DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2001-079 

FINAL DECISION 

    
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  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,  upon  the  Board’s  receipt  of  a  complete  application  for  correction  of  the 
applicant’s military record. 

 
This final decision, dated March 21, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
Requested Relief 

  
The  applicant,  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his 
record  by  canceling  the  6-year  enlistment  extension  agreement  that  he  signed  on 
January  24,  2000  and  replacing  it  with  a  shorter  extension.  (The  extension  became 
operative  on  May  3,  2001.)  He  received  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  with  a 
multiple of .5 as a result of this extension.   

 
The applicant alleged that he was improperly counseled as to his SRB entitlement 
in that he was never told that he could have extended for a shorter period of time and 
thus,  if  a  higher  SRB  became  authorized,  he  could  change  the  length  of  extension  in 
order to receive the higher SRB multiple.   

 
 If the applicant’s request for relief were granted, it would allow the applicant to 
receive a SRB with a multiple of 1, under ALCOAST 488/00 which became effective on 
1 February 2001, rather than the SRB multiple of .5 he received as a result of the January 
24, 2000 extension.  

 

 

 
At the time [January 24, 2000] I understood there was an SRB (BONUS) in 
place.  The bonus was a Zone B with a multiple of .5. 
 
I was never afforded the opportunity for counseling as far as SRB benefits 
and was not aware that there was any, hence I did not sign the Page 71 
[administrative remarks entry] in regards to SRB counseling as confirmed 
by my PERSRU [Personnel Reporting Unit] yeoman. 
 
Recently I learned that the SRB had changed to a multiple of 1 vice .5.  I 
contacted my yeoman at PERSRU and he informed me that I would not be 
able to take advantage of the new bonus as I extended for 6 years and I 
couldn’t  extend  for  more.    He  explained  that  this  should  have  been 
explained  to  me  in  counseling.    If  I  had  known  that  this  was  possible  I 
would have only extended for a shorter time, enabling me to change my 
length of extension if a higher bonus came along.  In fact, I inquired of my 
command at the time and they explained to me that there was no other 
documentation necessary except the actual contract.   
 
I request the Board enable me to take advantage of the current multiple of 
1 vice the multiple of .5 due to improper counseling.   

The  applicant  stated  that  on  January  24,  2000  he  requested  to  extend  his 
enlistment for six years in order to have sufficient obligated service to accept transfer 
orders  to  another  unit  and  to  attend  a  training  course.    He  stated  that  his  then-
enlistment expired on May 2, 2001.  He further stated as follows: 

 
 
The  applicant  acknowledged  on  the  extension  agreement  in  question  that 
pursuant to ALDIST 84/99 he would receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of .5 based 
on 72 months of newly obligated service. He further acknowledged on this extension 
agreement that “[he] fully underst[ood] the effect [his] extension/reextension will have 
upon [his] current and future SRB eligibility.”  He also acknowledged that he had been 
provided  [and  reviewed]  a  copy  of  “SRB  Questions  and  Answers”  based  on 

                                                 
1   According to Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST 7220.33, a service member is to acknowledge by 
his signature on a page 7 entry that he has been provided the following information:  “I have 
been  provided  with  a  copy  of  enclosure  (5)  to  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33  .  .  .  entitled 
“SRB Questions and Answers.”  I have been informed that:  My current Selective Reenlistment 
Bonus (SRB) multiple ____ and is listed in ALDIST ___, which has been made available for my 
review. 
  In  accordance  with  Article  12-B-4,  CG  Personnel  Manual,  I  am  eligible  to 
reenlist/extend my enlistment for a maximum of ____ years.  My SRB will be computed based 
_____ months newly obligated service.  The following SRB policies were unclear to me, but my 
SRB counselor provided me with the corresponding answers:  (list specifics) 
 
 

Commandant Instruction 7220.33 [SRB regulation]” and that all his questions had been 
answered. 
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On September 14, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board deny the applicant’s request 
for  relief  for  lack  of  merit.    He  stated  that  the  applicant signed an extension contract 
entitling him to a Zone B SRB with a multiple of .5.  He further stated that the applicant 
certified by his signature on the extension contract that he had read and understood his 
extension contract and that any questions he had were explained to his satisfaction.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel also stated that the applicant is not entitled to relief because 
he has failed to prove that the Coast Guard had a duty to counsel him regarding the 
effect his January 2000 extension might have on future SRB eligibility.  He further stated 
as follows: 
 

The Board should conclude, consistent with its decision in BCMR Docket 
No.  1999-014,  that  [the  SRB  regulation]  does  not  establish  a  duty  to 
counsel members on all possible effects a current reenlistment/extension 
contract  may  have  on  future  SRB  eligibility.    Certainly,  when  Applicant 
signed  his  extension  contract  with  the  Coast  Guard,  neither  party  could 
predict the SRB multiple for his rating would increase. . . .  
 
Furthermore,  when  Applicant  signed  his  extension  contract,  he 
affirmatively acknowledged that he had read the terms of the document 
and had any questions he had answered to his satisfaction, including the 
term  entitling  him  to  a  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  .5.    Moreover, 
Applicant  is  of  majority  age  and  responsible  for  his  actions.    Without 
evidence  of  fraud  or  duress,  Applicant  is  bound  by  his  acceptance  of  a 
contract  where  he  signed  it  of  his  own  free  will  in  front  of  a  witness.  
Applicant  knowingly  signed  and  accepted  a  valid  contract.    He  has  no 
basis for reforming it.  Therefore, he should be denied relief. 

 
Applicant Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On September 17, 2001, the Chairman sent the applicant a copy of the views of 
the Coast Guard and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received 
from the applicant.    
 

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  submission,  and 
applicable law.      
 
 
title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of 

2.  In exchange for PCS orders and other training, the applicant agreed to extend 
his enlistment for six years on January 24, 2000.  The applicant is correct that there is no 
page  7  entry  in  his  military  record  documenting  SRB  counseling.    However,  the 
applicant was aware that an SRB existed at the time he extended his enlistment because 
he was promised and received an SRB with a multiple of .5 based on that extension.  

 
3.  Moreover,  the  applicant’s  January  24,  2000,  extension  contract  (CG-3301B) 
contained essentially the same SRB information that would have been contained on the 
page 7 SRB counseling entry, if one had been prepared. 
 

4.  The applicant received the SRB multiple that was available for his rating at the 
time he extended his enlistment, which he was required to do if he wanted to accept the 
transfer orders. There was no way the applicant or his command could have known on 
January 24, 2000 that a higher SRB multiple would become available for the applicant’s 
rating in February 2001, approximately one year after he extended his reenlistment.  

 
5.  Moreover, the applicant has not presented any evidence that the page 7 entry 
would  have  contained any counseling or other information that was not available on 
the  extension  contract.    Nothing  in  the  SRB  regulation  requires  that  the  page  7 entry 
explain  how  extensions  of  various  lengths  may  affect  future  SRB  opportunity.    The 
Board notes, however, that the applicant signed a statement on the extension contract 
acknowledging that he understood the effect the extension would have on his current 
and future SRB eligibility. 
 
 
6.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate an error or injustice in this case that 
requires corrective action by the Board.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief 
should be denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 
The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Michael K. Nolan 

 
 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger 

 

 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

military record, is denied.