DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-060 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 24, 2000, following 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s complete application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated April 19, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to 
correct his military record to show that, in 1982, he extended his enlistment so that he 
could receive a Zone B1 selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) pursuant to ALDISTs 340/81 
and 004/82.  The correction he requests would be an extension on top of an extension 
for which he has already received a Zone A SRB pursuant to these ALDISTs. 
 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel members about 
SRB opportunities, but he was never counseled about his eligibility to receive a Zone A 
or a Zone B SRB by extending his enlistment in February 1982.  He stated that his record 
had  already  been  corrected  once  by  the  Commandant  in  1995  to  qualify  him  for  the 
                                                 
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 21 months and 6 years on active duty 
are in “Zone A,” while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active duty service are in 
“Zone B.”  In 1982, the applicant was still in Zone A, but because his enlistment, as previously corrected, 
continued  into  Zone  B,  an  immediate  extension  of  it  would  have  qualified  him  for  a  Zone  B  SRB.  
Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. 
 

Zone A SRB under ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82.  However, he alleged, if he had been 
properly counseled, he would have extended his enlistment in February 1982 not just 
once—to get the Zone A SRB he has already received as a result of a record correction 
by the Commandant—but twice, to earn a Zone B SRB as well. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  discovered  the  fact  that  his  record  was  in  error 
because he could have received a Zone B SRB if he had been counseled about ALDIST 
004/82 on November 19, 1997. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  September  4,  1979,  for  a  term  of 
four  years,  through  September  3,  1983.    He  attended  “A”  School  and  was  advanced 
from seaman to xxxxxxxx pay grade E-4) on July 17, 1981. 
 

On  January  12,  1982,  the  Commandant  issued  ALDIST  004/82,  temporarily 
extending  the  provisions  of  ALDIST  340/81,  which  authorized  SRBs  for  members  in 
certain skill ratings who were within 30 days of the end of their enlistment periods and 
who reenlisted or extended their enlistments for at least three years.  The Zone A SRBs 
authorized for members in the MK rating who extended their enlistments or reenlisted 
under  ALDIST  340/81  were  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  four.    The  Zone  B  SRBs 
authorized for MKs who extended their enlistments or reenlisted were calculated with a 
multiple of three.  ALDIST 004/82 also temporarily waived the requirement that mem-
bers be within 30 days of the end of their enlistment periods in order to be eligible to 
receive  the  SRB  for  extending  their  enlistments.    To  take  advantage  of  the  waiver  in 
ALDIST 004/82, members had to sign contracts extending their enlistments before Feb-
ruary 15, 1982.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that he was ever advised 
about the provisions of ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82.  

 
On July 29, 1983, the applicant reenlisted for four years, through July 28, 1987.  
On May 6, 1987, he extended his enlistment for 11 months, through June 27, 1988, to 
obligate sufficient service to accept transfer orders.  He extended his enlistment a sec-
ond time on May 25, 1988, for another 11 months, through May 27, 1989, to accept new 
transfer orders.  On May 26, 1989, he reenlisted for another 4 years.  He has served con-
tinuously on active duty since that time. 

 
On April 3, 1995, based on the applicant’s statement that he had not been coun-
seled about ALDIST 004/82, the Commandant ordered that his record be corrected to 
show that he signed an extension contract on February 14, 1982, extending his enlist-
ment for four more years, from September 4, 1983, through September 3, 1987, to earn a 
Zone A SRB.  As a result of this correction, his July 29, 1983, reenlistment was cancelled.  
In addition, the extension contract he signed on May 6, 1987, was corrected to show that 
it was the second extension of his first enlistment and that he extended his enlistment 

for just 10 months, instead of 11, to cover his service from September 4, 1987, through 
July 3, 1988.  Therefore, his second extension contract, dated May 25, 1988, became the 
third extension of his enlistment and extended his contract from July 4, 1988, through 
June 3, 1989. 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  August  11,  2000,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  a  one-para-
graph advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request in 
accordance with the decision of the Deputy General Counsel in BCMR Docket No. 1997-
103.  The Chief Counsel stated that this case involves a significant issue of Coast Guard 
policy.  Therefore, if the Board decides relief should be granted, its decision would be 
subject to review by the Deputy General Counsel under 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On August 14, 2000, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s advisory opinion, along with a copy of the decisions in BCMR Docket No. 1997-103 
which  were  referenced  by  the  Chief  Counsel,  and  invited  him  to  respond  within  15 
days.  On October 19, 2000, the Board received a letter from the applicant stating that he 
had just returned from being underway for 60 days and requesting an extension of 90 
days from the date of his letter so that he could respond to the advisory opinion.  On 
October 20, 2000, the Chairman granted the extension through January 17, 2001.   

 
On  February  21,  2001,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  response  to  the 
advisory opinion.  He asked “Counsel” to “conduct a full review and provide copy of 
Advisory Opinion as did with case number 1997-103.”  He indicated that he thought the 
one-paragraph advisory opinion was incomplete and insufficient. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW AND PRECEDENT CASES 

 
SRB Regulations 
 
 
Commandant  Instruction  7220.13E  (Administration  of  the  Reenlistment  Bonus 
Program)  was  released  on  May  4,  1979,  and  was  in  effect  when  ALDIST  340/81  and 
ALDIST  004/82  were  distributed.    Section  1.c.(4)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  Instruction 
stated  that  “[e]ntitlement  to  an  SRB  vests  only  on  the  date  the  member  reenlists  or 
makes operative an extension of enlistment . . . .”  Section 1.d.(1) of Enclosure (1) pro-
vided the criteria for SRB eligibility in Zone A.  It stated the following, in part: 
 

(1)  Zone A Eligibility.  [To be eligible, a member must meet all of the fol-
lowing criteria:] 
 

(a)  Be serving on active duty in pay grade E-3 or higher in a military 
specialty designated [in the ALDIST].  
 
(b)  Must have completed at least 21 months of continuous active duty, 
other than active duty for training, but not more than six years of total 

active duty, immediately preceding the date of reenlistment or opera-
tive date of extension of enlistment. . . . 
 
(c)  The extension of enlistment or reenlistment must be at least three 
years and, when combined with prior active duty, must yield a total of 
at least six years of active duty.  [Emphasis in original] 
 
(d)    Has  not  previously  received  a  Zone  A  SRB,  nor  previously 
enlisted,  reenlisted,  or  extended  (extensions  that  have  become  effec-
tive) beyond six years of active duty. . . .  
 

Section 1.d.(2) of Enclosure (1) provided the criteria for SRB eligibility in Zone B.  

 
 
Section 1.g. of Enclosure (1) stated that in order to “attain the objectives of the 
SRB program, each potential reenlistee who would be eligible for SRB must be informed 
of their eligibility and the monetary benefits of the SRB program.  It is expected that the 
reenlistment interview, held approximately six months before expiration of enlistment, 
will provide the potential reenlistee with complete information on SRB.”  There was no 
similar provision for informing potential extendees of an SRB opportunity. 
 
Personnel Manual 
 
 
Article 1.G.80.(a) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1982 stated that a member 
could  voluntarily  extend  or  re-extend  an  enlistment,  “subject  to  approval  by  his/her 

It stated the following, in part: 
 

(2)  Zone B Eligibility.  [To be eligible, a member must meet all of the fol-
lowing criteria:] 
 

(a)  Be serving on active duty in pay grade E-3 or higher in a military 
specialty designated [in the ALDIST].  
 
(b)  Must have completed more than six but not more than ten years of 
active duty immediately preceding the date of reenlistment or opera-
tive date of extension of enlistment. 
 
(c)  The extension of enlistment or reenlistment must be at least THREE 
YEARS  in  length  and,  when  combined  with  prior  active  duty,  must 
yield a total of at least ten years of active duty.  [Emphasis in original] 
 
(d)  Has not previously received a Zone B SRB, nor previously enlisted, 
reenlisted, or extended (extensions that have become effective) beyond 
ten years of active duty. . . .  

commanding officer, … [f]or any number of full years not exceeding 6 years.”  Article 
1.G.80.(c)  stated  that  “[t]he  total  of  all  extensions  of  an  enlistment  may  not  exceed  6 
years.” 
 
 
ALDIST 003/82 
 
 
On January 8, 1982, the Commandant issued ALDIST 003/82, which changed the 
performance requirements for reenlistment and extension.  To be allowed to reenlist or 
extend an enlistment for six years, members were required to have the following aver-
age evaluation marks: 3.6 for proficiency, 3.6 for leadership, and 3.9 for conduct.  Mem-
bers whose evaluation marks were at least 3.3 for proficiency, 3.3 for leadership, and 3.8 
for conduct were allowed to reenlist or extend their enlistments for up to four years.  
The  applicant’s  average performance marks while ALDIST 004/82 was in effect were 
3.5 for proficiency, 3.5 for leadership, and 4.0 for conduct. 
 
Decision BCMR Docket No. 121-93. 
 
 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  121-93,  the  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  reconsider  its 
denial of his request (in the final decision in BCMR Docket No. 237-91) to correct his 
military record to show that he had extended his service on February 14, 1982, and was 
therefore due an SRB.  Although the Board again denied the requested relief, the Dep-
uty General Counsel granted relief, finding in part that  
 
  
because the Coast Guard had presented no evidence as to how the appli-
cant could or should have learned of ALDIST 004/82 any earlier than he claimed, the 
applicant’s  sworn  statement  that  he  learned  of  it  in  1991  would  be  accepted  at  face 
value, especially since “[a]llegations that the first knowledge members have had of the 
provisions of ALDIST 004/82 came from contact with [the ‘C’ school] are common, and 
have often been accepted without challenge in the past”;2 and 
 
 
opportunities.”3  
 
Decision in BCMR Docket No. 69-97 
 

“Coast Guard regulations require that members be ‘fully advised’ of SRB 

In  BCMR  Docket  No.  69-97,  the  Board  granted  the  applicant’s  request  by  cor-
recting his record to show that he extended his enlistment for a period of six years on 
February 14, 1982, in order to receive a Zone B SRB.  He stated that he had not been 
counseled about the SRB opportunity and that, if he had been properly counseled, he 
would have extended his enlistment for six years.  

1. 

2. 

 

                                                 
2 The Deputy General Counsel cited in support BCMR Docket No. 151-91. 
3 The Deputy General Counsel cited BCMR Nos. 224-87, 263-87, 268-87, 285-87 for this position. 

The Deputy General Counsel wrote a concurring decision that responded to sev-
eral of the Coast Guard’s arguments that were not mentioned in the Board’s decision.  
She stated that the applicant’s history of service and his statements concerning the lack 
of proper counseling were sufficient to nullify the presumption of regularity.  She con-
cluded that the “Coast Guard erred in drafting COMDTINST 7220.13E when it failed to 
require mandatory counseling for potential extendees” as it did for potential reenlistees.  
She found that potential extendees has as much right to be advised of their SRB oppor-
tunities under ALDIST 004/82 as did potential reenlistees.  In addition, she cited several 
“Comptroller  General  cases  that  authorize  government  agencies  to  correct  errors  of 
wrongful advice or failure to advise when an employee otherwise meets the statutory 
criteria for obtaining a benefit.”4  
 

                                                 
4 The Deputy General Counsel cited Matter of Hanley, B-202112, November 16, 1981; Matter of Anthony 
M. Ragunas, 68 Comp. Gen. 97 (1988); and Matter of Dale Ziegler and Joseph Rebo, B-199774, November 
12, 1980. 

