DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2001-074 
 
  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
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 16, 2001, after the Board received 
the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 14, 2002, is signed by the three duly  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  damage  controlman  first  class  (DC1;  pay  grade  E-6)  on  active 
duty in the Coast Guard, asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he 
extended his enlistment for six years on March 5, 1998, instead of just two years and 
three  months.    The  correction  would  result  in  his  receiving  a  selective  reenlistment 
bonus (SRB) under the provisions of ALDIST 046/98.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  early  March  1998,  he  was  told  that  he  had  to  extend  his 
enlistment to accept transfer orders.  However, he was never counseled about the SRB that was 
authorized for his rating under ALDIST 046/98.  Therefore, he extended his enlistment for two 
years and three months.  He alleged that if he  had been counseled about ALDIST 046/98, he 
would have extended his enlistment for six years to receive the SRB. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The applicant  enlisted in the Coast Guard on September 26, 1994, for  four  years.  On 
December  16,  1996,  he  extended  this  contract  for  four  months,  from  September  26,  1998, 
through  January  25,  1999,  in  order  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  be  allowed  to  attend  “A” 
School.  The extension contract he signed includes language acknowledging SRB counseling, but 

the SRB information is marked “NA,” or not applicable, because there was none authorized for 
his rating at that time. 
 
 
On              , an alcohol incident was documented in the applicant’s record because he 
had  been  arrested  for  “driving  while  intoxicated,”  having  failed  both  a  field  sobriety  test  and 
breath analysis. 
 
In                  , the applicant received transfer orders that required him to have at least 
 
three  full  years  of  obligated  service  upon  reporting  to  the  new  unit.      As  his  enlistment  had 
already  been  extended  through  January  25,  1999,  on  March  2,  1998,  he  signed  an  extension 
contract obligating him to serve another two  years and three months, through April 25, 2001, 
which would carry him through a full tour of duty at his new station.  There is no form CG-3307 
in his record formally documenting proper SRB counseling at the time he signed this extension 
contract.    The  contract  itself  contains  language  acknowledging  SRB  counseling,  but  the  SRB 
information is marked “NA.” 
 
 
Also on March 2, 1998, at 13:22 Greenwich Mean Time, the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard issued ALDIST 046/98, which allowed members in the DC rating to receive an SRB if 
they reenlisted or extended their current enlistments between April 1, 1998 and September 30, 
1998.  
 
 
On March 27, 1998, the applicant signed a page 7 entry (Administrative Remarks) for his 
record, which advised him that, as a result of the Centralized First Term Reenlistment Review 
(CFTRR) panel, he was authorized either to reenlist or to extend his enlistment.  If he had not 
already done so, he would have been  required to sign a reenlistment or extension contract by 
September 24, 1998, obligating himself to serve at least an additional two years to avoid being 
discharged.    However,  because  he  had  already  extended  his  enlistment  on  March  2,  1998,  no 
additional  contract  was  necessary.    The  page  7  entry  also  stated  that  he  had  been  given  a 
“reenlistment interview” in accordance with Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual. 
 
 
 

On April 24, 2001, the applicant reenlisted for six years, through April 23, 2007. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  25,  2001,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  his  unit  received 
ALDIST 046/98 prior to the time he signed his extension contract on March 2, 1998.  He stated 
that  “routine”  ALDISTs  such  as  ALDIST  046/98  are  “normally  not  received  until  the  day 
following the date indicated” on the ALDIST.  Therefore, he alleged, “it is highly unlikely that 
the Applicant’s unit had received ALDIST 046/98 at the time Applicant executed his extension 
agreement.”  The Chief Counsel stated that, if the applicant could prove that his unit received 
046/98 before he signed the contract on March 2, 1998, and yet had failed to counsel him about 
the SRB, then the Coast Guard would agree that error and injustice had been committed. 
 

 
The Chief Counsel argued that under the presumption of regularity accorded government 
employees,  including  Coast  Guard  members  and  officers,  the  Board  must  presume  that  if  the 
applicant’s unit had received ALDIST 046/98 before he signed the contract on March 2, 1998, it 
would have counseled him about the SRB.  He further argued that,  because the applicant’s unit 
presumably  did  not  receive  ALDIST  046/98  until  after  he  signed  the  contract,  no  error  or 
injustice was committed because the Coast Guard had no duty to counsel the applicant about a 
“potential future SRB.”  He argued that the SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33, “does not 
mandate  a  discussion  of  the  effect  of  either  an  extension  or  reenlistment  on  future  SRB 
eligibility.”  
 
 
The Chief Counsel further argued that when the applicant had a reenlistment interview on 
March 27, 1998, in accordance with Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual, he received SRB 
counseling. 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the application “involves a significant issue of Coast Guard 
 
policy.”  Therefore, a recommended grant of relief by the Board would be subject to review by 
the delegate of the Secretary.  33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  September  26,  2001,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 

 
 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response has been received. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Article 4.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with fewer than six years 
of active duty may not be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated 
service for a full tour on reporting to a new unit.”  Article 4.A.5.b. specifies that a full tour of 
duty at the station to which the applicant was transferred is three years. 
 
 
Article  1.G.14.e.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that,  without  authorization  by  the 
CFTRR or Personnel Command, commanding officers may only extend the enlistments of first 
term personnel by the minimum period required by their transfer orders. 
 
 
Paragraph 2 of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus 
Programs Administration) states that “[a]ll personnel with 14  years or less active service who 
reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be counseled 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.” 
 
 
Article 1.G.19.2.a.(6) of the Personnel Manual provides that “an appropriate authority” 
may cancel an extension agreement before it begins to run if the member has not been selected 
for reenlistment by the CFTRR.  However, “if Service needs dictate,” the extension contract will 
not be canceled. 
 

 
Article  12.B.4.b.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  “[d]uring  the  [reenlistment] 
interview,  the  petty  officer  must  inform  each  potential  reenlistee  eligible  for  a  Selective 
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) of that eligibility and the SRB program’s monetary benefits.” 
 

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 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  presented  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his  command  knew  of 
ALDIST 046/98, which was issued on March 2, 1998, before he signed the extension contract on 
that  day.    Absent  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  must  presume  that  Coast  Guard 
officers have acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith. Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 
1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 1979).  Therefore, 
the  Board  presumes  that  if  his  command  had  known  about  ALDIST  046/98,  it  would  have 
counseled him about the SRB before he signed the contract.  Since his command apparently did 
not counsel him about the SRB under ALDIST 046/98, the Board finds that the applicant signed 
his extension contract before his command received ALDIST 046/98.   

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 Although  the  applicant’s  command  apparently  failed  to  have  him  complete  a 
page  7  entry  regarding  SRB  counseling  on  March  2,  1998,  he  has  not  proved  that  this 
administrative error caused him any harm.  The applicant had to extend his enlistment to obligate 
sufficient  service  to  complete  a  full  three-year  tour  in  order  to  accept  his  transfer  orders.  
Personnel  Manual,  Articles  4.A.5.b.  and  4.B.6.a.    On  March  2,  1998,  his  command  was  not 
authorized to extend his enlistment for longer than the minimum required to accept the transfer 
orders.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  1.G.14.e.    Moreover,  since  the  SRB  authorized  under 
ALDIST 046/98 did not go into effect until April 1, 1998, signing a longer extension contract on 
March 2, 1998, would not have entitled the applicant to an SRB. 

Although  the  applicant  could  theoretically  have  waited  until  April  1,  1998,  to 
extend his enlistment, his command could not have known that such a delay would benefit him 
because  it  could  not  foresee  the  contents  of  ALDIST  046/98  or  the  results  of  the  CFTRR.  
Therefore, his command committed no error or injustice in asking him to commit to the transfer 
by signing the extension contract on March 2, 1998.  The Board agrees with the Chief Counsel in 
this  case  that  unless  the  applicant’s  command  knew  of  the  SRB  authorized  under  ALDIST 
046/98,  it  had  no  duty  to  advise  him  to  wait  until  the  last  moment  to  commit  himself  to  the 
transfer just in case an SRB would be authorized for his rating.  

 The  Board  also  notes  that  the  applicant’s  selection  for  reenlistment  by  the 
CFTRR was not guaranteed, particularly in light of the alcohol incident in his record.  If he had 
not been selected by the CFTRR and had not already extended his enlistment, he would have 
been discharged.  His extension and acceptance of the transfer orders could have resulted in his 
retention despite a negative CFTRR result.  Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.19. 

 
6. 

 
 
 
 
 

 
7. 

 
8. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

After  he  was  selected  for  retention  by  the  CFTRR  in  late  March  1998,  the 
applicant’s command could have reenlisted him for six years on April 1, 1998, to receive an SRB 
under  ALDIST  046/98.    The  SRB  would  have  been  reduced  by  the  more  than  three  years  of 
service remaining on his enlistment.  However, the applicant signed a page 7 entry on March 27, 
1998,  acknowledging  that  he  had  been  counseled  in  accordance  with  Article  12.B.4.  of  the 
Personnel Manual.  Article 12.B.4. requires SRB counseling.  Therefore, under the presumption 
of  regularity,  the  Board  must  presume  that  when  his  command  counseled  him  about  his 
opportunity to reenlist as a result of the CFTRR, it also counseled him about his eligibility for an 
SRB under ALDIST 046/98.  Nevertheless, as indicated on the page 7 entry, the applicant chose 
not to reenlist. 

The  applicant  has  not  overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  or  proved  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that his command committed any error or injustice that deprived 
him of an SRB under ALDIST 046/98. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

ORDER 

 

The application of                         , USCG, for correction of his military record is denied.   
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs 

 

 

 

 
 
Jacqueline L. Sullivan 

 

 

 
Nilza F. Velázquez