DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-113 
 
  
   

 

 
 

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 April 11, 2000, 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  January  4,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, an xxxxxxx asked the Board to correct his military record to make 
him eligible to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he was denied because 
he did not reenlist within three months of his  discharge on July 14, 1999.  Instead, he 
reenlisted on January 7, 2000. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant alleged that soon after his discharge on July 14, 1999, he decided to 
reenlist  and  contacted  his  local  recruiting  office.    He  alleged  that  in  August  1999,  a 
recruiter told him that he could reenlist at the same rank at which he was discharged 
and that he if he came in to “sign the appropriate paperwork” within three months of 
his  discharge  he  would  be  “locked  in”  to  receive  an  SRB.    He  alleged  that  he  was 
advised to contact an xx assignment officer regarding possible assignments and that he 
did so on August 19, 1999.  On September 13, 1999, he went to the recruiting office in 
Boston and signed reenlistment paperwork, which he was told would “lock” him in for 
reenlistment as an xxx and for an SRB. 
 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  paperwork  was  not  promptly  forwarded  to  the 
proper  office,  which  he  was  told  was  the  xx  assignment  officer.    When  he  called  his 
recruiter on September 20, 1999, she told him that she had forgotten to have him sign a 
certain form, but she faxed it to him, and he signed it and faxed it back.  The applicant 
alleged that on September 27, 1999, the assignment officer told him that his paperwork 
still  had  not  been  forwarded.    When  he  called  his  recruiter,  she  said  she  had  not 
received his fax, so he faxed it again and called to verify its receipt. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that on September 29, 1999, the assignment officer told him 
once again told that his paperwork had not arrived from his recruiter.  However, his 
recruiter was on leave, and he was told to call back on October 4, 1999.  When he called 
on October 4th, he was told his paperwork would be sent the same day by FedEx to the 
proper office.  The applicant alleged that at this point he believed he was already guar-
anteed  an  SRB  because  he  had  signed  the  paperwork  and  submitted  it  within  three 
months of his discharge.  Later, however, he discovered that his reenlistment was not 
completely processed until October 20, 1999.  Moreover, he discovered that completion 
and  submission  of  the  paperwork  did  not  by  itself  “lock  in”  an  SRB:  the  regulation 
requires that a member be sworn in within three months of discharge to be eligible for 
an SRB.   
 
The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard erred by failing to process his paper-
 
work with sufficient speed to permit him to reenlist within three months.  In addition, 
he alleged that the Coast Guard erred when it told him that signing and submitting the 
paperwork was all that was required to “lock in” the SRB.  He argued that, if the Coast 
Guard  had  not  committed  these  two  errors,  his  reenlistment  would  have  been  proc-
essed and he would have been sworn in within three months of his discharge to qualify 
for  the  SRB.    Instead,  once  his  reenlistment  was  authorized  on  October  20,  1999,  he 
waited until January 7, 2000, to begin active duty, not knowing that the Coast Guard 
had already delayed his paperwork too long to permit him to qualify for the SRB. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on July 17, 1990, and was discharged 

 
 
upon the expiration of his enlistment (as extended) on July 14, 1999. 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  copies  of  his  phone  bills 
showing that he made 17 long-distance calls to the xx assignment officer at Coast Guard 
Headquarters in August, September, and October 1999.  Four of the calls were made on 
October 13 and 14.  He also submitted copies of paperwork regarding his reenlistment 
dated September 1999 and of the approval of his reenlistment, which is dated October 
20, 1999.   
 

The  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  (DD  Form  4/1)  is  dated  January  6,  2000.  
On  that  contract,  he  initialed  a  statement  indicating  that  no  promises  or  guarantees 
other than those indicated on the contract had been made to him and that no promises 
or guarantees other than those in the contract would be honored.  The contract does not 
mention an SRB.  Annex E to the contract indicates that he was guaranteed an assign-
ment in Coast Guard District 5 (the Mid-Atlantic states). 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

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

 
 
