DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-013 
 
 
   

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 October 19, 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  August  24,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to correct his military record to 
make  him  eligible  to  receive  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  as  a  result  of  his 
reenlistment on April 21, 1999. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The  applicant  alleged  that  when  he  was  released  from  active  duty  into  the 
Reserves on October 3, 1998, he was never advised that he had to reenlist within three 
months in order to be eligible for an SRB.  He alleged that the Coast Guard had a duty 
to counsel him properly.  He alleged that if he had been properly counseled, he would 
have  reenlisted  within  three  months  rather  than  waiting  more  than  six  months  to 
reenlist.    Therefore,  he  argued  it  is  unjust  for  the  Coast  Guard  to  deny  him  an  SRB 
solely on the basis of his break in service. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 4, 1994, for a term of four 
years.  At the end of this enlistment, on October 3, 1998, he was released from active 
duty into the Reserve.  The paper copy of the applicant’s file for this first enlistment is 
missing.  However, the Coast Guard has an electronic personnel file for the applicant, 
which  contains  a  copy  of  his 1994 enlistment contract (DD 4/1), Statement of Under-
standing, Montgomery G.I. Bill enrollment form (DD 2366), Record of Military Process-
ing (DD 19966/1), six administrative entries signed when he first enlisted, an adminis-
trative  entry  made  regarding  his  attendance  at  A  School  dated  February  22,  1996,  an 
administrative entry regarding superior performance dated March 30, 1998, and his dis-
charge form (DD 214).  There is no record of any pre-discharge interview or reenlist-
ment counseling in the electronic file. 
 
 
was promoted to xxx on June 1, 1999.  He received no SRB for this reenlistment. 
 

On April 21, 1999, the applicant reenlisted for four years at the rank of xxx.  He 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 27, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board dismiss the case without prejudice or deny relief for lack of proof. 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Board should dismiss the case without preju-
 
dice because “all relevant documentation from his prior service period is missing and 
has yet to be merged with his new [headquarters] service record.”  The Chief Counsel 
stated  that  the  only  documents  in  hand  from  the  applicant’s  first  enlistment  are  “his 
enlistment  contract  and  other  pro  forma  first  enlistment  documentation.”    The  Chief 
Counsel also suggested that the Board could delay the “decision due date” in this case 
on a day to day basis until the applicant’s records are found. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  when  the  applicant’s  records  are  found,  “we 
expect to find a record of counseling among Applicant’s former service records docu-
menting  his  pre-discharge  interview  conducted  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.4.”  of 
the Personnel Manual.  Pre-discharge interviews, he stated, cover all aspects of a mem-
ber’s SRB eligibility, including the requirement to reenlist within three months of sepa-
ration.  The Chief Counsel alleged that the applicant provided no evidence that he was 
not properly counseled.  He argued that under the presumption of regularity, the Board 
must assume that this interview occurred unless the applicant provides convincing evi-
dence that it did not.  Muse v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 592, 601 (1990).  
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  the  applicant  is  barred  by  statute  and 
regulation from receiving an SRB because he reenlisted more than three months after 
his separation. COMDTINST 7220.33, Article 3.a.(1).  Reentering active duty after more 
than  three  months,  he  alleged,  is  considered  an  “enlistment”  rather  than  a  “reenlist-
ment.”  In addition, he stated, even if the Board were to assume the applicant was not 

properly counseled, the applicant has failed to prove that “but for” the lack of counsel-
ing, he would have reenlisted within three months of separation.  Therefore, the Board 
could, in the alternative, deny relief for lack of proof. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  this  case  involves  a  significant  issue  of  Coast 
Guard  policy,  so  that  any  final  action  contrary  to  his  recommendation  must  be 
reviewed by the delegate of the Secretary, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  April  28,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    The  applicant  did  not 
respond. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Title  37  U.S.C.  §§  308  and  308a  contain  provisions  for the payment of reenlist-
ment and enlistment bonuses, respectively. Each authorizes the Secretary of each Uni-
formed Service to prescribe regulations governing payment of such bonuses.  Neither 
contains any requirement that a member reenlist within three months of separation to 
receive an SRB. 
 
