DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-122 
 
 
   

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 May 1, 2000, following the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated March 29, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxx 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.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that he was never counseled about his eligibility to receive 
an SRB by extending his enlistment in 1982.  When ALDIST 004/82 was in effect, most 
of the members of his unit at the military Pay Center had just been transferred to xxxxx, 

                                                 
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.  Members may not receive more than one bonus per 
zone. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

but he had been left behind to finish shipping records to the new location.  He alleged 
that,  if he had been counseled, he would have extended his enlistment to receive the 
maximum possible bonus.  The applicant stated that he did not discover his eligibility 
for this SRB until March 22, 2000, when he was reminiscing with an old friend. 

 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on October 2, 1978, for a term of four 
years, through October 1, 1982.  While attending “A” School to become a xxxxx in 1980, 
he  was  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  (NJP).    The  court  memorandum  for  this 
offense is no longer in his record.  He graduated and was promoted to xxx on July 15, 
1980.  He was assigned to the Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center and was promot-
ed to xxx on August 1, 1981.   
 

On  xxxxxxx,  the  applicant  was  again  awarded  NJP,  this  time  for  assaulting 
another  member  with  a  metal  curtain  rod  in  a  manner  “likely  to  produce  grievous 
bodily  harm.”    He  was  reduced  to  xxx  and  fined  $200.    As  of  January  18,  1982,  the 
applicant’s average evaluation marks for his enlistment were 3.5 for proficiency, 3.4 for 
leadership, and 3.9 for conduct.  On January 19, 1982, he received new evaluation marks 
of 3.6 in proficiency, 3.4 in leadership, and 4.0 in conduct, making his average marks for 
the enlistment 3.5 for proficiency, 3.4 for leadership, and 3.9 for conduct. 

 
There is no evidence in his record that the applicant was ever advised about the 
provisions of ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82.  On June 2, 1982, the applicant extended his 
enlistment  for  three  years,  through  October  1,  1985,  to  obligate  sufficient  service  for 
transfer to a new unit.  On November 16, 1982, he was again advanced to xxx. 

 
On October 1, 1985, the applicant extended his enlistment for another 18 months, 
through April 1, 1987.  On March 18, 1987, he extended his enlistment for another year, 
through April 1, 1988.  On April 1, 1988, the applicant was discharged and immediately 
reenlisted for three years.  On April 1, 1991, he was discharged and immediately reen-
listed for four years, through March 31, 1995.  On November 1, 1991, he was advanced 
to xxx. 
 
On  May  1,  1994,  he  extended  the  enlistment  for  four  months, through July 31, 
1995.  On March 28, 1995, he was discharged and immediately reenlisted for four years, 
through March 27, 1999.  On March 11, 1999, he extended his enlistment for two years 
and seven months, through October 27, 2001.   

 
The  applicant  has  never  received  a  reenlistment  bonus.    He  remains  on  active 

duty.   
  

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On November 21, 2000, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard issued a one-para-
graph  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s  request 
because “its fact pattern [is] analogous to the fact pattern in BCMR Docket No. 1999-022.  
Therefore, the Coast Guard recommends relief consistent with [the Board’s] decision in 
that case.”  

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On  November  28,  2000,  the  Chairman  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief 
Counsel’s advisory opinion, along with a copy of the Board’s final decision in BCMR 
Docket No. 1999-022, and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant  did not 
respond.   
 

APPLICABLE LAW AND PRECEDENT CASES 

 
Eligibility for Reenlistment or Extension 
 
 
Article 1-G-64 of the Coast Guard Manual in effect in 1982 stated that “[t]o be eli-
gible for reenlistment a person must meet the following requirements: … (c) Be recom-
mended  for  reenlistment  by  the  officer  effecting  discharge.”    Article  1-G-80(a)  stated 
that “[t]he term of enlistment of an enlisted person of the Regular Coast Guard may, by 
his/her voluntary written agreement, subject to approval by his/her commanding offi-
cer, be extended or reextended.” 
 
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.c.(6) of Enclosure (1) stated 
that early separation could only occur “within three months of [the end of] activated 
obligated  service,  in  accordance  with  Article  12-B-7  [of  the]  Personnel  Manual  .  .  .  .”  
Section  1.d.(1)  of  Enclosure  (1)  provided  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 SRB announcement].  
 
(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] 

 

 
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.” 
 
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. 
 
ALDISTs 004/82 and 340/81 

 
(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. . . .  
 

 
On  January  12,  1982,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  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 xx rating who extended their 
enlistments or reenlisted under ALDIST 340/81 were calculated with a multiple of one.  
The Zone B SRBs authorized for xxs who extended their enlistments or reenlisted were 
calculated with a multiple of two.  ALDIST 004/82 also temporarily waived the require-
ment that members 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  February  15,  1982.    After  February  15,  1982,  no  Zone  A  or  Zone  B  SRBs  were 
authorized for members in the xx rating.   
 
Decision in BCMR Docket No. 69-97 
 

In BCMR Docket No. 69-97, the applicant had reenlisted on May 2, 1980, for a six-
year term, after completing his first, four-year enlistment.  Subsequently, the applicant 
extended his enlistment three times for periods of two years or less before reenlisting 
for  three  years  on  March  1,  1991,  and  for  another  six  years  on  January  6,  1994.    The 
applicant asked the BCMR to correct 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 if he had been properly counseled, he “would have taken the necessary steps 
to secure [a] zone ‘B’ bonus.”  There was no documentation in the applicant’s record to 
indicate that he was ever advised of the provisions of ALDIST 004/82 while it was in 
effect.  
 
 
The Board recommended that the requested relief be granted.  That recommen-
dation was based in part on (1) the applicant’s sworn statement that he had not been 
properly counseled about ALDIST 004/82 when it was in effect and had not learned of 
it until 1997; (2) the applicant’s statement that he would have extended his enlistment to 
receive  the  SRB  had  he  known  of  the  opportunity;  (3) the applicant’s previous enlist-
ments  and  subsequent  years  of  service,  which  provided  a  reasonable  basis  to  believe 
that  he  would  have  extended  his  service  obligation  had  he  been  properly  counseled 
about ALDIST 004/82; and (4) the Coast Guard’s failure to reveal if and how informa-
tion about ALDIST 004/82 had been disseminated to the members. 

 
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 also 
found unpersuasive the argument that the applicant’s short extensions showed that he 
was not, in fact, committed to a career in the Coast Guard and therefore was not likely 
to  seek  a  maximum  SRB.    She  concluded  that  the  “Coast  Guard  erred  in  drafting 
COMDTINST  7220.13E  when  it  failed  to  require  mandatory  counseling  for  potential 
extendees . . . .”  BCMR Docket No. 69-97, Deputy General Counsel’s Concurring Deci-
sion, at 3.  Therefore, she found, potential extendees such as the applicant should have 
been fully advised of their SRB opportunities under ALDIST 004/82.  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.”2  BCMR Docket No. 69-97, Deputy General Counsel’s 
Concurring Decision, at 11. 
 

Decision in BCMR Docket No. 1999-022 
 
In  his  advisory  opinion  recommending  a  grant  of  relief  in  this  case,  the  Chief 
Counsel  cited  the  Board’s  decision  in  BCMR  Docket  No.  1999-022.    In  that  case,  the 
applicant was never counseled about ALDIST 004/82.  At the end of his enlistment in 
1983,  he  continued  to  serve  on  active  duty  through  a  series  of  short-term  extensions.  
The Board granted relief, in accordance with the decision in BCMR Docket No. 69-97, 
finding that the applicant’s series of short-term extensions did not prove that he would 

                                                 
2 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. 

not have extended his enlistment for four years in 1982 to receive the maximum possi-
ble Zone B SRB for which he was eligible. 

 
Decision in BCMR Docket No. 1999-066 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-066, the applicant sought to be reenlisted retroactively 
on his sixth active duty anniversary to receive an SRB under ALDIST 135/97.  The Chief 
Counsel recommended denying relief, arguing that the applicant’s commanding officer 
would  not  have  recommended  him  for  a  six-year  reenlistment  in  September  1997 
because of his poor performance record.    

 
The applicant in BCMR Docket No. 1999-066 had received three negative page 7 
administrative  entries  in  his  record  on  April  30,  1997,  documenting  substandard  per-
formance and unwillingness to follow instructions.  His commanding officer noted that 
his work required constant monitoring and supervision.  He received criticism for poor-
ly prioritizing his work, supervising subordinates, and  following instructions.  It was 
also noted that he had failed to prepare his unit for inspection and frequently failed to 
keep his superiors informed.  On May 5, 1997, that applicant received a fourth page 7 
entry, for improper watch standing, failing to secure the stern mooring lines of a board, 
and failing to follow set policy by informing the chain of command that the boat’s brow 
was  removed.    On  May  12,  1997,  he  received  a  fifth  page  7  entry  noting  that he had 
failed to complete Boatcrew Qualification and “Nav Rules.”  The page 7 stated that he 
must complete both by November 12, 1997, or he would be transferred and that during 
the six-month period, he would not be recommended for advancement.  On August 13, 
1997, the applicant received a sixth page 7 entry noting that his commanding officer had 
lost confidence in his ability to qualify as a coxswain.  After nine months at the unit, he 
had not yet qualified as a boatcrewman and had failed the Nav Rules course four times.  
The page 7 stated that his “navigational skills underway are questionable at the very 
least.”  On August 24, 1997, he received a seventh page 7 entry noting that he had not 
responded  to  the  unit  after  being  paged  twice  and  after  a  message  was  left  on  his 
answering machine.  Apparently, he had failed to take his pager with him when he left 
home, in violation of policy. 

 
The applicant’s sixth anniversary on active duty in the Coast Guard occurred on 
September  17,  1997.    There  was  no  form  CG-3307  in  his  record  showing  that  he  was 
counseled  concerning  his  opportunity  to  seek  an  SRB  by  requesting  discharge  and 
reenlistment during the three months prior to his sixth anniversary.  However, his per-
formance apparently did not improve because on September 25, 1997, he was counseled 
concerning his “future in the Coast Guard” and advised to change rates.  Moreover, on 
October  25,  1997,  he  was  informed  that  he  might  be  reduced  in  rate  “by  reason  of 
incompetency,” and on October 31, 1997, he received two page 7 entries noting that he 
had received very low marks on his performance evaluation for “professional/specialty 
knowledge,” “quality of work,” “directing others,” and “responsibility.”   

 

1. 

2. 

 
 
The Board denied relief in this case, finding that even if the applicant had been 
counseled  concerning  the  SRB  opportunity,  his  commanding  officer  would  not  have 
recommended him for reenlistment. 
 

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 applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error that he has asked 
the Board to correct on March 22, 2000.  The Coast Guard did not present any evidence 
indicating that the applicant knew or might have learned of his eligibility to receive an 
SRB under ALDIST 004/82 any earlier than the date of discovery alleged by the appli-
cant.  Therefore, the Board finds that the application was timely as it was filed within 
three years of the date of discovery of the alleged error. 
 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  to  show  that  he 
extended his enlistment for six years in February 1982 so that he might receive a Zone B 
SRB, calculated with a multiple of two, under ALDIST 004/82.  He alleged that he was 
never told about ALDIST 004/82 and that, if he had been properly advised of the SRB 
opportunity, he would have extended his enlistment for six years.   

3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

The  applicant  was  in  Zone  A  at  the  time,  and  his  enlistment  ran  only 
through October 1, 1982, at which point he was still have been in Zone A.  Therefore, if 
he had signed a six-year extension in February 1982, it would have qualified him only 
for a Zone A SRB.3  Under ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82, the Zone A SRB for members 
in the xx rating was calculated with a multiple of one. 

The  Deputy  General  Counsel  has  held  that  the  “Coast  Guard  erred  in 
drafting  COMDTINST  7220.13E  when  it  failed  to  require  mandatory  counseling  for 
potential extendees on an equal basis with potential reenlistees.” BCMR Docket No. 69-
97, Deputy General Counsel’s Concurring Decision, at 3.  Furthermore, the Deputy Gen-
eral  Counsel  has  held  that  “Coast  Guard  regulations  require  that  members  be  ‘fully 

                                                 
3  In theory, the applicant could have signed two extension contracts in February 1982: the first extending 
his enlistment into Zone B and possibly qualifying him for a Zone A reenlistment (if the extension ran for 
at  least  three  years)  and  the  second  qualifying  him  for  a  Zone  B  SRB.    However,  the  Deputy  General 
Counsel  has  determined  that  the  Coast  Guard  had  no  duty  to  counsel  members  in  Zone  A  that  under 
ALDIST 004/82 they might also be eligible for a Zone B SRB if they extended their enlistments twice.  See 
Decision of the Deputy General Counsel, Acting Under Delegated Authority, BCMR Docket No. 103-97. 

6. 

advised’ of SRB opportunities.”  BCMR Docket No. 121-93, Decision of the Deputy Gen-
eral Counsel, at 2.  Thus, the Board finds that the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel the 
applicant  about  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB  by  extending  his  enlistment  under  ALDIST 
004/82.   
 

There is no evidence in the record that the applicant was advised about 
the SRB opportunity under ALDIST 004/82.  The Coast Guard has submitted no evi-
dence  to  rebut  the  applicant’s  claim  that  he  was  not  informed  of  his  eligibility  for  a 
Zone A SRB.  With a credible, sworn statement by the applicant to the effect that he was 
not counseled, and with no contrary evidence presented by the Coast Guard, the Board 
finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the applicant was not prop-
erly counseled about the SRB opportunity under ALDIST 004/82. 
 

7. 

When ALDIST 004/82 waived the requirement that members be within 30 
days of the end of their enlistments before extending their enlistments, the provisions of 
ALDIST 003/82 were in effect.  Under those provisions, the applicant was not qualified 
to  extend  his  enlistment  for  six  years  because  his  average  marks  for  proficiency  and 
leadership were not 3.6 or higher at any time ALDIST 004/82 was in effect.  Therefore, 
the  maximum  number  of  years  the  applicant  might  have  been  allowed  to  extend  his 
enlistment was four. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

Under the Personnel Manual in effect at the time, members were required 
to have the recommendation of their commanding officers in order to sign reenlistment 
or extension contracts.  The applicant was taken to mast for assaulting a member with a 
curtain rod in a manner “likely to produce grievous bodily harm,” fined, and reduced 
in rate on xxxxxxx, just two months before ALDIST 004/82 went into effect.  This raises 
the question of whether in February 1982, his commanding officer would have allowed 
him to extend his enlistment for four years to earn the SRB.  On January 19, 1982, while 
the ALDIST was in effect, the applicant received evaluation marks of 3.6 in proficiency, 
3.4 in leadership, and 4.0 in conduct.  Furthermore, in June 1982, just six months after 
the ALDIST went into effect, he was allowed to extend his enlistment for three years to 
obligate sufficient service to accept transfer orders.  Moreover, the applicant’s record is 
not  nearly  as  poor  as  that  of  the  applicant  in  BCMR  Docket  No.  1999-066,  for  whom 
relief was denied.  Therefore, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence 
indicates that the applicant’s commanding officer would have recommended him for a 
four-year extension if the applicant had requested one under ALDIST 004/82. 

The  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the 
Coast  Guard  erred  in  1982  by  failing  to  counsel  him  about  his  eligibility  to  receive  a 
Zone A SRB by extending his enlistment under ALDIST 004/82.  The record indicates 
that if he had been properly counseled, his enlistment contract would have been extend-
ed for four years. 
 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted in part by correct-
ing his record to show that on February 14, 1982, he extended his enlistment for four 
years, from October 2, 1982, through October 1, 1986.  As a result of this correction, the 
18-month extension he signed on October 1, 1985, will cover his active duty from Octo-
ber  2,  1986,  through  April  1,  1988,  when  he  reenlisted.    His  three-year  reenlistment 
dated June 2, 1982, and his one-year extension dated March 18, 1987, are redundant and 
should be nullified.  
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 
 

 

ORDER 

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

hereby granted as follows: 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that on February 14, 1982, he extended his 
enlistment  for  four  years,  from  October  2,  1982,  through  October  1,  1986.    The  Coast 
Guard shall pay the applicant any Zone A SRB he may be due as a result of this correc-
tion under ALDISTs 340/81 and 004/82. 

 
The 18-month extension he signed on October 1, 1985, shall be deemed to apply 
to this new extension contract, covering his active duty service from October 2, 1986, 
through April 1, 1988, when he reenlisted.   

 
His three-year reenlistment dated June 2, 1982, and his one-year extension dated 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

March 18, 1987, are null and void. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Kevin C. Feury 

 

 

 
Todd E. Givens 

 

 

 
Mark A. Tomicich