the Board deny relief for lack of merit. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  relief  should  be  denied  because  the  applicant 
“failed  to  point  to  any  regulation  that  requires  a  recruiter  to  submit  and  receive 
approval for a prior-service reenlistment package within any set time schedule.  While 
it appears there were some unfortunate delays in the processing of Applicant’s reenlist-
ment package, the Coast Guard was under no duty to process paperwork within a cer-
tain number of days or weeks.”  The Chief Counsel also argued that the applicant failed 
to prove that his recruiter promised him the SRB in September 1999 or that the Coast 
Guard had a duty to counsel him about the 90-day requirement for SRBs. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  further  argued  that  the  applicant  “failed  to  prove  that  ‘but 
for’  the  alleged  delay  in  the  handling  of  his  reenlistment  package,  he  would  have 
reenlisted within 90 days of his discharge.”  He stated that the fact that the applicant 
did  not  reenlist  until  more  than  two  months  after  his  reenlistment  was  authorized  is 
substantial  proof  that  he  would  not  have  reenlisted  by  October  14,  2000,  even  if  his 
reenlistment had been authorized earlier.  
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that he believes the Board’s jurisdiction over this case is 
“questionable” because the applicant did not allege an error in his record.  He argued 
that the applicant’s complaint is purely monetary and should therefore be presented to 
the  Comptroller  General  under  31  U.S.C.  § 3702.1  The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that,  to 
make the applicant eligible for an SRB, the Board would have to correct his record to 
show that he began active duty in October 1999, which would entitle him to back pay 
and allowances for more than two months, as well as the SRB.  
 
 
Finally, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant involves a “significant issue 
of Coast Guard policy” because a decision to grant relief would “affect the efficient use 

                                                 
1  The  statute  has  been  amended.    Under  31  U.S.C.  §  3702(a),  the  Secretary  of  Defense,  rather  than  the 
Comptroller General, settles members’ monetary claims against the Coast Guard that do not involve any 
alleged error or injustice in their military records. 
 

of  Coast  Guard  resources.”    Therefore,  a  decision  to  grant  relief  would  be  subject  to 
review by the delegate of the Secretary under 33 C.F.R. § 52.64. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On September 29, 2000, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
 
sel’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 reenlistment 
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 interview must 
be documented with an administrative entry in the member’s record.  The administra-
tive 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  184/99,  issued  on  May  13,  1999,  authorized  members  in  the xx rating 
with more than six years of active service who reenlisted or extended their enlistments 
after June 15, 1999, to receive an SRB with a multiple of 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: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

of title 10 of the United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 
 
The applicant requested an oral hearing before the Board.  The Chairman, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.31, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
 
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 with-
in three months of being released from active duty to be eligible for an SRB.  Because 
the applicant did not reenlist within three months of his discharge on July 14, 1999 (by 
October 14, 1999), but waited until January 6, 2000, he was not eligible for an SRB. 
 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard advised him he had “locked 
in” an SRB but then unfairly delayed his reenlistment until he was no longer eligible for 
the SRB.  He stated that, after he was told his paperwork had been submitted on Octo-
ber 5, 1999, by FedEx, he believed he was “locked in” and so waited until January 7, 
2000,  to  reenlist.2    He  alleged  that  if  the  Coast  Guard  had  not  misadvised  him  and 
delayed the processing of his paperwork, he would have reenlisted within three months 
of his date of discharge.   
 
 
The applicant’s phone records prove that he began communicating with 
the  Coast  Guard  about  reenlisting  in  mid  August  1999.    They  show  numerous  calls 
made to the xx assignment officer.  Four of the calls were made on October 13th and 
14th, the last two days the applicant could have reenlisted and received an SRB if his 
paperwork had been processed earlier.  He also signed paperwork regarding his reen-
listment in September 1999. 
 
 
The applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the  Coast  Guard  unreasonably  or  maliciously  delayed  processing  his  reenlistment 
paperwork.    While  he  began  communicating  with  the  xx  assignment  officer  in  mid 
August, he apparently did not sign any paperwork until September 13, 1999, which left 
just one month for the Coast Guard to process it while the applicant was still eligible for 
an SRB.  By choosing to be discharged instead of reenlisting in July 1994 and waiting 
two months after his discharge to sign the initial paperwork, the applicant risked losing 
his  eligibility  for  an  SRB.    The  Coast  Guard  had  no  duty  to  expedite  the  applicant’s 
paperwork so that he could reenlist by October 14, 1999. 
                                                 
2  The applicant is mistaken about the date of his reenlistment.  He signed the contract on January 6, 2000. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

 
 
The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Coast Guard misadvised him about the requirement to reenlist within three months of 
discharge.  Absent strong evidence to the contrary, Coast Guard officers are presumed 
to have acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith in executing their duties.  Arens v. 
United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 
813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  The applicant submitted no affidavits from the persons who alleged-
ly told him the SRB was “locked in.”  Moreover, his four telephone calls to the Coast 
Guard to check on the status of his paperwork on October 13th and 14th indicate some 
continuing  anxiety  about  when  it  would  be  approved,  which  belies  his  claim  that  he 
believed the SRB to be “locked in” at this time. 
 
 
Because  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard  misadvised 
him  or  committed  any  error  or  injustice  when  it  failed  to  authorize  his  reenlistment 
prior to October 14, 1999, it is unnecessary for the Board to address the Chief Counsel’s 
remaining arguments. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

8. 

9. 

 

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

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

hereby denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
Donna L. O'Berry 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis