Application for Correction of 
Coast Guard Record of: 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 

 
ULMER, Chair: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
BCMR Docket No. 2002-016 

FINAL DECISION 

    
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 January 
7,  2002,  upon  the  Board’s  receipt  of  a  complete  application  for  correction  of  the 
applicant’s military record. 

 
This final decision, dated August 15, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 
Applicant’s Request and Allegations 

  
The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by directing that he receive a 
Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  payment  with  a  multiple  of  2  under 
ALCOAST 198/01, rather than the Zone B multiple of 1 he received as a result of his six 
year reenlistment on April 13, 2001, pursuant to ALCOASTs 488/00.   

 
ALCOAST 488/00 announced a multiple of 1 for the applicant’s rating effective 

February 1, 2001.  ALCOAST 127/01 canceled this multiple on May 1, 2001. 

 
ALCOAST  127/01  issued  on  March  27,  2001  announced  a  two-phase  plan  for 
assigning  SRB  multiples.  It  announced  a  Zone  B  multiple  of  1  for  the  ET  rating  from 
May 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001 and multiple of 2 from October 1, 2001 until 
canceled.  This ALCOAST also provided for the following:  

 

In order to take advantage of the October 1 multiples, commanding 
officers  [COs]  may  authorize  short  term  extensions  up  to  6  months  to 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-016 
 

2 

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. 
 
ALCOAST  198/01  issued  on  April  30,  2001  did  not  announce  new  multiples.  
Rather  it  authorized  commanding  officers  to  grant  short-term  extensions  to  members 
whose 6th or 10th year anniversary dates fell on or after May 1, 2001 but before October 
1,  2001,  and  whose  rating  was  entitled  to  an  SRB  on  October  1,  2001.    CO’s  were 
permitted  to  reenlist  such  members  in  October  2001  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the 
SRB multiple available on October 1, 2001.  (Normally, individuals may reenlist within 
three  months  of  or  on  their  6th  and  10th  active  duty  anniversary  date  to  obtain  an 
available SRB multiple.) 
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  in  order  to  have  the  amount  of  remaining  service 
required to accept permanent change of station (PCS) orders, he had to reenlist on April 
13, 2001. This was approximately two weeks prior to April 30, 2001; the date ALCOAST 
198/01 was issued. His then current enlistment expired on August 29, 2001.  Therefore, 
if  he  had  not  reenlisted  or  extended,  he  would  not  have  had  the  one-year  of  service 
remaining  on  his  enlistment  to  accept  PCS  orders.  His  reporting  date  for  his  new 
assignment was July 6, 2001.  According to Article 4.B.6. of the Personnel Manual the 
applicant  was  required  to  commit  to  an  additional  11  months  of  service  to  have  the 
required full year of remaining service prior to reporting to his new assignment.  
 
 
The applicant claimed that he could have benefited from ALCOAST 198/01 if he 
had not been required to transfer to a new duty station in July 01, because his end of 
enlistment  and  tenth  anniversary  both  fell  between  the  pertinent  dates  of  the 
ALCOAST. The applicant asserted that if he had not accepted the PCS orders he could 
have  received  a  short-term  extension  under  ALCOAST  198/01  from  August  27th  to 
September 30, 2001, and reenlisted on October 1, 2001, for an SRB multiple of 2.  The 
applicant  also  alleged  that  the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  not  issuing 
ALCOASTs 127/01 and 198/01 30 days in advance of the their effective dates. 
 
 
The applicant received an SRB with a multiple of 1 when he reenlisted on April 
13, 2001.  His military record shows that he received SRB counseling on April 10, 2001, 
wherein  he  was  informed  that  he  was  eligible  for  a  multiple  of  1  under  ALCOAST 
488/00.  He also acknowledged that he was eligible to extend or reenlist for a period of 
up to six years.   
 
Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On May 15, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel 
of the Coast Guard recommending that the Board deny relief in this case. He stated that 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-016 
 

3 

the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or  injustice  in  case.   He stated on April 10, 
2001, the applicant received appropriate SRB counseling.   
 

The Chief Counsel stated that on or before April 10, 2001, the applicant received 
orders to a new duty station.  The applicant reported to his new unit on July 6, 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 one 
year of obligated service remaining in the Coast Guard upon reporting to his new unit.  
According  to  the  Chief  Counsel,  unless  the  applicant  entered  into  an  agreement  to 
extend or reenlist prior to executing the PCS orders, he would not have been permitted 
to transfer and would have been separated from the Coast Guard on August 29, 2001.  

 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  contrary  to  the  applicant’s  contentions,  the 
authority  contained  in  AlCOAST  198/01  to  enter  into  a  short-term  extension  for  the 
purpose of receiving an SRB is inapplicable to the facts presented here.  He argued that 
nothing  in  ALCOAST  127/01  or  ALCOAST  198/01  provided  applicant’s  command 
with the authority to waive the (11 month) obligated service requirement for acceptance 
of change of station orders.  According to the Chief Counsel, the applicant has failed to 
make a prima facia showing that the facts presented in his case amounted to an injustice 
that “shocks the senses” especially in view of the $11,423.50 received as a result of his 
six-year reenlistment.   

 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  the  applicant  voluntarily  entered  into  a 
reenlistment contract in April 2001 in exchange for an SRB and PCS orders.  According 
the Chief Counsel, the applicant made a rational decision to maximize the SRB multiple 
that was available to him at that time rather than extending for 11 months and hoping 
that  an  SRB  would  be  available  at  the  expiration  of  the  extension  in  July.  2002.    The 
Chief Counsel further stated that the applicant has not explained how he would have 
been  able  to  take  advantage  of  ALCOAST  198/01  to  attain  the  2  multiple  that  was 
available in October 2001 in view of the requirement that he was required to obligate 
service prior to July 2001.   
 
Applicant Reply to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 
 
applicant for reply.  He did not submit a response.   
 

On  May  24,  2002,  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast  Guard  was  mailed  to  the 

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. 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-016 
 

4 

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

 
title 10, United States Code.  The application was timely. 
 

2.  The applicant reenlisted on April 13, 2001.  The Coast Guard could not have 
counseled the applicant on ALCOAST 198/01 because it was not issued until April 30, 
2001,  after  the  applicant  had  reenlisted.    ALCOAST  198/01  did  not  contain  a 
retroactivity provision and therefore is not applicable to the applicant.   

 
 
3.  However, ALCOAST 127/01 was in effect at the time of the applicant’s SRB 
counseling on April 10, 2001 and his reenlistment on April 13, 2001.  There is nothing in 
the record showing that the applicant was informed about this ALCOAST.  Therefore, 
the  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  not  counseling  the  applicant  about  this 
ALCOAST on or prior to his reenlistment. 
 

4.  The applicant was not prejudiced by the Coast Guard’s failure to inform him 
about  ALCOAST  127/01  because  it  did  not  increase  the  multiple  for  the  applicant’s 
rating  until  October  1,  2001.  From  April  10  through  July  5,  2001,  a  multiple  of  1  was 
available  for  the  applicant’s  rating,  which  he  received.    The  applicant  could  not  take 
advantage of the October multiple because he needed to extend/reenlist prior to July 6, 
2001,  the  date  he  was  required  to  report  to  his  new  command.  As  the  Chief  Counsel 
stated,  neither  ALCOAST  198/01  nor  127/01  waived  the  required  obligated  service 
requirement before the execution of PCS orders.   

 
5.   The Board is not persuaded that the applicant would have refused the PCS 
orders  even  if  he  had  known  about  ALCOAST  127/01  for  the  following  reasons:    1.  
There was no guarantee that the applicant’s CO would have granted him a short-term 
extension  under ALCOAST 198/01.  2. There was no guarantee that the Coast Guard 
would have permitted him to reenlist at the end of his enlistment on August 29, 2001 
rather  than  discharging  him.  3.  There was no guarantee that an SRB multiple would 
have been available for his rating at the end of his 11 month extension in July 2002.  To 
say that the applicant would have declined PCS orders with a guaranteed multiple of 1 
would be speculative.   
 

6.  The applicant reenlisted on April 13, 2001 and received a multiple of 1. The 
Board does not find an error or injustice that requires any corrective action under the 
circumstances of this case.   
 
 
 

7.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-016 
 

5 

ORDER 

 
The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

        

 
 
Christopher A. Cook  

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis  

 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger