DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-009 
 
XXXXXX, XXXXXX X. 
XXX XX XXXX, XXX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
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 February 4, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  12,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by either ordering the Coast 
Guard to pay a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB), which was promised to him 
on  August  18,  2001  for  a  six-year  reenlistment  under  ALCOAST  127/01,  or  canceling 
the six-year reenlistment contract. 

 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant alleged that on August 18, 2001, he was erroneously advised that 
he  could  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  127/01  for  his  six-year 
reenlistment.  In support, he submitted a copy of his enlistment contract, which states 
that he was “entitled to [an] SRB Zone A [with a] multiple of 2 per ALCOAST 127/01.”  
He alleged that had he been properly counseled, he would have waited to reenlist until 
after he was advanced to paygrade E-5.  The applicant stated that, if he is not entitled to 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-009                                                               p. 2  

receive  the  Zone  A  SRB,  he  requests  that  his  eight-month  extension  contract  be 
extended for three additional months, through July 18, 2002. 
 
 
 
 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on August 18, 1997, for a term of four 
years.    He  had  previously  served  three  years  and  eight  months  in  the  Air  Force.    On 
December  15,  1999,  he  signed  a  contract  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  eight  months, 
effective beginning on August 18, 2001.  On July 24, 2001, a page 7 was entered in the 
applicant’s  record  showing  that  he  was  counseled  on  his  SRB  eligibility  under 
ALCOAST 127/01. 

 
On  August  18,  2001,  the  applicant  canceled  the  eight-month  extension  and 
reenlisted  for  six  years,  through  August  17,  2007,  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB.    His 
reenlistment  contract  states  that  he  was  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  SRB,  calculated  with  a 
multiple of two, as authorized for his rating under ALCOAST 127/01.  The applicant 
did not receive the Zone A SRB because at the time of his reenlistment, he had served 
for 7 years and 8 months on active duty, and was in Zone B rather than Zone A.  He did 
not receive a Zone B SRB either because he was still an E-4 in August 2001. 

 
On  May  1,  2002,  the  applicant  was  advanced  to  an  E-5  paygrade.    To  date,  he 

continues to serve on active duty. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On March 7, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant alternative relief in the applicant’s case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel admitted that the applicant’s command improperly counseled 
him that he was eligible to receive a Zone A SRB.  He stated that because the applicant 
had served more than six years on active duty service on the date of his reenlistment, he 
was  ineligible  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB.    He  further  stated that  because  the  applicant 
was  serving  in  an  E-4  paygrade  on  the  date  of  his  reenlistment,  he  was  ineligible  to 
receive a Zone B SRB, as well. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  notwithstanding  the  Coast  Guard’s  error  of 
promising an SRB to which the applicant was not entitled, there is no legal authority to 
pay the applicant the Zone A SRB.  He explained that, in the instant case,  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-009                                                               p. 3  

[t]he  Government  is  not  estopped  from  repudiating  the  SRB  payment 
[promise]  Applicant  received  in  his  reenlistment  contract  dated  18  August 
2001.    Even  assuming  arguendo  that  Applicant  had  detrimentally  relied  on 
this promise of a SRB, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply, because, as a 
matter of law, Applicant was ineligible to receive an SRB.   

 
Utah Power & Light v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 (1971); Montilla v. United States, 
457 F.2d 978, 198 Ct. Cl. 48 (1972); Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), 
cert. denied sub nom, Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937, (1977). 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  contract  is  voidable 
because of the failure of a material term to that contract, but that voiding the applicant’s 
reenlistment  contract will  cause  his  previously  canceled  extension  contract  to  become 
operational.  He stated that a new contract or other action must be established prior to 
the  termination  date  of  the  applicant’s  extension,  through  April  17,  2002,  because  he 
would be left without a current service obligation thereafter.   
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel,  therefore,  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  alternative 
relief  by  soliciting  from  the  applicant  his  reenlistment  or  extension  intentions  for  the 
period after April 17, 2002.   
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 11, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 
applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant stated he wished to 
extend his contract for three additional months, through July 18, 2002.  He further stated 
that he anticipates being advanced to an E-5 paygrade prior to the end of the requested 
extension, and thereby qualify for a Zone B SRB. 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 
 
Article  1.G.15.a.1  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  entitled  “Extension  of  Term 
Enlistment,” provides that members may voluntarily extend or reextend their term of 
enlistment “[f]or any number of full years not less than two nor greater than six years, 
when requested by member[s].” 
 
 
SRB Manual Provisions  
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-009                                                               p. 4  

 
Article 2 of Enclosure (1) to the Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment 
Bonus  Programs  Administration)  provides  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 3.a.(3) of the instruction states that in order for members to receive a Zone 
A SRB, they must have completed not more than six years of active service on the date 
of reenlistment. 
 
 
Zone B SRB, they must be serving in a paygrade of E-5 or higher. 
 
ALCOAST  127/01,  issued  by  the  Commandant  on  March  27,  2001,  authorized 
 
SRBs for members who reenlisted or extended their current enlistments between May 1, 
2001 and January 31, 2002.  An SRB with a multiple of two was authorized for members 
in the xx rating in Zone A (having no more than six years of active duty service). 
 

Article 3.b.(4) of the instruction provides that in order for members to receive a 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
 
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 appli-
cable law: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
Under Section 2 of Enclosure (1) to the Commandant Instruction 7220.33, 
the  applicant  was  entitled  to  proper  counseling  concerning  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB 
under ALCOAST 127/01 when he reenlisted on August 18, 2001.  
 
 
To qualify for a Zone A SRB, a member must have no more than six years 
of active duty service completed on the date of his reenlistment.  COMDTINST 7220.33, 
Article 3.a.(3).  Although the applicant had seven years and eight months of active duty 
service on the date of his reenlistment, the Coast Guard promised him a Zone A SRB.  
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was improperly 
counseled by his command about his Zone A SRB eligibility under ALCOAST 127/01. 
 
 
If the applicant had not reenlisted on August 18, 2001, then on April 17, 
2002, the expiration date of the applicant’s original enlistment, as extended, he would 
have been allowed to extend his enlistment for two, three, four, or five years or reenlist 
for  three,  four,  five,  or  six  years.    However,  in  choosing  either  an  extension  or 
reenlistment on April 18, 2002, the applicant would not have been eligible to receive a 

3. 

1. 

2. 

4. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-009                                                               p. 5  

Zone  B  SRB  because  he  was  not  then  serving  in  a  paygrade  of  E-5  or  higher.  
COMDTINST 7220.33, Article 3.b.(4).   

 
5. 

Furthermore,  although  the  applicant  expressed  to  the  Board  a  desire  to 
extend  his  enlistment  for  three  months,  through  July  17,  2002,  for  the  purpose  of 
awaiting  his  advancement  to  an  E-5  paygrade,  under  Personnel  Manual  regulations, 
members  cannot  voluntarily  extend  an  enlistment  for  less  than  two  years.    Personnel 
Manual, Article 1.G.15.a.1. 
 
 
Accordingly,  the  Board  should  deny  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  three-
month  extension  and  grant  relief  by  voiding  the  applicant’s  six-year  reenlistment 
contract dated August 18, 2001. 
 
 

6. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-009                                                               p. 6  

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  XXX  XX  XXXX,  USCG,  for  the 

His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  three-year  reenlistment  contract 

 
 
correction of his military record is granted in part as follows:   
 
 
that the applicant signed on August 18, 2001 shall be null and void. 
 
 
term of three, four, five, or six years, as of April 18, 2002, at his discretion. 
 

He shall be allowed to extend for two, three, four, or five years, or reenlist for a 

If he chooses neither to extend nor to reenlist, the Coast Guard shall discharge 

 
 

 
 

him expeditiously. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
Michael K. Nolan  

 

 

 
Sherri L. Pappas  

 

 

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer