Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-077
Original file (2000-077.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-077 
 
 
   

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 February 23, 2000, after the 
Board received the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  December  14,  2000,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  an  xxxxxxxxxxxx  on  active  duty  in  the  Coast  Guard,  asked  the 
Board to correct his military record to show that on October 25, 1998, he was discharged 
and reenlisted for six years.  He alleged that the correction would make him eligible to 
receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) under the ALDIST in effect at that time.  
 
 
The applicant alleged that, prior to the end of his first enlistment on October 24, 
1998, when a one-year extension he had previously signed was about to go into effect, 
he was told by his command that he was required to sign a further extension of at least 
one  year  because  of  a  recent  Centralized  First  Term  Reenlistment  Review  (CFTRR) 
panel.    He  alleged  that  he  was  never  counseled  about  SRBs  when  he  signed  his  first 
extension contract and that when he signed the second extension on September 10, 1998, 
the Coast Guard failed to counsel him about his eligibility for an SRB.  He alleged that if 
he had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years to be eligible for 
the SRB instead of merely extending his enlistment for one more year. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 25, 1994, for four years.  On 
July  8,  1996,  he  extended  this  contract  for  one  year,  from  October  25,  1998,  through 
October 24, 1999, in order to obligate sufficient service to be allowed to attend A School.  
The extension contract he signed acknowledges that he was counseled about SRBs, but 
there is no form CG-3307 in his record formally documenting proper SRB counseling.  
The contract indicates that no SRB was authorized for his rating (AVT) at that time. 
 
 
On March 29, 1998, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALDIST 046/98, 
which allowed members to receive an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their current 
enlistments between April 1, 1998 and September 30, 1998.  ALDIST 046/98 provided 
no SRB for members in the AVT rating. 
 
 
On  August  31,  1998,  the  Commandant  issued  ALDIST  206/98,  which  changed 
some  of  the  ratings  eligible  for  SRBs  for  members  who  extended  or  reenlisted  on  or 
after  October  1,  1998.    However,  ALDIST  206/98  did  not  authorize  any  SRBs  for 
members in the AVT rating.   
 
 
On  September  10,  1998,  the  applicant  signed  a  second  one-year  extension  con-
tract, extending his enlistment from October 25, 1999, through October 24, 2000.  The 
contract indicates that the extension was at his own request.  The contract contains the 
same acknowledgement of SRB counseling and indicates that there was no SRB in effect 
for his rating at that time.  On October 25, 1998, the applicant’s first one-year extension 
became operative. 
 

On November 24, 1998, ALDIST 290/98 was issued, immediately changing the 
ratings  eligible  for  SRBs.    Under  ALDIST  290/98,  members  in  the  AVT  rating  who 
reenlisted or extended their enlistments on or after November 25, 1998, for at least three 
years could receive an SRB calculated with a multiple of one. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On August 22, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the extension contract the applicant signed on Sep-
tember 10, 1998, proves that he was properly counseled concerning SRBs.  Moreover, he 
stated, even if the applicant had reenlisted or extended his enlistment for six years on 
that date or any time prior to the end of his enlistment on October 24, 1998, he would 
not have received an SRB because none was authorized for members in the AVT rating.  
Therefore, he argued, even if the Board were to find that the Coast Guard had erred by 
failing to require the applicant to sign a CG-3307 acknowledging formal SRB counsel-
ing, that error must be considered harmless because there was no SRB in effect for the 
applicant’s rating. 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Paragraph 2 of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment 
 
Bonus Programs Administration) states 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 [CG-3307] service record entry, enclosure (3), 
outlining the effect that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
 
 
Paragraph 3.a. of Enclosure (1) provides that, to be eligible to receive an SRB, the 
member must sign a reenlistment or extension contract of at least three years while an 
ALDIST authorizing an SRB for his rating is in effect. 
 

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, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

Under ALDIST 046/98, the applicant, as a member of the AVT rating, was 
not eligible for an SRB when he signed a one-year extension contract in September 1998.  
Nor were members in the AVT rating eligible for an SRB at any time in October 1998 
under  ALDIST  206/98,  when  his  enlistment  ended  and  his  first  extension  went  into 
effect.  Therefore, the relief requested by the applicant—a six-year reenlistment dated 
October 25, 1998—would not make the applicant eligible for an SRB. 

 

 
3. 

 
4. 

No SRB was available for members in the AVT rating until November 25, 
1998,  when  ALDIST  290/98  went  into  effect.    Because  the  applicant’s  first  enlistment 
ended on October 24, 1998, he was required to have a reenlistment or extension contract 
signed and operative as of October 25, 1998.   

CFTRR policy requires members to obligate at least two years of service 
past the end of their original enlistments.  ALDIST 154/97.  Moreover, voluntary exten-
sions  at  the  request  of  the  member  must  be  at  least  two  years  in  length.    Personnel 
Manual, Article 1.G.14.a.1.  Therefore, to remain on active duty past October 24, 1998, 
the  applicant  was  required  to  have  already  obligated  service  for  at  least  another two 
years.   
 
5. 

Under Article 1.G.17.b. of the Personnel Manual, members may reenlist or 
extend their enlistments only within the last three months of an enlistment, unless they 
are required to extend for a specific purpose, such as to attend school or accept overseas 

orders.  Therefore, the applicant’s extension that went into effect on October 25, 1998, 
made him ineligible to reenlist or extend on November 25, 1998, when ALDIST 290/98 
authorized an SRB for his rating.   

Because the applicant was never eligible for an SRB prior to the end of his 
first four-year enlistment and was not eligible to reenlist or extend when an SRB went 
into  effect  for  his  rating  on  November  25,  1998,  any  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Coast 
Guard  to  counsel  him  properly  or  to  document  that  counseling  on  a  CG-3307  was 
harmless. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

ORDER 

 

 

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

hereby denied.   

 
6. 

 
7. 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
Beverly Russell 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2001-074

    Original file (2001-074.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The contract itself contains language acknowledging SRB counseling, but the SRB information is marked “NA.” Also on March 2, 1998, at 13:22 Greenwich Mean Time, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued ALDIST 046/98, which allowed members in the DC rating to receive an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their current enlistments between April 1, 1998 and September 30, 1998. Therefore, he alleged, “it is highly unlikely that the Applicant’s unit had received ALDIST 046/98 at the time...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-034

    Original file (1999-034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 23, 1999, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record by voiding his current reenlistment contract and releasing him from his military obligation due to an administrative error. “If this is not possible, I request that my reenlistment date of 31 March 1998 be changed to 01 April 1998 in order to qualify for the [SRB].” APPLICANT’S...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-040

    Original file (1999-040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated September 23, 1999, 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. The applicant alleged that he extended his contract for six years to receive the SRB. The Chief Counsel also stated that the applicant is an outstanding performer who “took appropriate action to rectify the alleged error after its discovery.” The Chief...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2005-034

    Original file (2005-034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated August 11, 2005, is signed by the three duly appointed APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling his five- year extension contract dated April 2, 1999, and replacing it with a seven-month extension followed by a six-year reenlistment to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 calculated with a multiple of 2.0. to obligate sufficient service to transfer and reenlisted when the SRB was...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-062

    Original file (1999-062.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleged that, had the ALDIST been properly issued at least one month before its effective date, he would have canceled the extension he signed on October 20, 1998, and extended his contract for just a month in order to remain eligible to receive an SRB under ALDIST 290/98 for three full years of service. On February 2, 1999, the applicant’s commanding officer wrote a letter to the BCMR “strongly endors[ing] his request that this matter be addressed by the Board.” He stated...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-033

    Original file (2000-033.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 also stated that the...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-015

    Original file (1999-015.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Appli- cant’s record also demonstrates that he is a good performer ….” However, the Chief Counsel noted that, if the applicant had extended his original enlistment contract for two years on January 24, 1996, he would have had to execute another, 38-month extension on January 23, 1998, in order “to meet his PCS OBLISERV for accepting orders to the CGC xxxxxx.” Therefore, the Chief Counsel argued, “the Board’s Order should state that the Applicant had prior obligated service through 22 March...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 2000-024

    Original file (2000-024.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On June 26, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request. (3) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs Administration) states that to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, a member must “[h]ave completed at least 6 but not more than 10 years active service on the date of reenlistment or the operative date of the extension.” Section 3.d. The Chief Counsel recommended that the Board...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-056

    Original file (1999-056.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AMENDED ORDER The Board’s order correcting the military record of XXXXX, USCG, is hereby amended to read as follows: Her record shall be corrected to show that on December 24, 1998, she reenlisted The extension contracts signed by the applicant on September 30, 1998, and for six years for the purpose of receiving an SRB with a multiple of three under ALDIST 290/98. 1999-056 The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct her military record by...

  • CG | BCMR | SRBs | 1999-178

    Original file (1999-178.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This final decision, dated May 18, 2000, is signed by the three duly RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to make him eligible for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALDIST 290/98. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On March 28, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request for relief by reenlisting him for six years as of April 19, 1999. The Chief...