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 July 21, 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  May  10,  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. 1999-154 
 
 
   

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
make  him  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)1  pursuant  to 
ALDIST 226/97 by correcting his record to show that on June 23, 1997, he extended his 
enlistment for the minimum of two years, rather than reenlisting for three years, and 
that  he  later  cancelled  this  extension  to  reenlist  for  six  years  after  the  SRB  became 
effective on October 1, 1997. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant stated that, on April 2, 1997, his name appeared on a list of per-
sonnel  approved  for  continued  service  by  the  Centralized  First  Term  Reenlistment 
Review (CFTRR) panel published in ALCGENL 024/97.  Thereafter, he was counseled 
by  his  command  that  he  was  required  to  reenlist  or  extend  his  enlistment  within  90 
                                                 
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 in the member’s 
skill rating.  Coast Guard members who have served between 21 months and 6 years on active duty are in 
“Zone A.”  Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. 

days.  However, he alleged, he was wrongly counseled about his options and SRB regu-
lations.  He alleged that he was “led to believe” that, if he reenlisted, his new enlistment 
would not go into effect until the end of his current enlistment, on December 12, 1997.   
He alleged that he was also “led to believe” that whether he reenlisted or extended his 
enlistment would make no difference to his future SRB eligibility. 

 
Furthermore, the applicant alleged, he was pressured into reenlisting too early.  
He alleged that he was “led to believe the sooner [he] extended or reenlisted the better 
off [he] would be.”  However, the applicant stated, on June 27, 1997, four days after he 
reenlisted,  the  Commandant  issued  ALDIST  154/97,  which,  he  alleged,  removed  the 
requirement  that  personnel  approved  by  the  CFTRR  panel  reenlist  or  extend  their 
enlistments within 90 days and advised members of the consequent effect on possible 
future  SRB  entitlement.    Therefore,  he  alleged,  had  he  not  been  pressured  into  reen-
listing on June 23, 1997, he would not have been required to reenlist or extend his enlist-
ment until after the SRB became effective on October 1, 1997.   

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On May 11, 199x, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for a term of 
eight  years  under  the  delayed  entry  program.    On  September  13,  199x,  the  applicant 
began a four-year enlistment on active duty in the regular Coast Guard, through Sep-
tember 12, 1997.  In 1995, he extended this enlistment for three months, through Decem-
ber  12,  1997,  in  order  to  have  sufficient  obligated  time  in  service  to  be  permitted  to 
attend “A” School and join the xxxxx rating. 

 
On April 2, 1997, the Commandant released ALCGENL 024/97, which published 
the results of the CFTRR completed on March 18, 1997.  Under the terms of ALCGENL 
024/97, the applicant was required to reenlist or extend his enlistment for at least three 
years beyond his original end of enlistment date, September 12, 1997, within 90 days of 
the  announcement  (by  July  2,  1997).  If he did not, he would be released from active 
duty at the end of his obligated service, on December 12, 1997.  

 
On  June  13,  1997,  while  assigned  to  the  Coast  Guard  cutter  Morgenthau,  the 
applicant signed a statement indicating that he had received reenlistment counseling as 
required by Article 12-B-4 of the Personnel Manual and the CFTRR program.  The state-
ment indicated that he had decided to reenlist rather than extend his enlistment.  It also 
indicated  that  if  he  did  not  reenlist  or  extend  his  enlistment  for  a  minimum  of  three 
years prior to July 2, 1997, he would be discharged at the end of his then current enlist-
ment on December 12, 1997. 

 
On June 23, 1997, the applicant reenlisted for three years, through June 22, 2000.  
This  reenlistment  canceled  the  remainder  of  the  applicant’s  first  enlistment  and  his 
three-month extension through December 12, 1997. 

 
On June 27, 1997, the Commandant issued ALDIST 154/97, which changed cer-
tain rules for members, such as the applicant, who were approved for continued service 
by the CFTRR in ALCGENL 024/97.  ALDIST 154/97 announced that these members 
only had to obligate service by reenlisting or extending for two years (rather than three 
years) beyond their original end of enlistment dates to avoid being discharged.  In addi-
tion, two-year extensions required by the CFTRR program could be canceled prior to 
their operative dates if the member became eligible for an SRB and wished to reenlist or 
extend for a longer period to earn the SRB.  Members who had already responded to 
ALCGENL 024/97 by signing three-year extension contracts could cancel them to sign 
two-year  extensions  instead.    However,  members,  such  as  the  applicant,  who  had 
already  responded  to  ALCGENL  024/97  by  signing  new  reenlistment  contracts  were 
not permitted to cancel their new enlistment contracts. 

 
On September 30, 1997, the Commandant issued ALDIST 226/97, which author-
ized an SRB for members in the xx rating if they reenlisted or extended their current 
enlistments between October 1, 1997, and March 31, 1998.  The Zone A SRB provided 
for xx2s who extended their enlistments or reenlisted was calculated with a multiple of 
one. 

 
On April 16, 1998, the applicant extended his enlistment for one year, through 

June 22, 2001, to obligate sufficient service for a transfer. 

 
The  applicant  submitted  with  his  application  a  statement  dated  February  12, 
1999, signed by his current commanding officer, the commander of Coast Guard Group 
xxxxxxx,  who  endorsed  the  applicant’s  request  for  relief.    The  commanding  officer 
stated the following: 

 
2. 
I  am  convinced  that  [the  applicant]  was  not  given  complete,  accurate 
counseling to clearly explain his career options under the [CFTRR] process.  Had 
[the applicant] been properly counseled, the obvious choice would have been to 
choose an extension vice reenlistment to keep his options open for any possible 
SRB  multiples.    From  his  concise  synopsis,  it  is  apparent  that  [the  applicant] 
acted in good faith on the information his career information advisors provided 
at  the  time.    He  acted  expeditiously,  as  he  was  advised.    Four  days  later  the 
CFTRR policy changed. 
 
3. 
[The  applicant]  is  an  exceptional  performer, serving in a critical under-
staffed rating.  He is a perfect example of the quality personnel we are striving to 
retain in the service.  More specifically, he is one of those for whom the xxxx SRB 
was intended.  It would be unfair to deny his request simply because he received 
and acted on bad career advice. … 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On March 9, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard issued an advisory opin-

 
ion in which he recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
The Chief Counsel stated that ALDIST 154/97 did not lift the 90-day restriction 
 
for members approved by the CFTRR on April 2, 1997.  Instead, it lifted the restriction 
for members approved by a prior panel.  Therefore, the Chief Counsel alleged, ALDIST 
154/97 had no effect on the regulatory requirements governing the applicant’s reenlist-
ment or extension. 
 
 
Furthermore, the Chief Counsel argued, even if ALDIST 154/97 had applied to 
the  applicant,  he  would  have  been  required  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  at  least  two 
years  by  August  2,  1997,  and  his  two-year  extension  would  have  gone  into  effect  on 
September 12, 1997.2  Once an extension has become operative, it cannot be canceled.  
Therefore, because an SRB was not authorized for the xx rating until October 1, 1997, he 
would not have been eligible for the SRB even if he had extended his enlistment for two 
years,  instead  of  reenlisting  for  three,  because  the  two-year  extension could not have 
been canceled on October 1, 1997.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  March  13,  2000,  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. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

ALCGENL 024/97, issued on April 2, 1997, published the results of the CFTRR 
panel  completed  on  March  18,  1997.    Members  approved  for  continued  service  in 
ALCGENL 024/97 were required to reenlist or extend their enlistments for at least three 
years beyond their original end of enlistment dates within 90 days of the announcement 
(by July 2, 1997).  Members who failed to do so would be released from active duty at 
the  end  of  their  enlistments.    Members,  such  as  the  applicant,  who  had  previously 
extended their enlistments for periods of less than three years were permitted to reenlist 
or extend their enlistments “for a total of 3 yrs or more.” 

 
ALDIST  154/97,  issued  on  June  27,  1997,  changed  certain  rules  to  resolve  an 
apparent “misalignment” between CFTRR and SRB  policies for “all CFTRR candidates 
selected for reenlistment (or extension) by the 18 Mar 97 CFTRR panel , Ref (D), and for 
all future candidates.”  Reference D was cited as the ALCGENL 024/97, issued on April 

                                                 
2  In a phone call, a member of the Chief Counsel’s office told the BCMR that the applicant’s three-month 
extension  would  have  been  automatically  canceled  when  he  signed  the  longer,  two-year  extension.  
Therefore, the two-year extension would have become operative at the end of his original enlistment, on 
September 13, 1997, rather than on December 13, 1997. 

2,  1997.    Members who were approved for continuing service by the March 18, 1997, 
CFTRR  only  had  to  obligate  service  by  reenlisting  or  extending  for two years (rather 
than  three  years)  beyond  their  original  end  of  enlistment  dates  to  avoid  being  dis-
charged.    In  addition,  two-year  extensions  required  by  the  CFTRR  program  could be 
canceled  prior  to  their operative dates if the member became eligible for an SRB and 
wished  to  reenlist  or  extend  for  a  longer  period  to  earn  the  SRB.    Because  ALDIST 
154/97  was  issued  so  late  in  the  90-day  period  for  obligating  service  allowed  by 
ALCGENL 024/97, the 90-day period was changed to 120 days, ending on August 2, 
1997.  Moreover, members who had already responded to ALCGENL 024/97 by signing 
three-year  extension  contracts  could  cancel  them  to  sign  two-year  extensions  instead.  
However, members who had already responded to ALCGENL 024/97 by signing new 
reenlistment contracts were not permitted to cancel their new enlistment contracts. 
 

 
Article 1.G.18. of the Personnel Manual states that “[u]nless canceled for one of 
the reasons in [Article 1.G.19.], an Agreement to Extend Enlistment becomes effective 
on  the  date  next  following  the  normal  date  the  enlistment  expires  or  the  enlistment 
expiration date as voluntarily extended or as extended to make up time not served …, 
as appropriate.” 

 
Article 1.G.19. of the Personnel Manual includes the following provisions: 

Section  2  of  Enclosure  (1)  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), out-
lining 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  been  provided  a  copy  of  Enclosure  (5),  entitled 
“SRB Questions and Answers.”  Enclosure (5) explains that previously obligated service 
reduces an applicant’s SRB.  It further advises members, “[w]hen coming up on your 
end of enlistment, carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages of reenlisting vice 
extending.”  
 
 
Paragraph  3.d.(6)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  instruction  states  that  extensions  can-
celed prior to their operative dates for the purpose of receiving an SRB reduce the SRB 
by the number of months of previously obligated service unless the extension is for a 
period of two years or less, in which case the SRB is not diminished.  

  
ALDIST 226/97, issued on September 30, 1997, authorized payment of an SRB to 
members  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  October  1,  1997,  and 
March 31, 1998.  The Zone A SRB provided for xx2s who extended their enlistments or 
reenlisted was calculated with a multiple of 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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

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

 
1. 
either for the convenience of the Government or the person concerned. 
 
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 term longer than the origi-
nal  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.  

1. 

2. 

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

3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  in  June  1997 he was improperly pressured to 
sign a reenlistment or extension contract unnecessarily early and that he was improp-
erly counseled about the different effects of reenlisting and extending on a member’s 
future eligibility for an SRB.  He alleged that, had he been properly counseled, he would 
have  extended  his  enlistment  instead  of  reenlisting  and  therefore  would  have  been 
eligible to reenlist for six years and receive an SRB pursuant to  ALDIST 226/97.  
 
 
Under  ALCGENL  024/97,  issued  on  April  2,  1997,  the  applicant  was 
approved  for  continued  service  and  required  to  make  a  decision  about  reenlisting  or 
extending his enlistment within 90 days, by July 2, 1997.  The record indicates that he 
received  reenlistment  counseling  on  June  13,  1997,  and  reenlisted  for  three  years  ten 
days later, on June 23, 1997, just ten days before the deadline.  The Board finds that the 
applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was improp-
erly  pressed  into  making  an  early  decision.    His  command  could  not  be  expected  to 
advise  its  members  to  wait  until  the  last  possible  moment  to  make  a  decision  about 
reenlisting or extending in case the rules changed. 
 

4. 

Prior  to  the  issuance  of  ALDIST  154/97  on  June  27,  1997,  a  three-year 
extension  could  not  be  canceled  or  switched  for  a  two-year,  cancelable  extension.  
Therefore,  if  the  applicant’s  command  told  him  on  June  13,  1997,  that  there  was  no 
difference  between  an  extension  and  a  reenlistment  for  SRB  eligibility  purposes,  that 
information was correct at the time it was provided.  The applicant’s command could 
not predict that ALDIST 154/97 would be issued to change the CFTRR requirements. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

 
 
Contrary to the Chief Counsel’s allegation, ALDIST 154/97 did apply to 
members who were reviewed by the applicant’s CFTRR panel.  ALDIST 154/97 speci-
fically states that the policy changes are effective for “all CFTRR candidates selected for 
reenlistment (or extension) by the 18 Mar 97 CFTRR panel,” the results of which were 
published on April 2, 1997, in ALCGENL 024/97.  The applicant’s name appears on the 
list of members approved for continued service in ALCGENL 024/97. 
 
 
ALDIST 154/97 permitted a member who had previously signed a three-
year extension contract in response to ALCGENL 024/97 to cancel it and sign a two-
year  extension  instead.    This  switch  would  leave  the  member  eligible  to  cancel  the 
extension and reenlist to receive an SRB if one was authorized for his rating prior to the 
operative date of his extension.  ALDIST 154/97 provided no relief for members, such 
as the applicant, who had already reenlisted in response to ALCGENL 024/97, because 
reenlistments  become  operative immediately, whereas extensions only become opera-
tive when the term of enlistment expires. 
 
 
If  the  applicant  had  extended  his  contract  on  June  23,  1997,  rather  than 
reenlisting, he would have been permitted, under ALDIST 154/97, to reduce the term of 
his extension to two years.  Under Article 1.G.19 of the Personnel Manual, the new two-
year extension could have become operative on September 13, 1997, if the applicant’s 
commanding  officer  canceled the prior three-month extension.  If this had happened, 
the applicant’s extension would have become operative before the SRB was authorized 
for the xx rating on October 1, 1997, and he would not have been eligible to cancel the 
extension and reenlist to receive the SRB when it went into effect.   
 

On the other hand, Article 1.G.18. states that, “[u]nless canceled for one of 
the reasons in [Article 1.G.19], an Agreement to Extend Enlistment becomes effective on 
the date next following the normal date the enlistment expires or the enlistment expira-
tion date as voluntarily extended … .”  In addition, the language of ALCGENL 024/97 
clearly anticipates that members may have already extended their enlistments for a few 
months and need only sign a new extension that would obligate them to serve “for a 
total of 3 yrs or more” after their original end of enlistment.  Therefore, if the two-year 
extension had been intended to become operative on December 13, 1997, at the end of 
the enlistment as already extended, the applicant would have been eligible to cancel the 
extension and reenlist for an SRB under ALDIST 226/97.   
 
In  June  1993,  neither  the  applicant  nor  his  command  had  any  way  of 
 
knowing when in the future an SRB would be authorized for his skill rating.  Moreover, 
on June 23, 1997, the applicant’s command could not have known that ALDIST 154/97 
would  be  issued  to  allow  members  who  had  signed  three-year  extensions  to  switch 
them for two-year, cancelable extensions.  
 

8. 

9. 

 
10.  Under Section 2 of Enclosure (1) COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant was 
entitled to SRB counseling documented by a page 7 entry when he reenlisted on June 
23, 1997.  Although there is a page 7 entry in his record documenting his reenlistment 
interview, there is no page 7 entry documenting SRB counseling.  The applicant alleged 
that, if he had been properly counseled, he would have extended instead of reenlisting 
to improve his chance of receiving an SRB in the future.  However, because the appli-
cant’s  command  could  not  have  predicted  or  counseled  the  applicant  about  ALDIST 
154/97 or ALDIST 226/97, the Board finds that the applicant’s claim is wholly specula-
tive.  Moreover, in BCMR Docket No. 1999-042, the Deputy General Counsel held that 
the SRB regulations do not entitle members to counseling concerning how to maximize 
their  future  SRB  eligibility  by  minimizing  their  obligated  service  to  the  Coast  Guard.  
Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Coast Guard committed any error that caused him to be denied an SRB. 
 
 
 

11.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application for correction of the military record of XXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Michael J. McMorrow 

 

 

 

 
Charles Medalen 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

is hereby denied.