DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2000-134 
 
 
   

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 24, 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 April 12, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The applicant, a xxxxxxxxxx on active duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board 
to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  on  February  14,  1982,  he  extended  his 
enlistment for six years so that he could receive a Zone A1 selective reenlistment bonus 
(SRB) calculated with a multiple of four, 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 February 1982.  He alleged that, if he had been 
counseled, he would have extended his enlistment for six years to receive the maximum 

                                                 
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  February  1982,  the  applicant  was  in  Zone  A.    Members  may  not  receive  more  than  one 
bonus per zone. 
 

possible bonus.  The applicant stated that he did not discover his eligibility for an SRB 
under the ALDISTs until April 18, 2000. 

SUMMARY OF THE LAW AND RECORD 

 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 4, 1980, for a term of four 
years, through August 3, 1984.  Thereafter, he attended “A” School to become a xxxxxx 
and  was  advanced  to  xxx  on  December  31,  1981.    In  February  1982,  his  average 
evaluation  marks  were  3.35  for  proficiency,  3.4  for  leadership,  and  4.0  for  conduct.  
There  is  no  evidence  in  his  record  that  he  was  ever  counseled  about  the  SRB 
opportunity under ALDIST 004/82. 
 

On August 4, 1984, the applicant reenlisted for four years.  On that day, ALDIST 
072/84 was in effect, authorizing a Zone A SRB with a multiple of one for members in 
the  xx  rating.    On  July  20,  1988,  the  applicant  extended  this  enlistment  for  one  year, 
through August 3, 1989.  On August 4, 1989, he reenlisted for three years.  He has con-
tinued to serve on active duty. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On November 30, 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 

 
SRB Regulations 
 
Commandant  Instruction  7220.13E  (Administration  of  the  Reenlistment  Bonus 
 
Program),  issued  on  May  4,  1979,  was  in  effect  when  ALDIST  340/81  and  ALDIST 
004/82  were  in  effect.    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 separa-
tion 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] 
 
(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.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 (or higher): 3.6 for proficiency, 3.6 for leadership, and 3.9 for con-
duct.  Members whose evaluation marks were at least 3.3 for proficiency, 3.3 for leader-
ship, and 3.8 for conduct were allowed to reenlist or extend their enlistments  for up to 
four years. 
 
ALDISTs 004/82 and 340/81 

 
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 four. 
ALDIST  004/82  also  temporarily  waived  the  requirement  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, mem-
bers had to sign contracts extending their enlistments before February 15, 1982.   
 
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.  The 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 
not have extended his enlistment for four years in 1982 to receive the maximum possi-
ble Zone B SRB for which he was eligible. 

 
 

 

 

 
4. 

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

2. 

The applicant stated that he discovered the alleged error that he has asked 
the Board to correct on April 18, 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 on February 14, 1982, so that he might receive a 
Zone A SRB, calculated with a multiple of four, 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. 

The  Deputy  General  Counsel  has  held  that  the  “Coast  Guard  erred  in 
drafting  COMDTINST  7220.13E  when  it  failed  to  require  mandatory  counseling  for 
                                                 
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. 

5. 

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 
advised’ of SRB opportunities.”  BCMR Docket No. 121-93, Decision of the Deputy Gen-
eral Counsel, at 2.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Coast Guard had a duty to coun-
sel  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. 
 

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 while ALDIST 004/82 was in effect.  Therefore, the 
maximum number of years the applicant might have been allowed to extend his enlist-
ment was four. 

6. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

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 
extended for four years.  

The record indicates that the applicant may have received a Zone A SRB 
calculated with a multiple of one for his reenlistment on August 4, 1984, under ALDIST 
072/84.  Members may only receive one SRB per zone.  If the applicant had extended 
his  enlistment  and  received  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  four  under 
ALDIST  004/82,  he  would  not  have  received  a  Zone  A  SRB  under  ALDIST  072/84.  
Therefore, if the applicant received a Zone A SRB under ALDIST 072/84, regulations 
require that it be deducted from any Zone A SRB he receives under ALDIST 004/82. 
 

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  August  4,  1984,  through  August  3,  1988.    The  reenlistment  he  signed  on 
August 4, 1984, would be redundant and should be cancelled, but the one-year exten-
sion he signed on July 20, 1988, should remain in effect but be corrected to stand as the 

9. 

second  extension  of  his  first  enlistment  rather  than  the  first  extension  of  his  second 
enlistment.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of XXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for correction of his military record 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 August 4, 1984, through August 3, 1988.   

 
The four-year reenlistment contract signed by the applicant on August 4, 1984, 

ORDER 

 

shall be null and void. 

 

 
James K. Augustine 

 

 

 
 

 
The  one-year  extension  contract  the  applicant  signed  on  July  20,  1988,  shall be 
corrected to show that it is the second extension of his first enlistment, dated August 4, 
1980, rather than the first extension of his reenlistment dated August 4, 1984. 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any Zone A SRB he may be due as a 
result  of  this  correction  under  ALDISTs  340/81  and  004/82,  taking  into  account  any 
Zone  A  SRB  he  may  have  been  paid  for  his  reenlistment  on  August  4,  1984,  under 
ALDIST 072/84. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 
Coleman R. Sachs