DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 1999-177 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 September 13, 1999, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated August 17, 2000, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  an  xxxxxxxxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the 
Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  canceling  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract  he 
signed  on  July  7,  1999.    Instead,  he  wants  his  record  to  reflect  that  he  extended  his 
previous  enlistment  for  one  month  on  July  7,  1999.    The  correction,  he  stated,  would 
entitle him to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 pursuant to ALDIST 
184/99. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when he signed a reenlistment contract on July 7, 1999, 
he was told that the reenlistment would entitle him to receive a Zone B SRB calculated 
with  a  multiple  of  one  under  ALDIST  184/99.    However,  because  he  was  still 
xxxxxxxxxx  E-4)  on  July  7,  1999,  the  reenlistment  did  not  entitle  him  to  an  SRB.    He 
                                                 
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 6 and 10 years on active duty are in 
“Zone B.”  Members may only receive one SRB per zone. 

alleged  that  if  he  had  known  about  the  requirement  that  he  be  in  pay  grade  E-5  to 
receive a Zone B SRB, he would have extended his previous enlistment for one month 
so that he could reenlist after he was promoted to E-5 and receive the SRB.  
 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  signed  by  his 
Executive  Officer.    The  Executive  Officer  stated  that  the  applicant  was  not  properly 
counseled concerning his eligibility for an SRB due to an administrative oversight.  He 
stated  that  the  applicant  should  have  been  advised  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  one 
month and reenlist after he was promoted to E-5. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  July  17,  1995,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four 
years, through July 16, 1999.  Prior to entering the Coast Guard, the applicant served 
three years and eleven months on active duty in the Marines.  Therefore, his active duty 
service date is August 17, 1991. 
 

On November 20, 1997, the applicant extended his enlistment for one year and 
eleven months, through June 16, 2001, to obligate sufficient service to accept orders for 
attending school. 

 
 
On July 7, 1999, while still at the rank of xx3 and in pay grade E-4, the applicant 
signed a six-year reenlistment contract, through July 6, 2005.  The contract states that he 
“is entitled to a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one.”  There is no entry in the applicant’s 
record indicating that he was counseled concerning his SRB eligibility. 
 
 
 

On August 1, 1999, the applicant was promoted to xx2 and pay grade E-5. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 24, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant partial relief in this case.2   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant’s reenlistment contract dated July 7, 
1999, should be voided because it was based on an erroneous written promise that he 
would  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB.    However, he argued, there is no authority to void the 
applicant’s first extension, from July 17, 1999, through June 16, 2001, and replace it with 
the one-month extension the applicant has requested.  He argued that extensions may 
only be cancelled for the purpose of signing a longer extension or reenlistment.  
 
                                                 
2  The Chief Counsel initially submitted his advisory opinion for this case on March 28, 2000.  However, 
that recommendation was based on a misunderstanding of the applicant’s request.  Upon inquiry by the 
BCMR staff, the Chief Counsel submitted a substitute advisory opinion on May 24, 2000. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On May 24, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s rec-
ommendation and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On July 17, 2000, the appli-
cant responded, stating that he “fully agreed with the submitted recommendations.” 
 

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 particular action has on their SRB entitlement.”  The page 7 members must 
sign states that they have been provided with a copy of the SRB instruction. 
 

Section 3.b.(4) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB instruction states that, to be eligible for 

a Zone B SRB, members must “[b]e serving in pay grade E-5 or higher.” 

 
Section 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) states that “[e]xtensions previously executed by 
members may be canceled prior to their operative date for the purpose of executing a 
longer extension or reenlistment … .” 
 

ALDIST 184/99, issued on May 13, 1999, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments after June 15, 1999.  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 

 
3. 

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

2. 

Under  Section  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant  was 
entitled to proper counseling concerning his eligibility for a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 
184/99  when  he  reenlisted  on  July  7,  1999.    Proper  counseling  would  have  provided 
him with a copy of the instruction, whose terms would have informed him that as an 
xx3/E-4,  his  reenlistment  would  not  entitle  him  to  an  SRB.    COMDTINST  7220.33, 
Enclosure (1), Section 3.b.(4).  

The reenlistment contract the applicant signed on July 7, 1999, proves that 
he  was  wrongly  counseled  about  his  eligibility for an SRB and wrongly promised an 
SRB  for  which  he  was  not  eligible  in  consideration  for  his  reenlistment.    The  Coast 
Guard  erred  and  committed  an  injustice  in  inducing  the  applicant  to  reenlist  for  six 
years with this false promise. 
 

Under Section 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB instruction, the applicant 
could not cancel his extension of one year and eleven months to extend or reenlist for 

4. 

any shorter period of time.  Moreover, once that extension became effective on July 17, 
1999,  he  could  not  cancel  it.    After  he  was  promoted  to  xx2,  on  August  1,  1999,  the 
applicant  could  not  take  advantage  of  ALDIST  184/99  to  receive  an  SRB  because  his 
extension was in effect and would not end until June 2001. 
 

5. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted in part by voiding 

his six-year reenlistment.  However, his extension contract should remain in effect. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

 

 

 
 

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

No other relief is granted. 

hereby granted in part as follows: 
 
 
His reenlistment contract dated July 7, 1999, shall be null and void.  The exten-
sion contract he signed on November 20, 1997, shall be reinstated as having gone into 
effect on July 17, 1999. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis