DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-105 
 
 
   

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  May  3,  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  February  10,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The applicant, an xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board 
to correct his military record to show that he was discharged on his 6-year active duty 
anniversary date, April 1, 1999, and immediately reenlisted for a term of 6 years.  The 
correction would entitle him to receive a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) pursuant 
to ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant stated that on April 1, 1999, he was eligible for an SRB and that, 
pursuant to Coast Guard regulations, he should have been counseled prior to that date 
concerning his eligibility for the SRB.  The applicant alleged that he was not properly 
counseled and did not learn about the SRB opportunity until after his sixth anniversary 
had passed, on April 9, 1999.  The applicant alleged that, if he had been properly coun-
seled, he would have been discharged and immediately reenlisted on his sixth anniver-
sary for a term of 6 years in order to receive the maximum allowable SRB for his rating 
under ALDIST 290/98. 

 

In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a computer printout from 
the Personnel Command indicating that his active duty base date is April 1, 1993.  He 
also submitted a letter from his commanding officer, who stated that the applicant had 
not  been  properly  counseled  concerning  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB  prior  to  his  sixth 
anniversary on active duty.  The commanding officer also characterized the applicant as 
an “outstanding performer” and “model Coast Guardsman” and recommended that the 
Board grant his request.  

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Army on October 24, 1985, and was honorably dis-
charged  on  August  27,  1988,  having served 2 years, 10 months, and 4 days on active 
duty. 
 

On  January  30,  1996,  the  applicant  enlisted  in the Coast Guard for a term of 6 

years, obligating himself to serve through January 29, 2002.   

 
On March 26, 1999, the applicant had served 3 years, 1 month, and 26 days in the 
Coast  Guard  and  completed  6  full  years  of  active  duty  service  in  the  Armed  Forces.  
Therefore, the applicant’s sixth anniversary on active duty was March 27, 1999.  This 
date  is  confirmed  by  his  enlistment  documents,  which  show  that  his  pay  and  active 
duty are to be calculated as if he had first enlisted and served continuously since March 
27, 1993. 

 
There is no form CG-3307 in the applicant’s record showing that he was coun-
seled concerning his eligibility for an SRB prior to his sixth anniversary on active duty. 

  
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 enlist-
ments after November 25, 1998, received an SRB with a multiple of 3.  ALDIST 290/98 
remained in effect until June 14, 1999. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 19, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board grant the applicant’s request.   
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should be granted relief because he 
 
took  prompt  and  appropriate  action  to  rectify  the  error  after  he  discovered  his 

                                                 
1  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
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 served between 21 months and 6 years on active duty 
are in “Zone A.” 

eligibility under ALDIST 290/98.  The Chief Counsel also argued that the correction is 
warranted because the applicant is an “excellent performer” and is willing to commit 
himself to a 6-year reenlistment in consideration for the SRB. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel noted that under the regulations, previously obligated service 
diminishes  an  SRB.    Therefore,  if  the  Board  grants  relief,  the  applicant’s  SRB  will  be 
reduced by the amount of time remaining on his 6-year enlistment dated January 30, 
1996. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 29, 1999, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On December 29, 
1999, the applicant responded, indicating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s rec-
ommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
Administration), Section 3.d.(1), states that “[m]embers with exactly 6 years active duty 
on the date of reenlistment or operative date of extension will be entitled to the Zone A 
multiple in effect for their rating if they are otherwise eligible.” 
  
 
Section 3.d.(9) of the instruction states that “[c]ommanding officers are author-
ized to effect early discharge and reenlist members within 3 months prior to their 6th, 
10th, or 14th year active service anniversary dates (not to be confused with the normal 
expiration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-
tively.” 
 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction states that during the three months prior to their 
 
6th, 10th, and 14th anniversary dates, members must be counseled concerning their eli-
gibility for an SRB.  The counseling must be memorialized in their records with a form 
CG-3307 signed by the member. 
 

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 his eligi-
bility for an SRB prior to his sixth anniversary on active duty.  He alleged that, had he 
been properly counseled, he would have been discharged on his sixth anniversary and 
immediately reenlisted for a term of 6 years to receive the maximum possible SRB for 
his rating.  
 
 
Under  Sections  3.d.(1)  and  3.d.(9)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  Commandant 
Instruction 7220.33, the applicant was eligible to be discharged on his sixth anniversary 
on active duty in order to reenlist and receive an SRB under ALDIST 290/98.  Under 

3. 

4. 

Enclosure (3) to the instruction, the applicant had a right to be counseled concerning his 
eligibility. 
 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Coast  Guard  counseled  the  applicant  con-
cerning his eligibility for an SRB prior to his sixth anniversary on active duty.  Had he 
been  so  counseled,  a  Form  CG-3307  should  appear  in  his  record,  but  there  is  none.  
Moreover, the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a letter supporting his appli-
cation and indicating that he had not been timely counseled concerning SRBs. 
 

5. 

6. 

Upon  discovering  the  error  a  few  days  after  his  sixth  anniversary,  the 
applicant quickly applied to this Board for relief.  Therefore, the Board concludes that, if 
the applicant had been timely counseled, he would have been discharged and reenlisted 
for a term of 6 years to receive an SRB. 
 

The applicant submitted evidence indicating that his active duty base date 
is April 1, 1993, which would make his sixth anniversary April 1, 1999.  However, based 
on the applicant’s DD 214 from the Army and dates shown on his enlistment contract, 
the  Board  believes  that  the  applicant’s  actual  sixth  anniversary  on  active  duty  was 
March 27, 1999.  Although the Chief Counsel recommended that the applicant’s request 
be granted, he did not indicate the date of his sixth anniversary. 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

7. 

Therefore, relief should be granted.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 

hereby granted as follows.   

 
The  applicant’s  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  discharged  and 
reenlisted on his sixth anniversary on active duty, which the Coast Guard shall calculate 
to include his prior 2 years, 10 months, and 4 days of active duty service in the Army in 
accordance with Section 3.d.(9) of COMDTINST 7220.33, for a term of 6 years for the 
purpose of receiving a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 3 under ALDIST 290/98.   

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 

      
 

correction, taking into account the applicant’s remaining previously obligated service. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                                                    Charles Medalen 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Terence W. Carlson