DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2001-081 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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  May  4,  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  April  11,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The  applicant,  an  xxxxxxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  order  the  Coast  Guard  to 
pay him a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) based on 72 months of newly obligated 
service rather than one based on just 67 months.  
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  February  21,  2001,  he  was  told  that  he  could 
 
reenlist for six years and receive an SRB under the provisions of ALCOAST 488/00.  He 
alleged  that  he  was told that the SRB would be based on all 72 months of service he 
would  be  obligating  under  the  reenlistment  contract.    However,  the  SRB  he  actually 
received  was  based  on  just  67  months  of  newly  obligated  service  because,  when  he 
signed  the  contract  on  February  26,  2001,  he still had five months of previously obli-
gated service remaining on his first enlistment. 
 
 
The applicant alleged he reenlisted earlier than necessary because of the errone-
ous  advice  he  received—implying  that,  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would 
have waited until his first enlistment terminated so that he could reenlist and receive an 
SRB based on a full 72 months of newly obligated service. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD AND LAW  

 
 
On September 24, 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years, 
through September 23, 2000.  On January 22, 1999, he extended this enlistment for ten 
months, through July 23, 2001, to qualify for “A” school.  As an nonrated xxxxx, he was 
not eligible for an SRB in January 1999. 
 
 
In  February  2001,  approximately  five  months  before  the  end  of  his  first  enlist-
ment, as extended, the applicant received orders to attend xxxxx school in March 2001 
and orders to transfer to a cutter thereafter.  To accept the xxxxx school orders, he was 
required to have at least one full year of obligated service.  To accept the transfer orders, 
he  was  required  to  have  at  least  two  full  years  of  obligated  service  as  of  the  date  of 
transfer.  Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6.a.1. 
 
 
In  February  2001,  ALCOAST  488/00  was  in  effect.    It  authorized  an  SRB  for 
members in the xx rating with less than six years of active service if they extended their 
enlistments  or  reenlisted  for  at  least  three  years.    With  less  than  six  years  of  active 
service,  the  applicant  was  eligible  for  this SRB if he reenlisted or extended his enlist-
ment when he obligated sufficient service to attend xxxxx school and accept the transfer 
orders. 
 
 
Because in February 2001 the applicant had five more months remaining of pre-
viously  obligated  service  on  his  first,  extended  enlistment,  a  six-year  reenlistment 
would earn an SRB based on five years and seven months, or 67 months, of newly obli-
gated service.1  The SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33, provides that “[a]ll periods 
of unexecuted service obligation … will be deducted from SRB computation.”  It further 
explains that “if you entered an agreement to extend your enlistment and did not serve 
out  that  extension  prior  to  reenlisting,  the  unserved  portion  of  that  extension  would 
also be deducted from your SRB computation.”  
 
On  February  21,  2001,  the  applicant  was  counseled  about  his  eligibility  for  an 
 
SRB under ALCOAST 488/00.  He signed a record entry acknowledging that counsel-
ing, which stated the following: 
 

I have been advised that my current Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) 
multiple is Three and is listed in ALCOAST 488/00, which has been made 
available  to  me.    I  am  eligible  to  reenlist/extend  my  enlistment  up  to  a 
maximum of 6 years.  My SRB will be computed based on 72 months of 
newly obligated service.  I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully 

                                                 
1  In  the  alternative,  the  applicant  could  have  extended  his  enlistment  for  five  years  and  two  months 
(under Article 1.G.14.c. of the Personnel Manual, members may extend an enlistment for no more than six 
years and the applicant had already extended his for ten months), but then he would have received an 
SRB based on only 62 months of newly obligated service.   

understand the contents and explanation of COMDTINST 7220.33 (series). 

On February 26, 2001, he reenlisted for six years and thereafter received an SRB 

 
 
based on his 67 months of newly obligated service. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On September 18, 2001, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 

 
 
the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  admitted  that  the  signed  acknowledgement  supports  the 
applicant’s allegation that he was promised a bonus by his PERSRU (Personnel Report-
ing Unit) based on 72 months of service even though his six-year reenlistment contract 
obligated  him  to  only  67  new  months  of  service.    However, he argued, the applicant 
also  acknowledged  having  read  and  understood  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST 
7220.33,  which  clearly  states  that  members  are  only  paid  for  service  newly  obligated 
under the new contract and that months remaining on previous contracts are deducted 
in the computation of the SRB.  He argued that paying the applicant for five months of 
service  that  he  had  already  obligated  to  serve  under  his  previous  enlistment  would 
violate COMDTINST 7220.33. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 19, 2001, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Coun-
sel’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was 
received.  
 

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  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552, and the application was timely. 
 

2. 

Although  the  applicant alleged that he reenlisted too early based on his 
PERSRU’s bad advice, the record indicates that the applicant was required to extend or 
reenlist for at least two years to attend xxxxx school and accept his transfer orders.  He 
could not have delayed making his decision because the school began in March 2001.  If 
he  had  refused  to  reenlist  or  extend  for  at  least  two  years,  he  would  have  been 
discharged at the end of his enlistment on July 23, 2001. 

 

3. 

The  applicant  has  proved  that  he  received  erroneous  advice  from  his 
PERSRU about the size of his SRB in that he was told it would be based on 72 months of 
newly obligated service instead of 67 months.  However, he also acknowledged reading 
and  understanding  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST  7220.33,  which  contained  clear 
information  about  how  time  remaining  on  an  old  enlistment  extension  would  be 
deducted in the computation of an SRB for a new enlistment contract. 

The government is not estopped from repudiating the inaccurate advice of 
the  applicant’s  PERSRU  even  assuming  the  applicant  detrimentally  relied  on  the  bad 
advice.  Utah Power & Light v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 (1917).  For example, in 
Montilla v. United States, 457 F.2d 978 (Ct. Cl. 1972), the Court of Claims denied retire-
ment to an Army veteran who had been erroneously counseled that he had completed 
20 years of service and was eligible for retirement.  In Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 
477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977), the court 
held that 

 
[t]he  government  could  scarcely  function  if  it  were  bound  by  its  employees 
unauthorized  representations.    Where  a  party  claims  entitlement  to  benefits 
under  federal  statutes  and  lawfully  promulgated  regulations,  that  party  must 
satisfy  the  requirements  imposed  by  Congress.    Even  detrimental  reliance  on 
misinformation obtained from a seemingly authorized government agency will 
not  excuse  a  failure  to  qualify  for  the  benefits  under  the  relevant  statutes  and 
regulations.  Id. at 481. 
 
5. 

Under COMDTINST 7220.33, the applicant is not entitled to an SRB based 
on 72 months of service because of the five months that remained unserved on his pre-
vious enlistment, as extended, when he reenlisted on February 26, 2001.  Although it is 
unfortunate that the PERSRU misled him regarding the size of bonus he would receive, 
he would not have been misled if he had read and understood the SRB Instruction as 
required.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded of the existence of any error or injustice 
in the applicant’s record that requires correction. 

 
4. 

 
6. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military  record  is 

ORDER 

 

denied.  
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 

 
 
Robert A. Monniere 

 

 

 
Mark A. Tomicich