TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ORDER 

 
 
This is a proceeding conducted under 33 C.F.R. § 52.73 at the request of the 
Chief of the Office of Military Justice of the Coast Guard to consider a technical 
amendment to the order issued by the Board in Docket No. 2000-116.   
 

In its Final Decision in Docket No. 2000-116, the Board found that the appli-
cant had missed an opportunity to receive a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus 
(SRB) because his command failed to include his 3 years and 9 months of active 
service  in  the  Navy  when  calculating  his  total  active  service.    As  a  result  of  his 
command’s miscalculation, the applicant was wrongly and unnecessarily required 
to extend his enlistment on February 23, 1996, and July 13, 2000, and he missed an 
opportunity to receive a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 184/99 in November 1999. 

 
Accordingly, the Board granted relief by (a) voiding the applicant’s Febru-
ary 23, 1996, extension contract; (b) correcting his record to show that he extended 
his enlistment for two years, from November 9, 1997, through November 8, 1999; 
(c)  correcting  his  record  to  show  that  he  extended  his  enlistment  a  second  time 
beginning on November 9, 1999, and running continuously thereafter for 2, 3, 4, 5, 
or 6 years, at the applicant’s sole discretion; and (d) voiding a 4-month extension 
contract  that  he  had  signed  on  July  13,  2000.    Under  the  order,  if  the  applicant 
chose his November 9, 1999, extension to run for at least 3 years, he would receive 
a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 184/99.   
 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-116 
 
 
   

REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT 

On March 12, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard requested that the 
Board correct its order to take into account Article 1.G.14.c. of the Personnel Man-
ual, which states that “[t]he total of all extensions of an enlistment may not exceed 
six years.”  He pointed out that, under this rule, the applicant’s new November 9, 

1999, extension contract could not be for more than 4 years because his original 
enlistment had already been extended for two years under the order to cover his 
service from November 9, 1997, through November 8, 1999.  Therefore, under the 
order  as  written,  the  applicant  could  not  receive  the  maximum  6-year  SRB  for 
which he was eligible.   

The Chief Counsel asked the Board to amend its order to show the Novem-
ber 9, 1999, contract as a reenlistment contract rather than an extension contract.  
With this technical amendment, the applicant would have the option of reenlisting 
for 6 years to get the maximum possible SRB. 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The Board finds that its original order in this case, though intended to allow 
the  applicant  to  receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  for a 6-year contract, erroneously limited 
him to a 4-year extension contract because of the limitation on extensions in Arti-
cle  1.G.14.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Therefore,  the  Board  should  amend  its 
order  to  allow  the  applicant  to  reenlist  for  up  to  6  years  on  November  9,  1999, 
instead of extending his original enlistment.  The order below shows the amended 
language underlined. 
 

ORDER AS AMENDED 

 

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

His 3-year and 5-month extension contract dated February 23, 1996, shall be 

His  record  shall  show  that  he  extended  his  first  enlistment  for  two  years 

record is granted as follows:   
 
• 
null and void. 
 
• 
from November 9, 1997, through November 8, 1999. 
 
His record shall show that he reenlisted on November 9, 1999.  The dura-
• 
tion of this enlistment shall be for 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at the applicant’s discretion.  
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the Zone B SRB he shall be due as a result 
of this correction under ALDIST 184/99. 
 
• 
void.  
 
 
 
April 12, 2001
Date 
 

His  4-month  extension  contract  signed on July 13, 2000, shall be null and 

 
 

 

        

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-116 
 
 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on April  18, 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  January  4,  2001,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxxxx, asked the Board to grant him an “eligibility 
waiver”  so  that  he  could  receive  the  maximum  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment 
bonus (SRB)1 available for his rating. 
                                                 
1    SRBs  vary  according  to  the length of each member’s active service, the amount of newly obli-
gated service, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s particular skills.  
Members who have served between 21 months and 6 years on active duty are in “Zone A,” while 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

 

The  applicant  alleged  that  in  February  1996,  he  was  erroneously  advised 
that because he had performed less than 6 years of active duty in the Coast Guard, 
he  was  in  Zone  A  and  was  required  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  3  years  and  5 
months in order to accept transfer orders.  In fact, because he had performed more 
than  6  years  of  total  active  military  service  and  his  then-current  enlistment  still 
had 21 months to run, he was not required to extend his enlistment at all to accept 
the  orders  under  Article  4.B.6.a.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    He  alleged  that  this 
mistake was made because, prior to entering the Coast Guard, he had served more 
than 3 years and 9 months in the Navy and National Guard, which had not been 
taken into account. 
 
 
The applicant also alleged that on April 4, 2000, nearing the end of his tour, 
he  submitted  a  career  intention  worksheet  on  which  he  requested  reenlistment 
and a Zone B SRB since he had served on active duty in the Coast Guard for more 
than  6  but  less  than  10  years.    However,  he  was  told  that  because  he  had  per-
formed more than 10 years of total active military service, he was no longer eligi-
ble for a Zone B SRB.  Therefore, the applicant alleged that he was unjustly denied 
an SRB because of the erroneous counseling he had received. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

On November 9, 1993, the applicant enlisted as an E-3 in the Coast Guard 
for four years, through November 8, 1997.  Prior to entering the Coast Guard, he 
had  served  more  than  3  years  and  9  months  on  active  duty  in  the  Navy  and 
National Guard.  On January 1, 1996, he was advanced to xx3, pay grade E-4. 

 
On  February  23,  1996,  the  applicant  extended  this  enlistment  for  3  years 
and 5 months, from November 9, 1997, through April 8, 2001, to obligate sufficient 
service to accept transfer orders to a new station.  The extension contract indicates 
that he was advised he was still in Zone A, even though by that date he had per-
formed more than 6 years of active military service and was therefore already in 
Zone B.  Apparently because of this miscalculation, he was required to extend his 
enlistment to cover a full tour at the new station.  Under Article 4.B.6.a. of the Per-
sonnel Manual, members who have served less than 6 years of active duty must 
obligate themselves to serve for a full tour before they can accept transfer orders.  
However, members with more than 6 years of active duty are considered to be in 
“career status” and need obligate themselves to serve only one full year at a new 
station to accept transfer orders.  When the applicant signed the extension contract 
                                                                                                                                                    
those  who  have  served  more  than  6  but  less  than  10  years  are  in  “Zone  B.”    Members  may  not 
receive more than one bonus per zone. 

on  February  23,  1996,  his  enlistment  still  had  21  months  left  to  run,  which  was 
more than sufficient to cover his first year at his new station, from April 26, 1996, 
through April 25, 1997. 

 
On July 1, 1998, the applicant was advanced to xx2, pay grade E-5. 
 
On October 12, 1999, the applicant signed a form, CG-3307, acknowledging 
that  he  had  been  counseled  about  his  SRB eligibility under ALDIST 184/99 and 
that he had read and understood the terms of the SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 
7220.33.  His 10th anniversary on active duty fell on January 20, 2000.  Thereafter, 
he entered Zone C, for which no SRBs are authorized. 

 
On  July  13,  2000,  the  applicant  signed  another  contract,  extending  his 
enlistment for 4 months, from April 9, 2001, through August 8, 2001.  The exten-
sion contract indicates that the extension was necessary for him to accept transfer 
orders to a new station as of August 1, 2000.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  29,  2000,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-

 
 
mended that the Board grant partial relief. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the record supports the applicant’s allegation 
that  he  was  erroneously  required  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  3  years  and  5 
months when he accepted transfer orders in February 1996.  However, the Chief 
Counsel denied that the applicant should have or could have expected a Zone B 
SRB when he submitted his career intention worksheet in April 2000.  The Chief 
Counsel  stated  that  the  CG-3307  signed  by  the  applicant  on  October  12,  1999, 
proves that he was properly counseled about SRBs approximately 3 months prior 
to  his 10th anniversary on active duty, as required by the SRB Instruction.  The 
Chief Counsel alleged that only the upcoming 10th anniversary would have trig-
gered  that  counseling  session.    Therefore,  he  alleged,  the  applicant  must  have 
known or been told that his 10th anniversary fell on January 20, 2000, and that he 
would receive a Zone B SRB only if he reenlisted or extended his enlistment by 
that day.   
 

The Chief Counsel further alleged that, even if the applicant remained con-
fused  and  mistook  his  10th  anniversary  counseling  on  October  12,  1999,  for  6th 
anniversary  counseling,  he  would  have  believed  that  his  6th  anniversary,  as 
counted from his entry into the Coast Guard, was November 9, 1999.  Therefore, 
he argued, “the Board should conclude that it is unable to determine how Appli-
cant might have believed, under any scenario, that he was eligible to reenlist for 

an SRB in April 2000, even in light of the alleged faulty assumptions he may have 
reached based on the incorrect information he received in February 1996.”2 

 
The Chief Counsel concluded that because the applicant has proved that he 
was  erroneously  counseled  in  1996  but  has  not  proved  any  error  by  the  Coast 
Guard with respect to his SRB eligibility in 1999 or 2000, the Board should correct 
the applicant’s record by voiding the unnecessary February 23, 1996, extension.  If 
the  applicant  had  not  signed  that  extension,  he  would  have  been  required  to 
reenlist or extend his enlistment at the end of his original enlistment on November 
9, 1997.  On that day, the Chief Counsel alleged, the applicant would have been 
eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one.3  Therefore, the Chief Counsel 
recommended  that  the  Board  correct  the  applicant’s  record  to  show  that  he 
reenlisted on November 9, 1997, for 6 years to receive the maximum authorized 
Zone B SRB for his rating. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  September  29,  2000,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy of the Chief 
Counsel’s recommendation and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On Octo-
ber 18, 2000, the applicant responded, stating that he agreed with the Chief Coun-
sel’s recommended relief. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual states the members with less than 
6  years  of  active  duty  “will  not  normally  be  transferred  unless  they  reenlist  or 
extend  to  have  enough  obligated  service  for  a  full  tour  on  reporting  to  a  new 
unit.”    Article  4.B.6.a.2.  states  that  members  in  pay  grade  “E-4  and  above  with 
over  six  years  of  active  duty  are  considered  to  be  in  a  career  status.    Unless 
otherwise indicated, they are required to have only one year of [obligated service] 
remaining upon reporting to a new unit.” 
                                                 
2  The Chief Counsel apparently misinterpreted the applicant’s claim.  His advisory opinion indi-
cates that he thought the applicant was claiming that, based on the erroneous counseling in 1996, 
he reasonably believed that his 10th anniversary fell in April 2000 and that he could reenlist on his 
10th anniversary.  In fact, the applicant claimed that, based on the erroneous counseling in 1996, he 
reasonably believed in April 2000 that he was still in Zone B and would be eligible for an SRB when 
he reenlisted or extended his enlistment to accept new transfer orders.  He reasonably expected to 
have to reenlist or extend his enlistment in the near future because in April 2000 he was once again 
nearing the end of a tour of duty, expected to be transferred in August 2000, and was obligated to 
serve only through April 8, 2001, which would not cover one full year at a new station.  Therefore, 
the applicant’s alleged expectation of receiving a Zone B SRB was reasonable. 
3  In making this allegation, the Chief Counsel apparently misread ALDIST 226/97, under which no 
Zone  B  SRB  was  in  effect  for  members  in  the  BM  rating  on  November  9,  1997.    In  addition,  he 
apparently  did  not  realize  that  the  applicant  was  ineligible  for  a  Zone  B SRB in November 1997 
because he was still a xx3 and was not advanced to xx2 until July 1, 1998. 

Article 1.G.14.a. states that voluntary extensions of enlistments shall be for 

 
 
“any number of full years not less than two nor greater than six.” 
 

Section 3.d.9. of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus 

Programs Administration) states as follows: 
 

Commanding  officers  are  authorized  to  effect  early  discharge  and  reenlist  mem-
bers within 3 months prior to their 6th, 10th, or 14th year active service anniver-
sary  dates  (not  to  be  confused  with  the  normal  expiration  of  enlistment),  for  the 
purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respectively. 
  
 
Enclosure  (3)  to  the  SRB  Instruction  states  that  during  the  three  months 
prior to their 6th, 10th, and 14th anniversary dates, members must be counseled 
concerning their eligibility for an SRB.  The counseling must be memorialized in 
their records with a form CG-3307 signed by the member.  In addition, under Sec-
tion 2 to Enclosure (1), members must be counseled about the SRB program and 
sign  a  CG-3307  every  time  they  reenlist  or  extend  for  any  reason  and  for  any 
length of time.  
 

Under Section 3 of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction, members are only 
eligible  for  Zone  A  SRBs  when  they  have  performed  less  than  6  years  of  active 
duty “at any point in their military career.”  Upon their sixth active duty anniver-
sary,  they  enter  Zone  B.    Section  3.b.(4)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  SRB  Instruction 
states  that,  to  be  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB,  members  must  “[b]e  serving  in  pay 
grade E-5 or higher.”  To receive a Zone A or Zone B SRB, members must reenlist 
or extend their enlistments for at least 3 years.  Enclosure (1), Sections 3.a.(5) and 
3.b.(5).  
 
ALDIST 003/94, which was still in effect on the applicant’s sixth active duty 
anniversary on January 20, 1996, did not authorize any SRBs for members in the 
xx rating. 

 
ALDIST 135/97, issued on June 5, 1997, established SRBs for personnel in 
certain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments between July 1, 
1997,  and  September  30,  1997.    The  multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for 
members in the xx rating in Zone A was one.  No SRB was authorized for mem-
bers in the xx rating in Zone B.  
 

ALDIST  226/97,  issued  on  September  30,  1997,  authorized  members  to 
receive an SRB if they reenlisted or extended their enlistments between October 1, 
1997, and March 31, 1998.  No Zone B SRB was authorized for members in the xx 
rating.  
 

ALDIST 184/99, issued on May 13, 1999, authorized members to receive an 
SRB  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  June  15,  1999,  and 
December 31, 1999.  The multiple to be used for calculating Zone B SRBs for mem-
bers in the xx 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 
applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 

1552 of title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

As the Chief Counsel admitted, the preponderance of the evidence 
indicates that the applicant was erroneously required to extend his enlistment for 
3 years and 5 months in February 23, 1996, to accept transfer orders.  On that day, 
he was in pay grade E-4, he had performed over 6 years of active duty, and he had 
already  obligated  sufficient  service  to  cover  at  least  one  full  year  at  his  new 
station.  That first year began on April 26, 1996, and ended April 25, 1997.  His first 
enlistment was not due to end until November 8, 1997. 
 
 
The applicant should not have been required to reenlist or extend his 
enlistment until his first enlistment ended on November 8, 1997.  Because of the 
Coast  Guard’s  error,  his  service  obligation  was  unjustly  extended  until  he  had 
served more than 10 years of active duty and was ineligible for a Zone B SRB. 
  

3. 

5. 

4. 

 The  Chief Counsel recommended that the Board correct the appli-
cant’s record by voiding the February 23, 1996, extension and reenlisting him for 6 
years as of November 9, 1997.  This recommendation was based on the belief that 
the  correction  would  entitle  the applicant to a Zone B SRB for 6 years of newly 
obligated service.  The applicant agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation 
based on the belief that it would entitle him to a Zone B SRB. 
 

The Chief Counsel’s recommended correction would not entitle the 
applicant to a Zone B SRB.  Neither ALDIST 226/97 nor ALDIST 135/97, which 
were in effect during the last three months of the applicant’s enlistment in the fall 
of 1997, authorized a Zone B SRB for members in the xx rating.  Moreover, under 
Section 3.b.(4) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction, the applicant did not meet 
the criteria for a Zone B SRB because he was still in pay grade E-4 in November 
1997.  Therefore, even if the Board corrected the applicant’s record as recommend-
ed by the Chief Counsel, the correction would not result in any SRB payment to 
him. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
 

To remain on active duty past November 8, 1997, the applicant was 
required,  at  a  minimum,  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  at  least  2  years,  through 
November  8,  1999.    Personnel  Manual, Article 1.G.14.a.1.  If he had done so, he 
would have been required to reenlist or extend his enlistment again as of Novem-
ber 9, 1999, to remain on active duty.  On that day, if he had reenlisted or extended 
his  enlistment  for  at least 3 years, he would have received a Zone B SRB under 
ALDIST 184/99 because he had been advanced to xx2, pay grade E-5, and had not 
yet completed 10 full years of active duty. 

Therefore, relief should be granted to the applicant by (a) voiding his 
February  23,  1996,  extension  contract;  (b)  correcting  his  record  to  show  that  he 
extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years,  from  November  9,  1997,  through 
November  8,  1999;  (c)  correcting  his  record  to  show  that  he  extended  his 
enlistment  a  second  time  beginning  on  November  9,  1999,  and  running 
continuously thereafter for 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at the applicant’s sole discretion; 
and (d) voiding the applicant’s 4-month extension contract that he signed on July 
13, 2000.  If the applicant chooses his November 9, 1999, extension to run for at 
least 3 years, the contract will entitle him to a Zone B SRB under ALDIST 184/99.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 

ORDER 

 

 

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

record is hereby granted as follows:   

•  His 3-year and 5-month extension contract dated February 23, 1996, shall be 
null and void. 

•  His  record  shall  show  that  he  extended  his  first  enlistment  for  two  years 
from November 9, 1997, through November 8, 1999. 

•  His record shall show that he extended his enlistment a second time begin-
ning on November 9, 1999.  The duration of this second extension shall be for 
2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, at the applicant’s discretion.  If he chooses an extension of 
at  least  3  years,  the  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the  Zone  B  SRB  he 
shall be due as a result of this correction under ALDIST 184/99. 

•  His  4-month  extension  contract  signed on July 13, 2000, shall be null and 
void.  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Stephen H. Barber 

 

 

 
Donna L. O'Berry 

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis