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 commenced on April 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  January  13,  2000,  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. 1999-097 
 
 
   

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
correct  his  military  record  to  make  him  eligible  to  receive  a  Zone  A  Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).1    
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

On his application, the applicant alleged that “at the end of my first enlistment in 
1993, I was not properly counseled as per COMDTINST 7220.33.  I never received a CG 
3307  [page  7  administrative  entry  documenting  SRB  counseling]  or  documentation at 
the time I elected not to reenlist on active duty.  I did stay active reserve at that time.”  
The applicant alleged that he discovered the error in February 1999.  
 
                                                 
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. 

On an attachment to his application, the applicant stated that at the end of his 
active duty enlistment in 1984, he decided to reenlist, but before he did, the SRB for his 
rating  was  eliminated.   Therefore, he “opted to get off of active duty and stay in the 
active reserve hoping the srb would be reinstated.”  He alleged that he was never prop-
erly counseled and that, if he had been properly counseled, he “would have remained 
on active duty and probably received the srb as many other members have done in my 
situation.”  The applicant alleged that he was entitled to an SRB because he intended to 
reenlist before the SRB for his rating was eliminated. 
 

The applicant included in his application a photocopy of part of the current SRB 
Instruction,  COMDTINST  7220.33,  which  was  issued  in  1988,  and  a  discharge  form 
dated May 6, 1991. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on February 26, 1980, for a term of four 

years on active duty and a total military service obligation of six years.   
 

On  March  30,  1984,  while  stationed  in  xxxxxx,  the  applicant  was  voluntarily 
released from active duty and transferred to the Reserve.2  On the same day, he signed 
a  page  7  administrative  entry  in  his  record  indicating  that  he  understood  his  rights 
upon  separation  as  prescribed  by  Article  12-B-53  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  also 
signed a page 7 waiving the requirement that all separation paperwork be delivered to 
him that day so that he could be separated “as soon as possible.” 
 

At 11:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 30, 1984, the Commandant issued 
ALDIST  072/84,  which  authorized  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  one  for  the  applicant’s 
rating beginning on May 1, 1984.  The ALDIST also authorized commanding officers to 
extend members’ enlistments for one or two months if those enlistments ended between 
March  30th  and  May  1st  so  that  such  members  would  be  able  to  take  advantage  of 
ALDIST 072/84.  
 

On  March  22,  1986,  the  applicant  signed  a  two-year  extension  of  his  Reserve 
enlistment.  A page 7 entry in his record dated February 22, 1987, states that he already 
had 14 unexcused absences from inactive duty drills for fiscal year 1987. 
 

The applicant reenlisted on active duty on October 21, 1987, for a term of three 
years,  through  October  20,  1990.    On  March  12,  1990,  he  extended  the  enlistment  for 
eight  months,  through  June  20,  1991,  to  accept  transfer  orders.    On  May  7,  1991,  he 
reenlisted for a term of three years, through May 6, 1994.  On May 6, 1994, he reenlisted 

                                                 
2    It  is  not  apparent  in  the record why or under what authority the applicant remained on active duty 
from the end of his active duty obligation on February 25, 1984, to March 30, 1984. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On November 17, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard issued an advisory 
opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  request.    He 
stated  that  he  interpreted  the  “muddled”  application  as  a  request  for  a  Zone  A  SRB 
based on the applicant’s alleged intention to reenlist in March 1984. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  Board  should  deny  the  applicant’s  request 
 
because he has “failed to provide sufficient evidence to merit the waiver of the Statute 
of Limitations.”  He stated that the applicant knew or should have known of his failure 
to receive an SRB no later than the date of his separation, March 30, 1984.  Therefore, his 
application  arrived  more  than  eleven  years  after  the  expiration  of  the  BCMR’s  three-
year statute of limitations. 
 

The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has failed to prove that there was an 
SRB in effect for his rating at the time of his discharge.  He stated that in March 1984, 
ALDIST 152/83 was in effect, and it does not authorize an SRB for members in the xx 
rating.    Therefore,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued  any  failure  to  counsel  the  member  con-
cerning SRBs would have been harmless. 
 

Finally, the Chief Counsel argued, even assuming there was an SRB in effect for 
the applicant’s rating, he is barred from receiving one because he voluntarily separated 
from active duty and did not actually serve again on active duty until 1987. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 19, 1999, the Chairman sent a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory 
opinion to the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant did 
not respond. 
 

for  another  term  of  three  years,  and  on  March  3,  1997,  he  again  reenlisted  for  three 
years.  

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Commandant  Instruction  7220.13G  (Administration  of  the  Reenlistment  Bonus 
Program)  was  released  on  February  6,  1984.    Section  3.  of  the  instruction  states  that 
“[c]ommanding officers shall … insure that all personnel … who are or will be eligible 
for  …  the  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB),  are  familiar  with  the  contents  of  this 
Instruction.”  
 
 
 

Section 2.a. of the instruction states the following: 

  

All personnel with 14 years or less of active service who reenlist or extend for any period, 
however, brief, shall be thoroughly counseled about all aspects of the SRB program, and 
shall sign the below listed Page 7 entry … in their service record outlining the effect the 
particular action has on their SRB entitlement. 
 
ALDIST 152/83, issued on June 28, 1983, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments after August 1, 1983.  The 
SRBs remained in effect “until further notice.”  No SRB was authorized for members in 
the xx rating. 
 

ALDIST 285/83, issued on December 6, 1983, changed some of the multiples for 
SRBs  authorized  for  member  in  certain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their 
enlistments on or after January 15, 1984.  No SRB was authorized for members in the xx 
rating.    ALDIST  285/83  remained  in  effect  until  May  1,  1984,  when  ALDIST  072/84 
became effective. 
 

ALDIST 072/84, issued on March 30, 1984, established a Zone A SRB with a mul-
tiple of one for members in the xx rating who reenlisted or extended their enlistments 
on or after May 1, 1984.  The ALDIST also authorized commanding officers to extend a 
member’s enlistment for one or two months if his or her “normal expiration of enlist-
ment falls between the date of this ALDIST and 1 May 1984.”  The short-term extension 
would allow the member to take advantage of the SRB. 
 

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. 

 
2. 

 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code. 

The applicant knew or should have known that he would not receive an 
SRB  for  reenlisting  on  March  30,  1984,  when  he  was  voluntarily  released from active 
duty in the Coast Guard.  The BCMR’s three-year statute of limitations must be calcu-
lated from that date.  The applicant did not return to active duty until October 21, 1987.  
Therefore, his three years to file his request expired under the statute of limitations on 
March  30,  1987,  before  he  returned  to  active  duty.    Pursuant  to  10  U.S.C.  § 1552,  the 
Board may waive the three-year statute of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to 
do so.  To determine whether it is in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limita-
tions, the Board should conduct a cursory review of the merits of the case. Dickson v. 
Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 
164 (D.D.C. 1992). 

3. 

The applicant alleged that a short time before his release from active duty 
on March 30, 1984, an SRB for his rating was eliminated.  He alleged that, because he 
had intended to reenlist and take advantage of this SRB, it was unjust for him to have 
been denied the SRB.  He also alleged that, had he been counseled concerning SRBs, he 
would not have chosen to leave active duty and therefore would have earned an SRB 
that was later authorized for his rating. 

ALDIST  285/83,  issued  on  December  6,  1983,  was  in  effect  when  the 
applicant was released from active duty on March 30, 1984.  It did not authorize an SRB 
for members in the applicant’s xx rating.  There was no SRB in effect for the applicant’s 
rating at any time during the six months before he was released from active duty. 

The applicant did not reenlist or extend his enlistment on March 30, 1984.  
Therefore,  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  counseling  required  under  Section  2.a.  of  Com-
mandant Instruction 7220.13G.  The regulation concerning counseling submitted by the 
applicant did not go into effect until 1988. 

The applicant presented no evidence indicating that he was still on active 
duty or entitled to counseling when his command received and implemented ALDIST 
072/84, which the Commandant issued at 11:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 
30, 1984.  

Although  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  would  have  reenlisted  if  he  had 
known of the future opportunities for and benefits of SRBs, the record indicates that on 
March 30, 1984, the applicant wanted to be discharged “as soon as possible.” 

The applicant was not on active duty between March 31, 1984, and Octo-
ber 21, 1987.  In fact, the record indicates that he failed to perform many of his inactive 
duty drills during that time.  The SRB program is intended to reward those who con-
tinue to serve their country on active duty.  The applicant has not proved by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that he was treated unfairly or that he is entitled to receive an 
SRB for time when he was not serving his country on active duty. 

It is not in the interest of justice to waive the three-year statute of limita-

tions in this case. 

 
10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied because he failed to 
file his application timely and because a cursory review of his claims indicates they lack 
merit. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

 
 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
John A. Kern 

 

 
Michael K. Nolan 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter