DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-011 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 November 29, 2001, upon 
the BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application for correction. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  July  18,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him eligible 
to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) as a result of his reenlistment on October 
4, xxxx, even though more than three months passed between his discharge on April 13, 
xxxx, and his reenlistment.1   
 

The applicant alleged that sometime before May 13, xxxx, he went to a recruiting 
office to help a relative enlist.  He asked a recruiter at the office, XXX, about reenlisting 
himself,  filled  out  an  application,  and  submitted  a  copy  of  his  discharge  form.    He 
alleged  that  XXX  told  him  that  she  would  check  with  the  detailer  to  see  if  the  Coast 
Guard had a billet for him and get back to him.  However, he did not hear back from 
her and so called her on May 22nd.  She said she would get back to him in a few days. 

 
On  Friday,  May  26,  xxxx,  the  applicant  alleged,  he  told  the  recruiter  that  he 
wanted to reenlist for six years.  She told him to call her on June 5, xxxx.  When he did, 

                                                 
1 Paragraph 3.a.(1) of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 provides that a person with prior 
military service must reenlist within three months of being separated to be eligible to receive an SRB.  

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 2 

she said she had not heard from the detailer and asked him to check in once a week.  He 
alleged that for several weeks, he continued to check in, but nothing happened. 

 
The applicant alleged that on July 28, xxxx, he contacted the recruiter’s supervi-
sor, XXXX, who stated that he knew nothing about the applicant’s situation but could 
probably reenlist him as an airman (AN; pay grade E-3).  The applicant alleged that he 
told XXXX that he would get back to him about that and called his old chief at his for-
mer air station, Master Chief X.  Master Chief X advised him that, because AMT was 
listed as a critical rate, the applicant should be able to reenlist as an E-4. 

 
On  July  31,  xxxx,  the  applicant  alleged,  he  visited  the  recruiting  office.    The 
recruiter  told  him  that  she  had  never  heard  from  the  detailer  and  could  not  find  the 
paperwork  he  had  submitted  back  in  May.    She  also  told  him  that  he  would  have  to 
retake a professional qualification test and get a physical examination.  He alleged that 
he resubmitted his paperwork and called another recruiter he knew, Chief X, in a differ-
ent region.  Chief X told him that he should not have to retake the test or get a physical 
examination since he had just been discharged in April.  Chief X told him that he would 
contact the applicant’s recruiter, XXX, about the matter. 

 
On August 2, xxxx, the applicant alleged, he was called to the recruiting office 
and counseled by XXXX about involving others in the process.  XXXX told him that the 
office  was  following  proper  guidelines.    He  also  told  him  to  provide  a  list  of  work 
references  for  the  detailer  to  contact,  which  the  applicant  did.    The  applicant  alleged 
that on August 8, xxxx, Master Chief X and Chief X both spoke to the detailer on his 
behalf.  He alleged that they told him that he would be sworn in within a few days. 

 
On September 1, xxxx, the applicant alleged, Master Chief X called him to see if 
he  had  been  reenlisted  yet.    When  the  applicant  said  he  had  not  yet  been  reenlisted, 
Master Chief X called the recruiter, XXX, who told him that she had not yet received the 
applicant’s enlisted rate determination.  Therefore, Master Chief X called headquarters.  
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  September  5,  xxxx,  Master  Chief  X  called  him  and said 
that XXX had filled out the wrong paperwork and that, as a result, the applicant’s file 
was in the admission office of the Officer Candidate School.  Master Chief X told him 
that  the  problem  was  straightened  out  and  that  he  had  received  an  email  from  the 
detailer  indicating  that  the  applicant  would  be  stationed  in  Xxxxxx.    The  applicant 
alleged that Master Chief X told him that he had forwarded a copy of the email to XXX, 
but that the recruiter said she never received it. 

 
On September 11, xxxx, the applicant alleged, Master Chief X called his recruiter 
and  was  told  that  she  was  still  waiting  for  something  from  the  detailer.    Therefore, 
Master Chief X called him and suggested that he fly up to the training center in Cape 
May to reenlist since the process was taking so long at his local recruiting office. 

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 3 

The  applicant  alleged  that  on  October  4,  xxxx,  he  went  to  his  local  recruiting 
office to reenlist.  They had prepared a four-year contract instead of the six-year con-
tract he wanted, and he was also told that he would receive no SRB. 

 
Aside from his own statement, the applicant did not submit any evidence to sup-

port his allegations. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  November  14,  1994,  and  was 
released  into  the  Reserve  on  April  13,  xxxx.    His  record  indicates  that  on  January 11, 
xxxx,  prior  to  his  release,  he  received  reenlistment  counseling  in  accordance  with 
Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual,2 but declared that he would not reenlist.   
 
 
contract indicates that he was not promised a bonus or anything else for reenlisting.  
 

On  October  4,  xxxx,  the  applicant  reenlisted  for  four  years  as  an  E-4.    The 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On April 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Chair  dismiss  the  case  without  prejudice  under  33  C.F.R.  § 52.21(b)  or  deny  relief  for 
lack of proof. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the Chair should dismiss the case without preju-
dice because the applicant failed to state what “record correction [he] desired and the 
grounds  for  alleging  error  or  injustice  with  particularity.”    He  alleged  that  without  a 
more specific request for correction, “neither the Coast Guard nor the Board can effec-
tively address the issues of the merits of the instant case.”  He alleged that a request for 
an SRB is not a request for a “cognizable record correction.”  Moreover, even if it were, 
he argued, the applicant failed to allege a specific error or injustice committed by the 
Coast  Guard.    The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that, “while great strictness is not generally 
required  in  equity  pleadings,  it  is  an  elementary  rule  of  the  most  extensive  influence 
that an applicant should state his right or claim with accuracy and clearness.”  He fur-
ther argued that, absent a specific request for correction, the application amounts to a 
purely monetary claim, over which the Board does not have jurisdiction.3 
 
 
If  the  Chair  does  not  dismiss  the  case,  the  Chief  Counsel  argued,  the  Board 
should deny relief for lack of proof.  He stated that the applicant failed to submit any 
evidence to corroborate his allegations and that a review of the records of the recruiting 
                                                 
2  Article 12.B.4. of the Personnel Manual provides that, as part of the reenlistment interview, the member 
must be advised about his SRB eligibility. 
3    The  Chief  Counsel  alleged  that  the  Comptroller  General  has  jurisdiction  over  members’  monetary 
claims  under  31  U.S.C.  § 3702.    However,  in  1997,  that  statute  was  amended  to  give  the  Secretary  of 
Defense jurisdiction over members’ purely monetary claims. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 4 

office  in  question  found  that  the  applicant  first  contacted  the  recruiting  office  about 
reenlisting on August 7, xxxx, and applied for reenlistment on August 9, xxxx, after the 
three-month  SRB  eligibility  period  provided  under  paragraph  3.a.(1)  of  COMDTINST 
7220.33 ended on July 13, xxxx.  He stated that the only documentary evidence of his 
contact  with  the recruiting office begins on August 7, xxxx.  Furthermore, he pointed 
out  that  the  applicant  reenlisted  on  October  4,  xxxx,  after  having  been  told  that  he 
would not receive an SRB and, therefore, is not owed one even under contract law.  
 

The Chief Counsel stated that on May 29, xxxx, the applicant’s brother visited a 
recruiting  office  to  apply  for  enlistment.    However,  he  stated,  the  brother  listed  the 
applicant’s  spouse,  who  was  serving  on  active  duty,  as the person who referred him, 
and there is no evidence that the applicant visited the recruiting office with his brother.  
Moreover, the Chief Counsel argued, the applicant has not proved that, if he did seek to 
reenlist  within  three  months  of  his  release,  the  Coast  Guard  had  any  duty  to  reenlist 
him  within  the  three  months.    The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  there  is  no  regulation 
requiring recruiters to effect the reenlistment of veterans within any set time schedule. 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  this  case  involves  a  significant  issue  of  Coast 
 
Guard policy, so that any final action contrary to his recommendation must be reviewed 
by the delegate of the Secretary, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 52.64(b). 
 
 
following records found in the recruiting office: 
 
•  The  applicant’s  brother’s  Prospect  Data  Card,  completed  on  May  29,  xxxx,  which 

In  support  of  his  advisory  opinion,  the  Chief  Counsel  submitted  copies  of  the 

lists the applicant’s wife as the person who referred him to the Coast Guard. 

 
•  A phone message log with a record dated August 7, xxxx, indicating that the appli-
cant left a message stating that he wanted to reenlist.  The log indicates that the mes-
sage was not left specifically for XXX. 

 
•  The  applicant’s  own  Prospect  Data  Card  and  six  other  reenlistment  forms,  com-

pleted on August 9, xxxx. 

 
•  A phone message log with a record dated September 22, xxxx, indicating that some-

one based at an Air Station called for XXX regarding the applicant. 

 
•  An assignment reservation dated September 25, xxxx, that originally indicated that 
the applicant was entitled to a bonus but was later revised to show that no bonus 
was due. 

 
•  An email from XXX, dated September 29, xxxx, to the Aviation Detailer stating that 
the applicant had been told he would receive a bonus and inquiring about how he 
could get a bonus. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 5 

 

 

In  addition, the Chief Counsel submitted an affidavit signed by XXX, in which 
she  stated  that  she  cannot  remember  having  any  contact  with  the  applicant  prior  to 
August 7, xxxx.  She stated that if he did have any contact with her or anyone else at the 
office prior to August xxxx, it must have been informal and insubstantial because she 
cannot recall it and there is no record of any prior contact.  She further stated that she 
cannot recall who if anyone came to the recruiting office with the applicant’s brother on 
May 29, xxxx.  Because the brother failed to pass the entrance examination on June 5, 
xxxx, she had no more contact with him. 

XXX  stated  that  she  had  reenlisted  veterans  before  and  that  it  takes  anywhere 
from one to three months, depending upon the actions of the recruit, the service’s need 
for  their  skills,  and  the  workload  of  the  recruiting  command  and  the  detailer.    She 
stated that sometime after the applicant completed the paperwork on August 9, xxxx, 
he told her that he had been told by someone he used to work with that he would be 
entitled to an SRB.  She stated that she told him she did not believe he was entitled to an 
SRB  but  would  check  on  it.    Therefore,  she  contacted  the  recruiting  command  and 
requested an SRB for him but was told he was not eligible for the SRB.  She also checked 
with  the  Aviation  Detailer,  who  informed  her  while  the  applicant  was  sitting  in  the 
office with her that he was not eligible for an SRB.  
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  6,  2002,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s 

 
 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond.  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 application was timely. 

2. 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  urged  the  Chair  to  dismiss  this  case  under  33  C.F.R. 
 
§ 52.21(b)  because  the  applicant  failed  to  identify  the  record  correction  he  wanted  to 
become eligible for an SRB and failed to specify the error or injustice committed by the 
Coast Guard.  The Chair declined to exercise her authority to dismiss the case because 
the  regulations  regarding  SRB  eligibility  are  so  complex  that  members  are  frequently 
unable  to  understand  them  or  to  articulate  what  exact  record  corrections  would  be 
necessary  to  make  them  eligible  for  the  SRB  to  which  they  believe  they  are  entitled.  
Moreover, the Chair found that the applicant’s statements regarding his alleged treat-
ment  by  the  recruiter  constitute  a  clear  allegation  of  error  and  injustice.    The  Board 
concurs in the Chair’s decision not to dismiss the case. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 6 

 

3. 

4. 

The Chief Counsel argued that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this case 
because applicant’s claim is purely monetary since he failed to request a specific correc-
tion of his record.  However, a member’s eligibility for an SRB is a matter determined 
by his military record and as such falls within the jurisdiction of this Board pursuant to 
10 U.S.C. § 1552. 
 
 
 Under 37 U.S.C. § 308, the Secretary may prescribe regulations governing 
members’  eligibility  for  SRBs.    Under  Article  1.G.7.a.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  and 
Article 3.a.(1) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33, members must reenlist within 
three months of being released from active duty to be eligible for an SRB.  Because the 
applicant was released from active duty more than three months before he reenlisted on 
October 4, xxxx, he was not eligible for an SRB.  Moreover, the preponderance of the 
evidence in the record indicates that he signed the contract after having been told that 
he was not eligible for an SRB. 
 

5. 

The applicant made many allegations about having tried to reenlist within 
three  months  of  his  release  on  April  13,  xxxx.    However,  he  submitted  no  evidence 
whatsoever  to  support  his  allegations,  and  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the 
record  indicates  that  he  first  communicated  his  desire  to  reenlist  when  he  called  the 
recruiting office on August 7, xxxx, a few weeks after the three-month period following 
his separation had expired. 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

6. 
 

 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-011                                                                  p. 7 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for correction of his military record 

 
 

 
 

is denied.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
John A. Kern  

 

 

 
Astrid Lopez-Goldberg 

 

 

 

 
Coleman R. Sachs