Decision in BCMR Docket No. 1997-103 

 
In  BCMR  Docket  No.  1997-103,  the  applicant  had  been  counseled  about  his 
opportunity  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  under  ALDIST  340/81  during  a  reenlistment 
interview  on  November  24,  1981.    On  January  12,  1982,  after  ALDIST  004/82  was 
issued, he was again counseled about the chance to receive a Zone A SRB.  However, he 
alleged, he was never counseled that he could receive both a Zone A and a Zone B SRB 
under ALDIST 004/82 by signing a reenlistment contract to get the Zone A SRB before 
February  14,  1982,  and  then  immediately  signing  an  extension  contract  to  extend  his 
new enlistment and receive a Zone B SRB.  Based on the decision of the Deputy General 
Counsel in BCMR Docket No. 121-93 that the Coast Guard had a duty to “fully advise” 
members of their SRB opportunities, the Board decided that relief should be granted by 
correcting  his  record  to  show  that  he  both  reenlisted  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  and 
extended  his  new  enlistment  to  received  a  Zone  B  SRB  while ALDIST 004/82 was in 
effect. 

 
The Deputy General Counsel overturned the Board’s decision and denied relief.  
She  found  that  the  applicant  had  not  demonstrated  that  any  Coast  Guard  regulation 
obligated the service to advise members that they could receive both a Zone A and a 
Zone B SRB through the “loophole” in ALDIST 004/82 by signing two contracts within 
the month it was in effect.  In addition, she found that the applicant had not proved that 
Coast  Guard  personnel  specialists  were  aware  of  this  possibility  or  that  he  had  been 
treated differently than any other member.  Therefore, she found that the applicant had 
not proved that the Coast Guard committed any error or injustice. 
 

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 over this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely. 
 

1. 

2. 

The applicant alleged that if the Coast Guard had properly counseled him 
about ALDIST 004/82, he would have extended his enlistment twice in February 1982:  
first, to receive a Zone A SRB and again to receive a Zone B SRB.  In 1995, the Comman-
dant corrected the applicant’s record to show that he extended his enlistment for four 
years to provide him the maximum Zone A SRB he could have earned under ALDISTs 
340/81, 003/82, and 004/82. 
 

 The Deputy General Counsel has ruled that in 1982, the Coast Guard had 
no duty to counsel its members about the possibility of receiving both a Zone A and a 

3. 

Zone  B  SRB  by  signing  two  contracts  within  the  month  that  ALDIST  004/82  was  in 
effect.  BCMR Docket No. 1997-103.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Coast Guard 
committed no error or injustice by failing to advise the applicant about this aspect of the 
“loophole” created by ALDIST 004/82. 

Under Article 1.G.80.(c) of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1982, “[t]he 
total of all extensions of an enlistment may not exceed 6 years.”  Therefore, after signing 
the four-year extension contract that earned him a Zone A SRB, the applicant could only 
have been allowed to extend his contract for another two years.  Under Section 1.d.(2)(c) 
of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction, members had to extend for at least three years to 
earn  an  SRB,  so  a  two-year  extension  would  not  have  earned the applicant a Zone B 
SRB.  

In  theory,  if  the  applicant  had  fully  absorbed  all  the  provisions  of  the 
ALDISTs  and  the  SRB  Instruction  in  February  1982,  he  could  have  first  extended  his 
enlistment  for  three  years  to  earn  a  Zone  A  SRB  and  then  extended  it  another  three 
years  to  earn  a  Zone  B  SRB.    However,  as  indicated  in  Finding 3, above, the Deputy 
General  Counsel  has  ruled  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  no  duty  to  counsel  its  member 
about this possibility.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s failure to take 
advantage  of  the  ALDIST  004/82  loophole  by  signing  two  three-year  extension  con-
tracts in February 1982 to earn both a Zone A and a Zone B SRB does not constitute an 
error or injustice. 

Furthermore,  under  Article  1.G.80.(a)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  then  in 
effect, the applicant could not have extended his enlistment without his commanding 
officer’s permission.  The applicant has not proved that his commanding officer would 
have allowed him to extend his enlistment for six years by signing two separate three-
year contracts in February 1982.  Such permission would have amounted to a devious 
circumvention of the Commandant’s orders under ALDIST 003/82 because the appli-
cant’s average performance marks for proficiency and leadership were not high enough 
to qualify him for a six-year extension. 
 

7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
Robert A. Monniere 

 

 

 
Blane A. Workie 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 
 

 
 

denied.