DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-039 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 January 4, 2000, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  28,  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 by canceling a six-year reenlistment contract he signed on 
August 5, 1999.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when he reenlisted for six years on August 5, 1999, he 
was told that the reenlistment would entitle him to receive a Zone B SRB1 calculated 
with  a  multiple  of  one  under  ALDIST  184/99.    However,  because  he  was  still 
eeeeeeeeee  on  August  5,  1999,  the  reenlistment  did  not  entitle  him  to  an  SRB.    He 
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  not  have  reenlisted  for  six  years  but  would  have 
                                                 
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, which is reflected in the multiple used to calculate the bonus.  Coast Guard members in 
pay  grade  E-5  and  above  who  have  served  between  6  and  10  years  on  active  duty  are  in  “Zone  B.”  
Members may only receive one SRB per zone. 

extended  his  previous  enlistment  so  that  he  could  reenlist  after  he  was  promoted  to 
xxxx/E-5 and receive the SRB.  
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  signed  by  his 
 
commanding officer (CO).  The CO stated that the applicant was not properly counseled 
concerning his eligibility for an SRB due to an administrative oversight.  He stated that 
the applicant entered into the reenlistment contract believing that he would be paid an 
SRB.  The CO stated that, if the Board cancels the applicant’s reenlistment contract, he 
would extend his previous enlistment for six months, during which time he will seek 
advancement to E-5 to become eligible for a Zone B SRB. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On November 6, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard as a seaman (SN; 
 
pay grade E-3) for a term of four years, through November 5, 1999.  Prior to this enlist-
ment, the applicant had already served over four years on active duty in another serv-
ice.  Therefore, his active duty base date is October 24, 1991. 
 

On February 28, 1997, the applicant entered the xx rating as an SN-xx (pay grade 
E-3) but was not advanced to xxx until August 27, 1997, due to disciplinary problems.   

 
On  May  13,  1999,  the  Commandant  issued  ALDIST  184/99,  which  established 
SRBs for personnel in certain 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.   

 
On August 5, 1999, while still at the rank of xxx and in pay grade E-4, the appli-
cant reenlisted for six years.  His reenlistment contract states that he is “entitled to [a] 
Zone B SRB with [a] multiple of 1.”  There is no entry in the applicant’s record indicat-
ing that he was counseled concerning his SRB eligibility. 
 
 
 

On May 1, 2000, the applicant was promoted to xxx and pay grade E-5. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 29, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant partial relief in this case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant was wrongly advised with respect 
to  his  SRB  eligibility.    However,  he  stated,  “[t]he  Government  is  not  estopped  from 
repudiating the inaccurate SRB counseling or the SRB provision included in Applicant’s 
05  August  1999  reenlistment  contract.    Even  assuming  arguendo  that  Applicant  had 
detrimentally relied on this promise of a SRB, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply, 

because, as a matter of law, Applicant was ineligible for an SRB.”  Utah Power & Light 
Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 (1971); Montilla v. United States, 457 F.2d 978 (Ct. Cl. 
1972); Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom Goldberg v. 
Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977). 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  is  voidable 
because of the erroneous advice, but that a new contract must be established prior to 
voiding the August 5, 1999, contract because the applicant would have no contract cov-
ering his service after the termination date of his original enlistment, November 5, 1999. 
 
 
Therefore, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant partial relief by 
voiding the applicant’s August 5, 1999, reenlistment contract and offering the applicant 
the  minimum  allowable  two-year  extension.    In  the  alternative,  he  stated,  the  Board 
could terminate the applicant’s enlistment obligation so that he would be discharged. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 
 
On June 30, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s rec-
ommendation  and  invited  him  to  respond  to  it  within  15  days.    He  was  granted  an 
extension and his response was received on July 19, 2000. 
 
 
The applicant stated that the Chief Counsel’s recommended relief would prevent 
him from ever receiving a Zone B SRB because the two-year extension would not end 
until November 5, 2001, at which time he will no longer be in Zone B.  In addition, the 
applicant stated, even if he could reenlist before or on his tenth anniversary, there may 
be no SRB authorized for his rating at that time.   
 

Therefore, the applicant asked the Board to void his August 5, 1999, reenlistment 
and  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he  extended  his  enlistment  for  six  months,  from 
November 6, 1999, through May 6, 2000, and then reenlisted for six years to earn a Zone 
B  SRB.    He  alleged  that  extensions  of  less  than  two  years  were  authorized  under 
ALDIST 245/98. 
 
 
The applicant stated that if the Board does not agree with his request, he would 
prefer to have his current contract terminated as soon as possible.  He alleged that he 
would  then  be  able  to  reenlist  and  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  because,  under  ALCOAST 
084/99, xxxs may reenter the service as part of the “Open Rate List (ORL) program.”  
However, he indicated that this option could create hardship for his family because he 
would  lose  his  billet  and  might  be  transferred  upon  reenlistment.    He  alleged  that  it 
would also be expensive for the Coast Guard, which would have to train and transfer 
someone else to fill his billet. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Reenlistment and Extension Provisions 
 
 
Article  12.B.7.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  a  member’s  commanding 
officer may discharge him for the purpose of immediate reenlistment during the three 
months prior to the end of his enlistment. 
 
Article  1.G.2.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  states  that  reenlistments  must  be  of 
 
three, four, five, or six years’ duration.  Under Article 1.G.14.a.1., extensions of enlist-
ments  requested  by  members  must  be  of  at  least  two  years’  duration.   Under Article 
1.G.9.b., members reenlisting within 24 hours after discharge may be reenlisted at their 
unit, rather than at a recruiting office.  Article 1.G.3.a. provides that members reenlist-
ing the day after they are discharged shall be reenlisted in the rate held on the date of 
discharge. 
 
