DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
Coast Guard Record of: 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2001-088 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
 

 

  
 

 

 
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 23, 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,  an  electronics  technician  second  class  (ET2;  pay  grade  E-5),  asked  the 
Board to correct his record by canceling the 6-year reenlistment contract he signed on April 7, 
2001, and replacing it with a one-month extension of his original enlistment. He requested that 
his record be  further corrected to show that he reenlisted on or after April 8, 2001, which he 
claimed would allow him to obtain an SRB payment as an E-5 with over four years of service 
rather than the SRB payment he received as an E-5 with over three years of service.  (When the 
applicant  reenlisted  on  April  7,  2001,  he  received  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  3  based  on  pay 
grade E-5 with over three years of service.) 

 
 
The applicant stated that “[d]ue to an administrative miscalculation, [his] exact date of 
over 4 service should have been 8 April 2001, instead of [his] reenlisting on 7 April 2001.”  The 
applicant claimed that rather than reenlisting at the expiration of his enlistment (April 6, 2001), 
he  could  have  extended  for  one  month  under  ALCOAST  127/01  and  “then  reenlisted  in  May 
2001 for over four pay.” 
 
 
The applicant submitted a statement from the chief yeoman of the unit that completed the 
processing of his  reenlistment documents.  This  individual stated that ALCOAST 127/01 was 
published after the applicant’s reenlistment document processing had begun and no one at the 
unit thought to re-review the documents in light of the ALCOAST 127/01.  The chief yeoman 

believed  that  the  applicant  could  have  extended  for  one  month  and  then  reenlisted  under  the 
ALCOAST, if he had been counseled to do so. 
 
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 the SRB multiples effective through April 30, 2001, the multiples that 
would  become  effective  on  May  1,  2001,  and  the  multiples  that  would  become  effective  on 
October 1, 2001.  In all three phases, the SRB multiple for the ET rating was 3, but for some 
other  ratings  the  SRB  multiples  either  decreased  or  increased.    On  average  the  October  1 
multiples were higher than the May 1 multiples. 
 
 
 

The ALCOAST provided for the following: 

In order to take advantage of the October 1 multiples, commanding officers my 
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.   

 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On September 21, 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.  

 
The Chief Counsel stated that there is no mechanism that would allow a member on a 
first four-year enlistment to have more than four  years of active duty prior to an extension or 
reenlistment.  He stated that the applicant is mistaken in his belief that he could have extended 
for one month under the ALCOAST to ensure that he had more than four years of service for pay 
purposes.  In this regard, the Chief Counsel stated the following: 

 
The pertinent language of ALCOAST 127/01 states:  “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 an October 1 SRB multiple.” . . . This message does 
not allow short-term extensions for purposes of increasing a member’s longevity 
pay status.  Rather, the plain language of this ALCOAST makes it clear that short-
term extensions will be permitted in order to allow a member to take advantage of 
the  October  1,  2001  multiple.    The  multiple  that  applicant  received  for  his 
reenlistment  on  7  April  2001  was  “3”  per  ALCOAST  488/00.    The  October  1, 
2001, multiple for Applicant’s rating is also “3”.  .  . . Thus the October 1 SRB 
multiple for Applicant’s rating remained the same.   

 
 
The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant enlisted on April 7, 1997, and had an end of 
enlistment date of 6 April 2001, and therefore, he had to reenlist or extend on or before April 7, 
2001.  He stated that no matter what date the applicant reenlisted or extended, he would not be 
“over 4” base pay status.  He stated that the applicant’s situation is not unique and that no error 
or injustice occurred in this case. 
 
Applicant Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
On September 25, 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.      
 
 
United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

1. The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10, 

2.    The  applicant’s  original  enlistment  expired  on  April  6,  2001.    The  applicant  was 
required to either extend or reenlist at that time. He chose to reenlist for which he received an 
SRB  bonus  with  a  multiple  of  3  as  an  E-5  with  over  three  years  of  service.  There  was  no 
miscalculation.  The applicant would not have over four years of service until April 8, 2001, the 
day after he was required either to extend or reenlist.    According to the SRB regulation, if a 
member reenlists exactly at the four-year point, the member will be paid an SRB with over three 
years of service.  

 
3. The applicant could have executed a short-term extension under ALCOAST 127/01 to 
gain eligibility for an SRB, but not to gain longevity for pay purposes.  The Board is persuaded 
in this finding by the language of the ALCOAST, which stated, “In order to take advantage of 
the  October  1  multiples,  commanding  officers  may  authorize  short  term  extensions  .  .  .“  The 
ALCOAST did not authorize short-term extensions for individuals for the purpose of increasing 
longevity for pay purposes.  The ALCOAST under review, attempted to correct an injustice that 
had  occurred  to  those  individuals  who  suffered  a  loss  of  SRB  entitlement  due  to  the  early 
convening  of  the  SRB  panel,  which  was  necessitated  by  budgetary  concerns.    To  correct  his 
situation, the Coast Guard permitted short-term extensions to allow those affected individuals an 
opportunity to have an SRB or higher multiple. 
 

4.   The applicant has not demonstrated that he suffered an error or injustice in this case.  
He reenlisted for six years at the end of his original enlistment and received an SRB multiple of 
3.  There was no requirement that the Coast Guard counsel members on ways to engineer a larger 
SRB  payment  than  that  authorized  under  the  SRB  regulation.    Under  the  SRB  regulation,  a 
service member receives the SRB multiple that is in effect at the time of reenlistment or when he 
executes his extension agreement.  That is the applicant’s situation.  

 

5.  The multiple for the applicant’s rating was 3 in April 2001 and it was 3 in October 
2001.    Therefore,  there  was  no  need  for  a  short-term  extension  in  the  applicant’s  case.    The 
applicant received the SRB to which he was entitled on April 7, 2001. 
 
 
 
 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for relief should be denied. 

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

ORDER 

denied. 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Cynthia B. Walters 

 
 

 

 
Mark A. Holmstrup 

 

 

 
L. L. Sutter