Application for Correction of 
Coast Guard Record of: 

 

 
 

 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2001-082 

FINAL DECISION 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
ULMER, Chair: 

    
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 May 4, 
2001, upon the Board’s receipt of a complete application for correction of the applicant’s 
military record. 

 
This final decision, dated March 28, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

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

  
The applicant, a machinery technician second class (MK2; pay grade E-5), asked 
the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  substituting  an  extension  for  the  three-year 
reenlistment  he  signed  on  January  26,  2001.    He  requested  that  his  record  be  further 
corrected to show that he reenlisted on October 1, 2001, for six years so that he would be 
eligible  for  a  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  with  a  multiple  of  2  under 
ALCOAST 127/01, which was published on March 27, 2001.   

 
 
In  January  2001,  the  applicant  was  due  to  receive  transfer  orders  to  an 
assignment  outside  the  continental  United  States.    In  order  to  accept  the  orders,  the 
applicant  had  to  obligate  service  for  a  full  tour  of  duty,  in  this  case  three  years.    On 
January  26,  2001,  the  applicant  executed  a  three-year  reenlistment  to  fulfill  this 
requirement.  (His original enlistment in the Coast Guard, which included a one-month 
extension, was due to expire on June 26, 2001.)   
 
 
The applicant claimed that at the time he reenlisted he asked his yeoman about 
extending rather than reenlisting.  He stated that the yeoman erroneously advised him 
that  he  could  only  extend  for  two  years,  not  the  three  years  necessary  to  accept  the 
transfer orders.  The applicant stated that he told the yeoman he wanted to extend so 

that he could possibly qualify for a Zone B SRB in the future.  He stated that he trusted 
his chain of command and reenlisted for three years. 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  March  2001,  he  read  the  ALCOAST  127/01  and 
discovered that a multiple of 2 would be available for the MK rating effective October 1, 
2001.  The applicant also alleged that there is no administrative remarks (page 7) entry 
in  his  record  documenting  SRB  counseling.    The  applicant  believes  this  is  his  last 
opportunity for an SRB, since he had approximately 8 years of service in January 2001.  
SRB  multiples  are  rarely,  if  ever,  authorized  for  service  members  with  more  than  10 
years of service.    
 
ALCOAST 127/01 
 
 
This  ALCOAST  was  issued  on  March  27,  2001,  and  explained  that  it  was 
necessary for the Coast Guard to review SRB multiples earlier than planned, in light of 
its current budgetary climate.  It announced that current SRB multiples would remain in 
effect through April 30, 2001, but new multiples would become effective on May 1, 2001 
and on October 1, 2001.  There was no SRB multiple available for the MK rating through 
April 30, 2001, effective May 1, 2001, a multiple of .5 was available for that rating, and 
effective October 1,2001, a multiple of 2 was available for the MK rating.    
 
 
 

The ALCOAST provided for the following: 

In  order  to  take  advantage  of  the  October  1  multiples,  commanding 
officers  may  authorize  short  term  extensions  up  to  6  months  to  expire 
NLT 31 October 2001 for members whose normal expiration of enlistment 
falls between the date of this ALCOAST and 30 September 2001, and have 
a  October  1  SRB  multiple  .  .  .  Upon  the  expiration  of  their  short-term 
extension,  members  must  reenlist  or  extend  in  October  2001  for  a 
minimum of three years additional obligated service to receive the SRB.   

 

 

[T]he Coast Guard does not object to the Applicant being given the 
opportunity to substitute a 36 month or longer extension in place of the 
reenlistment.    This  extension  would  be  effective  on  27  may  2001,  for  a 
period of three years or more and would render Applicant eligible for a 
Zone B SRB multiple of .5 per ALCOAST 127/01.   

 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On September 18, 2001, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief 
Counsel of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board grant alternative relief in this 
case.  In this regard the Chief Counsel stated that  

 
The Chief Counsel stated that in January 2001, the applicant received orders to 
Alaska  and  he  reported  to  that  unit  on  June  5,  2001.    The  applicant  was  required  to 
execute either an extension agreement or a reenlistment to have the necessary service to 
qualify for the orders before actually transferring to the new unit.  The Chief Counsel 
stated  that  the  applicant  had  to  have  a  minimum  of  three  years  of  obligated  service 
remaining in the Coast Guard upon reporting to his new unit.  According to the Chief 
Counsel, unless the applicant had entered into an agreement to extend or reenlist prior 
to executing the orders, he would not have been permitted to transfer and would have 
been separated from the Coast Guard.  The Chief Counsel stated there was no way for 
the applicant to satisfy the requirement to extend or reenlist for three years while at the 
same  time  preserving  his  opportunity  for  the  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2  that 
became effective on October 1, 2001.  He stated that even though a counseling error was 
committed, the applicant cannot be granted the relief he requested.   
 
Applicant Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
Coast Guard.   
 
 
The applicant disagreed with the Coast Guard’s opinion that there was nothing 
he could have done to qualify for the October 1, 2001, SRB with  a multiple of 2.  He 
offered the following explanation: 
 

On October 15, 2001, the Board received the applicant’s reply to the views of the 

The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  evidence  exists  in  the  record  supporting  the 
applicant’s claim that his yeoman erroneously advised him that he could not extend for 
longer  than  two  years.    However,  according  to  the  Chief  Counsel,  the  record  also 
indicates that there was nothing the applicant could have done to qualify for the Zone B 
SRB multiple of 2 that became effective on October 1, 2001.   

[I]f I was counseled correctly to begin with by my past command I would 
have been able to extend to meet my obligated service to PCS [permanent 
change of station] overseas.  Which in turn would make me eligible to take 
advantage  of  the  SRB  message  (ALCOAST  127/01)  in  March  2001  and 
October I could have canceled my extension and reenlisted for up to six 
years to take the maximum potential of this bonus.  I honestly would have 
extended if I were counseled correctly, because I have eight years in the 
military  and  I  consider  myself  a  career  man.  .  .  .    I  reenlisted  early  to 
obligate my service to the Coast Guard and to accept my [assignment to 
an] overseas afloat unit.  I could have delayed my reenlistment until my 
separation date, but to go to the [cutter to which assigned] . . . I had to 
reenlist early to except that duty.  I hope this situation can be settled justly 
. . . 

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.  The applicant’s original enlistment was due to expire on June 26, 2001.  On 
January 26, 2001, he reenlisted for three years to have sufficient time remaining in the 
Coast  Guard,  as  required,  to  complete  a  new  tour  of  duty  afloat  outside  to  the 
continental United States.  He was required to reenlist or extend for three years if he 
wanted to accept the orders to this new assignment.  According to the Chief Counsel, 
the applicant reported for this assignment on June 5, 2001. At the time he executed the 
reenlistment contract, ALCOAST 127/01 had not been issued. 

 
3.  While the applicant’s command might have erroneously advised him that he 
could  not  extend  for  more  than  two  years,  such  improper  advice  did  not  affect  the 
applicant’s eligibility for the SRB multiple of 2 that became effective on October 1, 2001. 
The  applicant  was  simply  not  eligible  for  this  SRB  because  his  original  enlistment, 
inclusive of the one-month extension, expired on June 25, 2001.  Therefore, he had to 
extend or reenlist by June 26, 2001, or he would have been separated from the Service.   

 
4.  The applicant’s assertion that he could have canceled the extension, if one had 
existed,  and  reenlisted  in  October  2001,  is  incorrect.  Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST 
7220.33 states that “[e]xtensions previously executed by members may be canceled prior 
to their operative date for the purpose of executing a longer extension or reenlistment    
. . . “  If the applicant had extended his enlistment on January 26, 2001, it would have 
become  effective(operative)  at  the  latest  on June  26.  2001.    Therefore  pursuant to this 
regulation he could not have canceled the extension.   
 

5.  Moreover, the SRB regulation states “[e]ntitlement to SRB multiple and bonus 
ceiling is established on the actual date of reenlistment or the date the member executes 
an  Agreement  to  Extend  Enlistment  by  signing  Form  CG-3310B.    Entitlement  to  any 
Zone  of  SRB  is  established  only  on  the  date  the  member  reenlists  or  the  extension 
becomes operative.”  (Emphasis in instruction.)  The multiple of 2 was not available on 
June  26,  2001,  the  date  the  applicant’s  extension  would  have  become  operative.    See 
Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 § 3.d.(11). 

 
6.  However, the applicant could have qualified for the .5 SRB multiple that was 
available from May 1 through September 30, 2001, if he had been properly advised.  The 
applicant  could  have  extended  his  enlistment  for  36  months  on  January  26,  2001 
(extensions my total no more than six years during a career).  He would have needed to 

cancel  the  one-month  extension  dated  February  17,  1999,  in  order  to  have  the  full  36 
months  necessary  to  qualify  for  the  SRB.    (According  to  the  SRB  regulations  only 
extensions/reenlistments  of  36  months  or  longer  of  new  service  qualify  for  an  SRB.  
However,  the  regulation  permits  the  cancellation  of  extensions  of  two  years  or  less 
without SRB penalty).   

 
7.    The  alternative  relief  recommended  by  the  Chief  Counsel–permitting  the 
applicant  to  substitute  an  extension  of  36  months  or  longer,  with  a  May  27,  2001, 
operative date by canceling the one-month extension -- is fair and the only avenue in 
which the applicant would receive a full 36 month SRB payment.  

 
8.  The applicant did not indicate in his response to the advisory opinion whether 
he accepted the Chief Counsel’s recommendation for alternative relief.  The Board will 
direct  such  relief,  with  the  understanding  that  the  applicant  be  given  the  option  of 
accepting  such  relief  before  any  correction  is  made  to  his  record.    To  clarify,  the 
applicant was not eligible for the SRB multiple of 2 that became effective on October 1, 
2001. 

 
9.  Accordingly, the applicant should be granted relief as recommended by the 

 
Chief Counsel. 
 
 

ORDER 

 
The application of                                           , USCG, for correction of his military 
record is granted.  The applicant shall be offered the opportunity of having his record 
corrected  to  show  that  he  extended  his  original  enlistment  for  at  least  36  months  on 
May 27, 2001 for which he is entitled to receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of .5.  The 
one-month  extension  dated  February  17,  1999,  and  the  reenlistment  contract  dated 
January  26,  2001,  are  null  and  void.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the 
amount that he is due as a result of this correction.   

 
All other requests for relief are denied. 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Cynthia B. Walters 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
L. L. Sutter