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 December 13, 1999, after 
the Board received the applicant’s complete application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  26,  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. 2000-033 
 
 
   

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board 
to correct his military record to show that on his sixth anniversary on active duty, June 
8, 1998, he was discharged and reenlisted for six years.  The correction would allow the 
applicant to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) under ALDIST 046/98.  The 
applicant also asked the Board to void an extension contract he needed to sign while his 
case was pending before the Board because his enlistment was due to end on January 
10, 2000. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that prior to his sixth anniversary on active duty, no one 
counseled him concerning his eligibility to be discharged and immediately reenlisted to 
receive an SRB under ALDIST 046/98.  He alleged that he was entitled to such counsel-
ing under COMDTINST 7220.33.  He stated that if he had been properly counseled, he 
would  have  reenlisted  for  six  years  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  one.  
Furthermore, if he had enlisted for six years on June 8, 1998, he would not have been 
required to extend his enlistment while his case was pending before the Board. 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  June  9,  1992,  for  four years.  On 
January 11, 1996, he reenlisted for four years, through January 10, 2000.  Therefore, his 
sixth anniversary on active duty fell on June 9, 1998.   
 
 
to his sixth anniversary on active duty.  
 

There is no documentation of any SRB counseling in the applicant’s record prior 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

On June 29, 2000, 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 
was  not  counseled  about  his  eligibility  to  receive  the  SRB.    The  Chief  Counsel  also 
stated that the applicant is an excellent performer who “took proper action to rectify the 
alleged error after its discovery and is now willing to offer a new 6-year reenlistment as 
consideration for the SRB he requests.”   
 

The  Chief  Counsel  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  by  correcting  his 
record to show that he reenlisted for six years on his sixth anniversary, June 9, 1998.  He 
also noted that the applicant had previously obligated service through January 10, 2000, 
and that SRBs are calculated based only on months of service newly obligated by the 
enlistment or extension. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  June  30,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 
 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15  days.    On  July  10,  2000,  the 
applicant responded, stating that he had no objection to the recommendation. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Section 3.d.(1) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment 
Bonus  Programs  Administration)  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 Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officers are authorized 
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 expi-
ration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-

tively.  In such cases, SRB payments will be reduced by any portion of unserved service 
obligation.” 
 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction states that during the three months prior to the 
 
end of an enlistment, each member must be counseled concerning his or her eligibility 
for an SRB, have his or her questions concerning SRBs answered, and be provided with 
a copy of Enclosure (5), which is entitled “SRB Questions and Answers.”  The counsel-
ing must be memorialized in the member’s record with a Form CG-3307 signed by the 
member. 
 

ALDIST 046/98, issued on March 29, 1998, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  April  1,  1998, 
and September 30, 1998.  The multiple to be used for calculating Zone A SRBs for mem-
bers in the xx rating was one. 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

 
2. 

 
 
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 

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

3. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled  about  his  eligibility  to 
receive an SRB by requesting discharge and reenlistment during the three months prior 
to his sixth anniversary on active duty, June 8, 1998.  He alleged that, had he been prop-
erly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years to become eligible for the SRB.  
 
 
Under  Enclosure  (3)  to  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant 
had a right to be counseled concerning SRBs prior to his sixth active duty anniversary.  
Because he originally enlisted on June 9, 1992, and has served continuously on active 
duty ever since, his sixth anniversary fell on June 9, 1998.  There is no evidence that the 
Coast  Guard  counseled  the  applicant  concerning  his  eligibility  for  an SRB during the 
three  months  prior  to  that  date.    Had  he  been  so  counseled,  a  Form  CG-3307  should 
appear in his record, but there is none.   
  

Under Sections 3.d.(1) and (9) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction, the appli-
cant was eligible to be discharged on June 9, 1998, his sixth active duty anniversary, and 
to be immediately reenlisted to qualify for a Zone A SRB.  Under ALDIST 046/98, he 
would have received a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 1 for his newly obligated service.  
 

4. 

5. 

The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant the applicant relief 
by  correcting  his  record  to  show  that  on  June  9,  1998,  he  reenlisted  for  a  term  of  six 
years.  The applicant agreed with this recommendation. 

The Coast Guard erred by not properly counseling the applicant concern-
ing his eligibility for an SRB on his sixth active duty anniversary.  Had he been properly 
counseled, the Board is persuaded that he would have reenlisted for six years to receive 
the maximum possible SRB, subject to reduction for the remaining obligated service on 
his previous enlistment.  Moreover, if the applicant had reenlisted for six years on June 
9,  1998,  he  would  not  have  needed  to  sign  an  extension  contract  while  his  case  was 
pending before the Board.  

  
6. 

 
7. 

rection. 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

ORDER 

 

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

hereby granted. 

 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  his  sixth  anniversary  on  active 
duty, June 9, 1998, he was discharged and immediately reenlisted for a term of six years 
for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  Zone  A  SRB  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  ALDIST 
046/98. 
 
Any  extension  of  enlistment  contract  signed  by  the  applicant  between  June  9, 

1998, and the date of this decision shall be null and void. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum he is due as a result of this cor-

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Robert C. Ashby 

 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Angel Collaku