 
Article  12-B-4.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  approximately  six 
months prior to the end of an enlistment, each member must be counseled about reen-
listment and the SRB program.  If a member chooses not to reenlist, the “member must 
be fully informed of matters which are of interest to potential reenlistees.”  This inter-
view must be documented with an administrative entry in the member’s record.  The 
administrative entry must state that the member must reenlist within three months of 
the date of discharge to maintain a “continuous service status.” 
 
 
Article  1.G.7.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  to  maintain  a  “continuous 
service status,” members must reenlist within three months of their date of discharge.  
Article  1.G.7.a.1.  provides  that,  “[t]o  receive  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB),  a 
member must reenlist within three months from date of discharge and meet the eligi-
bility requirements contained in … COMDTINST 7220.33 (series).” 
 
Paragraph 3.a.(1) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlist-
 
ment Bonus Programs Administration) provides that, to be eligible for an SRB, mem-
bers must “[r]eenlist not later than 3 months after discharge or release from active duty 
in a rating authorized an SRB multiple.” 
 

ALDIST  290/98,  issued  on  November  24,  1998,  authorized  members  in  the  xx 
rating with no more than six years of active service who reenlisted or extended their 
enlistments after November 25, 1998, to receive an SRB with a multiple of two.  ALDIST 
290/98 remained in effect until June 14, 1999. 
 

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 

2. 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
Under 37 U.S.C. § 308, the Secretary may prescribe regulations governing 
 
members’  eligibility  for  SRBs.    Under  Article  1.G.7.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and 
Paragraph  3.a.(1)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33,  members  must  reenlist 
within  three  months  of  being  released  from  active  duty  to  be  eligible  for  an  SRB.1  
Because  the applicant was released from active duty more than six months before he 
reenlisted on April 21, 1999, he was not eligible for an SRB under ALDIST 290/98. 
 

3. 

4. 

There is no documentation of a pre-discharge interview in the applicant’s 
paper or electronic personnel records provided by the Coast Guard.  The Chief Counsel 
indicated  that  the  paper  record  of  the  applicant’s  first  enlistment  is  “missing”  but he 
argued that under the presumption of regularity, the Board should conclude that the 
applicant received a proper pre-discharge interview.  He argued that because only “pro 
forma“ records of his first enlistment appear is the electronic file, the Board should not 
assume from the lack of pre-discharge interview documentation that the Coast Guard 
failed to counsel the applicant. 
 
 
In  the  Board’s  experience,  administrative  entries  documenting  reenlist-
ment  and  pre-discharge  interviews  are  normally  included  in  the  electronic  copy  of  a 
member’s  record.    The  applicant’s  electronic  file  contains  not  only  his  original  enlist-
ment documents but also administrative entries made during his enlistment, including 
one dated March 30, 1998, slightly more than six months before his discharge.  If the 
applicant underwent a proper pre-discharge interview in accordance with Article 12-B-
4.b.,  it  would  have  occurred  at  approximately  the  same  time  and  an  administrative 
entry  documenting  the  interview  should  appear  in  his  electronic  file.    Therefore, 
because there is no documentation of a pre-discharge interview in the applicant’s elec-
tronic file and because the Coast Guard is apparently unable to find a paper copy of any 
such documentation, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates 
that the applicant did not receive a proper pre-discharge interview.   
 

The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  available  evidence 
that the Coast Guard erred by not properly counseling him concerning the requirement 
that he reenlist within three months to maintain eligibility for an SRB.  However, he has 
presented  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  allegation  that,  if  he  had  received  such 
counseling,  he  would  have  reenlisted  within  three  months  of  the  date  of  his  release 
from active duty.  Nor has he proved that between October 4, 1998, and January 3, 1999, 
he  had  any  intention  of  ever  rejoining  the  Coast  Guard.    Therefore,  the  Board  is 
                                                 
1  The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard  was  prohibited  by  statute  from  paying  an  SRB  to  a 
member who reenlists more than three months after being released from active duty.  However, the Chief 
Counsel cited no statute in support of this allegation, and no such requirement appears in 37 U.S.C. §§ 308 
or 308a. 

5. 

unconvinced  that  the  applicant  would  have  reenlisted  within  three  months  of  his 
release  on  October  3,  1998,  if  he  had  received  a  proper  pre-discharge  interview  six 
months before his release. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied with prejudice. 

6. 
 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Gareth W. Rosenau 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 
Mark A. Tomicich