DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2001-044 
 
 

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 16, 2001, upon 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 August 31, 2001, is signed by the three duly appointed 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 

 
 

 

 
 
The  applicant,  an  XXXXXXXXXXX  (XXXX;  pay  grade  E-5),  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his record to show that he reenlisted for six years on June 14, 2000, instead of 
extending his enlistment for one month.  The correction would entitle him to receive a 
Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 pursuant to ALCOAST 184/99. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant alleged that he received permanent change of station (PCS) orders 
in April 2000 to transfer to a new air station in July 2000.  He was told that to accept the 
orders, he was required to extend his enlistment for one month so that he would have at 
least one full year of obligated service remaining upon his arrival at the new station. 

 

                                                 
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 6 and 10 years on active duty are in 
“Zone B.”  Members may only receive one SRB per zone. 

The applicant alleged that he knew there was a Zone B SRB in effect for members 
in the XXX rating at the time, so he asked his unit’s yeoman if he could reenlist to earn 
the SRB.  He alleged that the yeoman told him that he was not authorized to reenlist 
because  he  was  not  within  90  days  of  the  end  of  his  enlistment.    He  alleged  that  he 
learned the yeoman was wrong after he had extended his enlistment and been trans-
ferred to the new air station, where he was counseled by a different yeoman when he 
had to extend his enlistment again to undergo more training. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  July  7,  1992,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four 
years, through July 6, 1996.  He has extended this original enlistment five times, for a 
total of six years, as follows: 
 

No.  Date Signed  Duration  Cause/Purpose of Extension 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 Mar 95 
28 June 96 
6 July 99 
14 June 00 
16 Feb 01 

Request of member 
To obligate sufficient service to accept PCS orders 
To obligate sufficient service to qualify for training 

1 y, 3 m  To obligate sufficient service to qualify for training 
1 y, 9 m  Authorized by Personnel Command 

2 y 
1 m 
11 m 

Operative Date  End Date 
6 Oct 97 
6 July 99 
6 July 01 
6 Aug 01 
6 July 02 

7 July 96 
7 Oct 97 
7 July 99 
7 July 01 
7 Aug 01 

  
 
blanks filled in with “NA,” meaning “not applicable”: 

Each  of  these  extension  contracts  contained  the  following  language  with  the 

 

SRB ELIGIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

 
I have been provided with a copy  [of] “SRB Questions and Answers” based on Comman-
dant Instruction 7220.33 (series).  I have been informed that:  My current Selective Reen-
listment Bonus (SRB) multiple under zone  NA  is  NA  and is listed in ALDIST  NA , 
which  has  been  made  available  for  review.    I  further  understand  the  eligibility  require-
ments for Zone A, B, and C SRB’s and that the maximum SRB paid to my current pay 
grade is $  NA .  My SRB will be computed based on  NA   months newly obligated 
service. 
 

EFFECT OF EXTENSION/REEXTENSION ON SRB ENTITLEMENT 

 
I  fully  understand  the  effect  my  extension/reextension  will  have  upon  my  current  and 
future  SRB  eligibility.  …    I  further  acknowledge  that  I  have  been  given  the  chance  to 
review COMDTINST 7220.33 (series) concerning my eligibility for SRB and have had all 
my questions answered. 
 
 
At the time of his fourth extension on June 14, 2000, ALCOAST 184/99 was in 
effect, authorizing Zone B SRBs calculated with a multiple of one-half for members in 
the XXX rating.  When he was required to extend his enlistment a fifth time to receive 
training  on  February  16,  2001,  no  Zone  B  SRB  was  in  effect  for  his  rating  under  AL-
COAST 488/00. 
 

 
There is no administrative entry (“page 7”) in the applicant’s record document-
ing  counseling  about  his  obligated  service  requirement  prior  to  accepting  transfer 
orders, as required by Article 4.B.1.i.1.b. of the Personnel Manual.  There is also no page 
7 documenting SRB counseling, as required by COMDTINST 7220.33.   
 
 
The applicant was promoted to his current rank, XXXX, on October 1, 1999.  His 
record  contains  no  negative  entries  and  several  positive  entries  commending  him  for 
excellent work. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On June 22, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board grant “conditional relief” in this case.  He recommended a grant of relief only if 
the applicant could submit evidence to prove that he was misinformed by the yeoman.  
The Chief Counsel confirmed the applicant’s allegation that he was in fact authorized to 
reenlist  when he received the PCS orders even though his enlistment was not due to 
end within 90 days.  However, he argued that the Board should require the applicant to 
submit a statement from the yeoman at his old station to support his allegation of mis-
counseling. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On June 25, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s rec-
ommendation  and  invited  him  to  respond  or  request  an  extension  of  the  time  to 
respond within 15 days.  No response was received.   
 
 
On  August  6,  2001,  the  applicant  telephoned  the  BCMR  in  response  to  an 
inquiry.    (In  his  original  application,  he  had  failed  to  specify  for  how many years he 
wanted  to  reenlist.)    He  stated  over  the  telephone  that  he  would  like  a  six-year 
reenlistment if relief were granted because he intended to make a career in the Coast 
Guard.    He  repeated  his  allegation  that  when  he  received  the  transfer  orders  in  the 
spring of 2000, he asked to reenlist to get the SRB, but his yeoman insisted that only a 
one-month extension was authorized by the PCS orders.  He also stated that his current 
yeoman had contacted his old unit to ask for a statement supporting his allegation but 
the request was refused.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Under ALCOAST 184/99, members in the XXX rating with between six and ten 
 
years of active service were eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of one-
half  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  for  at  least  three  but  at  most  six 
years between January 1 and June 30, 2000.  The maximum SRB allowable was $45,000.   
 
Under  paragraph  3.b.(5)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33,  entitled 
 
“Reenlistment  Bonus  Programs  Administration,”  SRBs  are  only  payable  to  members 

who extend their enlistments or reenlist for at least three years.  However, under Article 
1.G.14.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, members may not extend any one enlistment for 
more than six total years.  Under Article 12.B.7.b. of the Personnel Manual, members 
may normally be discharged and reenlisted by their commands only during the three 
months prior to and within 24 hours after the expiration of their enlistments.  However, 
under  Article  12.B.12.(4),  members  may  be  discharged  and  immediately  reenlisted  at 
any  time  “provided  reenlistment  is  for  a  term  of  service  more  than  required  under 
existing obligation.” 
 
 
Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual states that members in pay grade E-4 
and above must have at least one year of obligated service to accept PCS orders.  Article 
1.G.17.b. states that members may extend their enlistments “considerably in advance” 
of the expiration dates of their enlistments for the purpose of obligating sufficient serv-
ice  to  accept  PCS  orders.    Article  4.B.1.i.1.b.  provides  that  members who receive PCS 
orders must be counseled about the obligated service requirements and sign a page 7 
documenting that counseling. 
 
Section 2 of COMDTINST 7220.33  provides that “[a]ll personnel with 14 years or 
 
less active service who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be coun-
seled on the SRB program.  They shall sign a page 7 service record entry, enclosure (3), 
outlining  the  effect  that  particular  action  has  on  their  SRB  entitlement.”    Paragraph 
3.a.d.(5) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction states that members who must extend their 
enlistments to accept transfer orders “may extend for a period greater than the mini-
mum required for the purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.”  No mention is made 
of reenlisting under these circumstances. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

1. 

 
2. 

 
 
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 

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

The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled about his eligi-
bility  for  an  SRB  prior  to  accepting  his  PCS  orders in June 2000.  He alleged that his 
unit’s  yeoman  told  him  that  he  could  only  extend  his  contract  for  one  month,  which 
would not make him eligible for the SRB.  He alleged that had he been properly coun-
seled  and  allowed  to  reenlist,  he  would  have  reenlisted  for  six  years  to  receive  the 
maximum possible SRB.  
 
 
Most  of  the  regulations  in  the  Personnel  Manual  and  COMDTINST 
7220.33 that concern the requirement that enlisted members obligate a certain amount 

3. 

4. 

5. 

of service before accepting PCS orders refer to members extending their enlistments for 
that  purpose  and  do  not  mention  the  option  of  reenlisting.    However,  members  may 
reenlist when they are required to obligate service to accept PCS orders, even if they are 
not  within  three  months  of  the  end  of  their  enlistments.    Personnel  Manual,  Article 
12.B.12.(4). 
 
 
When the applicant received PCS orders in the spring of 2000, he had to 
have at least one full year of obligated service at the new station to accept the orders. 
Personnel  Manual,  Article  4.B.6.a.2.    Because  his  enlistment  was  due  to  expire  11 
months after his expected transfer date, he had to extend his enlistment for at least one 
month or reenlist to accept the orders.  Under ALCOAST 184/99, members in the XXX 
rating  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  one-half  if  they 
reenlisted or extended his enlistment for at least three years.  However, the applicant 
could not earn the SRB by extending his enlistment since he had already extended it for 
more than three years, and an enlistment may not be extended for more than six years 
total.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  1.G.14.a.1.    Therefore,  to  receive  the  SRB,  he  had  to 
reenlist, which, he alleged, his unit’s yeoman did not allow him to do. 
 
 
In February 2001, seven months after he signed the one-month extension 
contract in June 2000, the applicant was required to obligate more months of service to 
qualify for special training.  The Zone B SRB for his rating was no longer authorized.  
After being counseled by his new unit’s yeoman, he extended his enlistment for another 
11 months and applied to this Board to correct his previous one-month extension con-
tract to a six-year reenlistment contract so that he would receive the SRB. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Board should require the applicant to 
prove  that  he  was  miscounseled  and  not  allowed  to  reenlist  by  providing  a  signed 
statement from the yeoman who allegedly miscounseled him.  He alleged that despite 
the  absence  of  a page 7 documenting SRB counseling, the Board should find that the 
applicant was properly counseled since he signed the extension contract acknowledging 
SRB  counseling,  unless  the  applicant  provides  a  signed  statement  from  his  previous 
yeoman.  The applicant stated that his new unit’s yeoman asked the old unit for such a 
statement, but the request was denied. 
 
 
It is possible that a member in the applicant’s situation in June 2000 might 
refuse to reenlist, hoping that a larger SRB would be authorized for his rating the next 
time he was required to obligate service.  The question before this Board is whether the 
preponderance of the evidence in the record supports the applicant’s allegation that the 
yeoman at his previous unit misadvised him, in violation of Section 2 of COMDTINST 
7220.33, about his right to reenlist to receive the SRB under ALCOAST 184/99.  Absent 
strong evidence to the contrary, Coast Guard officials are “presumed to have executed 
their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.”  See Arens v. Unites States, 969 F.2d 
1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979). 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

 
 
There is no page 7 in the applicant’s record documenting SRB counseling, 
as required by Section 2 of COMDTINST 7220.33.  There is also no page 7 documenting 
counseling about the applicant’s obligated service requirement upon accepting his PCS 
orders,  as  required  under  Article  4.B.1.i.1.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual.    Although  the 
applicant  acknowledged  being  counseled  about  SRBs  when  he  signed  the  extension 
contract on June 14, 2000, none of the information he acknowledged receiving expressly 
stated  that  he  was allowed to reenlist.  Moreover, the contract clearly shows that the 
applicant was advised that SRB information was completely inapplicable to his situa-
tion.  Because ALCOAST 184/99 authorized a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one-half 
for his rating with a maximum payment of $45,000, the use of “NA” on the contract was 
misleading and erroneous.  For a member who does not obligate sufficient service to 
earn an SRB for which he is eligible, only the last blank in the SRB paragraph of the con-
tract—in the sentence “[m]y SRB will be computed based on ____ months newly obli-
gated service”—should logically contain “NA,” or better yet a zero. 
 

The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the 
applicant  was  miscounseled  by  his  unit’s  yeoman  about  his  eligibility  to  reenlist  and 
receive a Zone B SRB under ALCOAST 184/99.  In addition, the Board finds that if he 
had been properly counseled, he would have reenlisted for six years to receive the SRB. 

 
10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted.   

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is granted as follows: 
 

His record shall be corrected to show that he was discharged and reenlisted for 
six  years  on  June  14,  2000,  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  accept  PCS  orders  and  to 
receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one-half under ALCOAST 184/99.   

 
The  one-month  extension  contract  that  he  signed  on  June  14,  2000,  and  the 
eleven-month extension contract that he signed on February 16, 2001, shall be null and 
void. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the amount due him under ALCOAST 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

184/99 as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff 

 

 

 
Charles Medalen 

 

 

 
 
Betsy L. Wolf