 
ALDIST  245/98,  issued  on  October  8, 1998, stated that during fiscal year 1999, 
commanding  officers  could  ask  the  Personnel  Command  to  approve  extensions  of 
enlistments for less than two years “to alleviate short-term gaps in billets.”  The ALDIST 
stated that approval by the Personnel Command was now required to “provide a better 
balance  of  member  needs  and  short-term  flexibility  at  the  unit  with  the  longer  term 
assignment and workforce needs of the Coast Guard.” 
 

ALCOAST  084/99,  issued  on  September  7,  1999,  established  a  new  Open  Rate 

List, effective October 1, 1999.  The ORL included members in rating xxx. 

 
ALCOAST  302/00,  issued  on  July  20,  2000,  canceled  ALCOAST  084/99  and 
established a new ORL as of October 1, 2000.  The new ORL also included members in 
rating xxx.   
 
SRB Provisions 
 
Section  2  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  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.”  The page 7 mem-
bers must sign states that they have been provided with a copy of the SRB instruction. 
 

Section 3.b.(4) of Enclosure (1) states that, to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, mem-

bers must “[b]e serving in pay grade E-5 or higher.” 

 
Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officer 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.” 
 

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. 

 
ALCOAST 218/00, issued on May 19, 2000, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted or extended their enlistments after July 1, 2000.  The 
multiple to be used for calculating Zone B SRBs for members in the x 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 

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

2. 

Under Section 2 of Enclosure (1) to 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 August 5, 1999.  Proper counseling would 
have provided him with a copy of the instruction, whose terms would have informed 
him that as an xxx/E-4, his reenlistment would not entitle him to an SRB.  COMDTINST 
7220.33, Enclosure (1), Section 3.b.(4).  

4. 

The reenlistment contract the applicant signed on August 5, 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.   
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled  in  August 
1999, he would have chosen to and been permitted to extend his enlistment for a short 
period until some then-unknown future date when he would be advanced to ET2/E-5. 
Under Article 1.G.14.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, extensions of enlistments requested 
by members must be of at least two years’ duration, but the applicant alleged that such 
a short-term would have been permitted under ALDIST 245/98.  ALDIST 245/98 per-
mitted short-term extensions “to alleviate short-term gaps in billets,” and such exten-
sions had to be approved by the Personnel Command.   

 
3. 

 

5. 

Although  the  applicant’s  CO  indicated  that  he  would  grant  him  a  six-
month  extension,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  in  August  1999,  his  command 
would  have  requested  that  his  enlistment  be  extended  for  six  months  under ALDIST 
245/98 because of any gap in billets.  Nor has he proved that the Personnel Command 
would  have  approved  any  such  request  by  his  CO  in  August  1999.    Moreover,  the 
applicant could not have known for certain in August 1999 that he would be promoted 
to  xxx  on  May  1,  2000.    Therefore,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  if  he  had  been 
properly  counseled  in  August  1999,  he  would  have  been  advised  to  or  allowed  to 
extend his enlistment for six months. 

Therefore, the minimum amount of service that the applicant would have 
been required to obligate upon the termination of his enlistment was two years.  The 
Chief Counsel recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that 
he  extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years,  through  November  4,  2001.    However,  the 
applicant stated that since the Chief Counsel admitted that his contract is voidable, he 
would prefer to be discharged and reenlisted as soon as possible, despite the hardship 
this might cause for his family, because a two-year extension might preclude him from 
ever  receiving  a  Zone  B  SRB  if  none  was  authorized  for  his  rating  prior  to  his  tenth 
active duty anniversary in the fall of 2001. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
6. 

 

The Coast Guard’s administrative error in advising the applicant does not 
entitle him to a short-term extension against regulations or to an immediate discharge.  
When the Coast Guard commits an error by misadvising a member about his SRB eligi-
bility, the Board’s practice is to correct the member’s record to appear as it would have 
if the Coast Guard had properly advised the member.  The applicant has not proved 
that, if he had been properly advised about his ineligibility for an SRB in August 1999, 
he would have left the Coast Guard upon the termination of his enlistment in Novem-
ber 1999.  The record indicates that the applicant intended to continue his career in the 
Coast Guard and was required to obligate at least two additional years of service. 

A two-year extension contract would not necessarily prevent the applicant 
from ever receiving a Zone B SRB, as he alleged, even though the term of the extension 
would end after his tenth active duty anniversary.  For example, if the applicant must 
sign a new contract to obligate service to accept transfer orders before his tenth anniver-
sary and an SRB remains authorized for his rating, he may receive the SRB.  Likewise, if 
an SRB is authorized for his rating at any time during the three months before his tenth 
anniversary, October 24, 2001, his CO could discharge and reenlist him for the purpose 
of receiving an SRB under Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) of COMDTINST 7220.33. 
 

Accordingly, the Board should grant relief by voiding the applicant’s six-
year reenlistment contract dated August 5, 1999, and replacing it with a two-year exten-
sion contract. 

9. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

 

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

hereby granted in part as follows: 
 
 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  August  5,  1999,  he  extended  his 
enlistment  for  two  years.    The  six-year  reenlistment  contract  he  signed  on  August  5, 
1999, shall be null and void. 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Barbara Betsock 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
George Kuehnle, Jr. 

 

 

 

 
Michael J. McMorrow