chief was wrong; the applicant 
should not have been required to reenlist until his enlistment ended. 

 
The applicant  further alleged that under Article 12.B.4.b. of the Personnel Man-
ual,  his  commanding  officer  was  supposed  to  counsel  him  about  his  eligibility  for 

 

 

reenlistment prior to his reenlistment, and he was never properly counseled.  The appli-
cant  also  alleged  that  he  never  met  with  a  petty  officer,  as  required  by  the  Personnel 
Manual, to discuss his reenlistment options and intentions.  Because he was not prop-
erly counseled, the applicant alleged, he reenlisted on the faulty assertions of the master 
chief.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant first enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 27, 199x, for a term of four 
years,  though  July  26,  199x.    On  November  13,  1995,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for 
seven months, through February 26, 199x, to have sufficient obligated service to attend 
“A” school.1  
 
In  September  1996,  the  applicant  accepted  permanent  change  of  station  (PCS) 
 
orders to serve on the cutter xxxxxx.  To accept the orders, he was supposed to obligate 
service  to  serve  a  full  three-year  tour  on  the  cutter.    However,  his  command  failed  to 
require him to obligate service, and his chain of command on the xxxxxx did not notice 
the failure when he arrived. 
 

In  July  1997,  the  applicant’s  command  on  the  xxxxxx  noticed  his  previous 
command’s failure to have him obligate sufficient service to complete a three-year tour 
on the xxxxx.  On July 23, 1997, the applicant reenlisted for a term of three years.  No 
SRB  was  in  effect  for  the  applicant’s rating at the time, and there is no  administrative 
“page  7”  entry  in  the  applicant’s  record  indicating  that  he  was  counseled  concerning 
SRBs prior to his reenlistment.  
 
 
On  September  30,  1997,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALDIST 
226/97, which allowed members in the xx rating to receive an SRB with a multiple of 
one-half  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments  between  October  1, 
1997, and March 31, 1998.  
 
 
On October 15, 1997, the applicant wrote a letter to the Commandant stating that 
in July  1997 he was never counseled about SRBs.  He stated that if he had been coun-
seled,  he  would  not  have  reenlisted.    Instead  he  would  have  refused  to  reenlist  or 
signed a short extension to remain eligible for a maximum SRB if one became available 
for his skill rating, xx.  The applicant said he would be willing to sign a six-year reenlist-
ment contract in order to earn the SRB. 
 
 
On December 17, 1997, the applicant’s commanding officer forwarded his letter 
to the Commandant.  The commanding officer stated that there was no page 7 adminis-

                                                 
1  Although the BCMR requested and received a copy of this extension from the Coast Guard, no copy of 
it appeared in his Personal Data Record files.  It is unclear from the record whether the applicant’s super-
visor on the xxx, the master chief, knew about this extension. 

 

 

trative entry in the applicant’s record to show that he had been properly counseled con-
cerning SRBs.  He further stated that neither the applicant nor his supervisor, the master 
chief, were aware that the applicant could have delayed reenlisting until February 1998 
in order to remain eligible for an SRB. 
 
 
On January 26, 1998, the applicant’s group commander forwarded his request to 
the Commandant for consideration.  On September 21, 1998, the Commandant replied 
to the applicant’s letter dated October 15, 1997, by informing him that he could apply to 
the BCMR for relief. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 17, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board grant the applicant’s request subject to a condition.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s request should be granted if he can 
produce  witnesses’  statements  or  other  evidence  corroborating  his  improper  counsel-
ing.    If  the  applicant  produces  such  evidence,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated,  the  Board 
should correct his record by canceling the three-year reenlistment dated July  23, 1997, 
reinstating  the  seven-month  extension,  and  creating  a  new  six-year  enlistment  begin-
ning on February 26, 1998, which would make him eligible for an SRB with a multiple 
of one-half under ALDIST 226/97. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  November  19,  1999,  the  Chairman  sent  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
advisory  opinion  to  the  applicant  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On 
January  18,  2000,  the  applicant  responded.    He  reiterated  his  claim  that  he  was  not 
advised of his “rights or entitlements” when he reenlisted in July 1997.  He also stated 
that he had no objections to the Chief Counsel’s recommendation, but he did not submit 
any further corroborating evidence.  The applicant indicated that he will be discharged 
on February 7, 2000, but still seeks correction of his military record by the Board.2 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article  1.G.19.2.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  “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 term longer than the original extension agreement.” 

                                                 
2    Upon  inquiry,  the  Coast  Guard  informed  the  BCMR  that  the  applicant  is  being  involuntarily  dis-
charged.  However, since the events that gave rise to his discharge did not occur until after February 1998, 
they  could  not  have  affected  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB  at  that  time.    The  Coast  Guard  indicated  that  its 
recommendation in this case was not changed by the applicant’s pending discharge. 

 

 

 
Article  4.B.6.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  “[s]ervice  members  …  E-4 
 
and above with less than six years of active duty will not normally be transferred unless 
they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full tour [three years] on 
reporting  to  a  new  unit.”    Article  4.B.6.a.4.  requires receiving commands to notify the 
Personnel Command if members report for duty without having obligated service for a 
full tour. 
 

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. 
 
 
Paragraph 4.a. of Enclosure (1) to the instruction states that “[m]embers who are 
discharged prior to completing the period of service for which they were paid an SRB 
shall have all paid but unearned bonus recouped ….” 
 
 
Article  12.B.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  requires  members  whose  enlistments 
are ending within six months to be counseled by their commanding officers concerning 
whether  they  will  be  recommended  for  reenlistment  and  by  a  petty  office  concerning 
SRBs. 
 

ALDIST  226/97,  issued  on  September  30,  1997,  authorized  members  to  be  paid 
an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their current enlistments between October 1, 1997, 
and March 31, 1998.  The members had to reenlist or extend their enlistments for terms 
of at least three years.  xxswith less than six years of active duty service were authorized 
to receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of one-half. 
 

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  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  properly  counseled  about  SRBs 
when he reenlisted on July 23, 1997.  Moreover, he alleged, he was wrongly told that he 
was  required  to  reenlist  because,  if  he  did  not,  he  would  not  be  permitted  to  reenlist 
when his then current enlistment ended in February 1998.  He alleged that, had he been 
properly counseled, he would have waited to reenlist to see if an SRB would be author-
ized  for  his  rating.  He further alleged that,  if he had been allowed to wait, he would 
have reenlisted for six years to receive the maximum possible SRB for his rating under 
ALDIST 226/97. 
  
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Board  should  grant  relief  in  this  case 
by  voiding  the  July  23,  1997,  reenlistment  contract,  reinstating  the  seven-month 
extension contract, and reenlisting the applicant for six years as of February 26, 1998, if 
the applicant provides evidence of the incorrect information allegedly provided by his 
master chief. 
 

3. 

4. 

The applicant was not within six months of the end of his enlistment when 
he reenlisted on July 23, 1997.  Therefore, he was not entitled to counseling under Arti-
cle  12.B.4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    The  applicant  was  entitled  to  SRB  counseling 
under  Section  2  of  Commandant  Instruction 7220.33, which he did not receive.  How-
ever, the content of such counseling concerns SRB eligibility and would not necessarily 
have informed the applicant that he was not required to reenlist at that time. 
 

5. 

The applicant was not required to reenlist in July 1997, and there was no 
reason  for  him  to  do  so  apparent  in  the  record.    Although  the  applicant  should  have 
been  required  to  obligate  service  prior  to  accepting  his  transfer  orders,  he  was  not 
required to correct the Coast Guard’s error by reenlisting nine months after he accepted 
the orders.  The applicant’s commanding officer stated in a letter endorsing the appli-
cant’s  request  that  neither  the  applicant  nor  his  supervisor,  the  master  chief,  knew  in 
July  1997  that  the  applicant  was  not  required  to  reenlist.  This statement supports the 
applicant’s allegation that his master chief wrongly told him he was required to reenlist.  
In  light  of  these circumstances, the Board is persuaded that  the Coast Guard erred by 
wrongly advising the applicant that he had to reenlist in July 1997 when in fact he was 
not required to reenlist until the end of his enlistment in February 1998.  Therefore, the 
Board sees no reason to require the applicant to present additional evidence supporting 
his allegation.  
 
 
Although the applicant is now being involuntarily discharged, the events 
that  gave  rise  to  his  discharge  apparently  did  not  occur  until  after  February  1998.  
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that his commanding officer on the xxxx would 
have  refused  to  reenlist  him  for  six  years  on  February  26,  1998.    This  conclusion  is 
supported by his commanding officer’s letter dated December 17, 1997, which cited the 
applicant’s “above average” performance and endorsed his request for correction.   
 

6. 

 

 

7. 

The  Board  is  persuaded  that,  if  the  applicant  had  not  been  wrongly 
advised and reenlisted in July 1997, he would have reenlisted for six years at the end of 
his enlistment on February 26, 1998, to receive a Zone A SRB under ALDIST 226/97. 

 
8. 

Therefore, the applicant’s request should be granted.  The correction will 
not affect his discharge, and his SRB will be limited to the number of months of his new 
enlistment  that  he  actually  served,  pursuant  to  COMDTINST  7220.33,  Enclosure  (1), 
Paragraph 4.a. 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE]

 
 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

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

hereby granted as follows.   

 
The three-year reenlistment contract he signed on July 23, 1997, shall be null and 

void. 

 
The  seven-month  extension  contract  he  signed  on  November  13,  1995,  shall  be 
reinstated as valid, serving to extend his enlistment from July 27, 1997, through Febru-
ary 26, 1998. 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that on February 26, 1998, he reenlisted for 

a term of six years for the purpose of receiving a Zone A SRB under ALDIST 226/97. 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

      
 

  
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any amount due him as a result of this 
correction.  Under COMDTINST 7220.33, Enclosure (1), Paragraph 4.a., no SRB shall be 
paid  to  the  applicant  for  the  time  on  his  new  six-year  enlistment  remaining  unserved 
after his discharge, which is now pending. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                                                    Charles Medalen 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Terence W. Carlson