DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-024 
 
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 January 15, 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  26,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  record  by  canceling  the  six-year 
reenlistment  contract  he  signed  on  October  9,  2001  and  substituting  a  six-month 
extension agreement in its place.  He stated that the short-term extension would make 
him eligible for the Zone B SRB that he was promised when he reenlisted for six years.  

 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that on October 9, 2001, he was erroneously counseled that 
he could receive a Zone B SRB for his six-year reenlistment.  In support, he submitted a 
copy of his reenlistment contract, which states that he was “entitled to [an] SRB Zone ‘B’ 
[with a] multiple of xx based on 72 months.”  He stated that in November 2001, he was 
advised  by  his  command  that  he  was  not  eligible  to  receive  the  SRB  promised  in  his 
reenlistment  contract.    He  alleged  that  had  he  been  properly  counseled  on  his  SRB 
eligibility,  he  would  have  extended  his  enlistment  for  six  months  on  October  9,  2001, 

and  thereafter,  reenlisted  upon  advancing  to  a  grade  E-5  and  becoming  eligible  for  a 
Zone B SRB. 

 
 
 
 

 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  June  9,  1992,  for  a  term  of  four 
years, through June 8, 1996.  On February 25, 1996, he signed a contract to extend his 
enlistment  for  four  years  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  Centralized  First  Term 
Reenlistment  Requirements  (CFTRR);  therefore,  his  new  expiration  of  enlistment  was 
June 8, 2000.  Prior to the applicant’s new expiration of enlistment date, he extended for 
thirty days, through July 8, 2000.  On May 8, 2000, he extended his enlistment for one 
year, through July 8, 2001.  On May 31, 2001, the applicant agreed to a fourth extension 
for  three  months,  through  October  8,  2001.   The  total  duration  of the  applicant’s  four 
enlistment extensions equaled five years and one month.  

 
On  October  9,  2001,  the  applicant  executed  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract, 
which specified that he was promised a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of xx.  
The applicant did not receive the Zone B SRB because at the time of his reenlistment, he 
held  an  E-4  paygrade  and  was  therefore  serving  in  a  grade  below  that  required  to 
receive a Zone B SRB.  To date, he continues to serve on active duty. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 13, 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 B SRB.  He stated that because the applicant 
had  served  more  than  six  years  on  active  duty  service  and  was  serving  in  an  E-4 
paygrade on the date of his reenlistment, he was ineligible to receive the Zone B SRB.   
 
 
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 
grant the applicant’s request for a short-term extension agreement for six months.  He 
explained that, in the instant case, 
 

[t]he  Government  is  not  estopped  from  repudiating  the  SRB  provision 
included  in  Applicant’s  09  October  2001  reenlistment  contract.    Even 
assuming  arguendo  that  Applicant  had  detrimentally  relied  on  this 

promise of a [sic] SRB, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply, because as 
a matter of law, Applicant was ineligible for 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 in 
light  of  the  evidence  supporting  a  finding  of  error.    He  stated  that  voiding  the 
reenlistment  contract  would  result,  however,  in  the  applicant  being  left  without  a 
current  service  obligation,  as  of  October  9,  2001.  He  stated  that  the  applicant  must 
choose  between  a  new  contract  or  immediate  separation  prior  to  the  voiding  of  his 
reenlistment contract.   
 

The  Chief  Counsel,  therefore,  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  alternative 
relief  by  soliciting  from  the  applicant  his  reenlistment  intentions  to  be  effective  after 
October 9, 2001. 
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On May 14, 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 Board received no response.   

 
 

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].”    Article  1.G.15.c.  provides  that  “[t]he  total  of  all 
extensions of an enlistment may not exceed six years.” 
 
 
SRB Manual Provisions   
 
 
Article 2 of Enclosure (1) to the Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment 
Bonus  Programs  Administration)  provides  that  “[a]ll  personnel  with  14  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.b.(4) of the instruction provides that in order for members to receive a 

 
 
Zone B SRB, they must be serving in a paygrade of E-5 or higher. 
 
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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 
when he reenlisted on October 9, 2001.   
 
 
To  qualify  for  a  Zone  B  SRB,  a  member  must  have  been  serving  in  a 
paygrade of E-5 or higher on the date of his reenlistment.  COMDTINST 7220.33, Article 
3.b.(4).  Although the applicant was serving in an E-4 paygrade when he reenlisted, the 
Coast  Guard  promised  him  a  Zone  B  SRB.    The  applicant  has  proved  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  improperly  counseled  by  his  command 
about his Zone B SRB eligibility on October 9, 2001. 
 
 
The applicant asserted that had he been properly counseled, he would not 
have reenlisted for six years but would have extended his enlistment for six months for 
the purpose of awaiting his advancement to an E-5 paygrade.  Under Personnel Manual 
regulations,  however,  members  cannot  voluntarily  extend  an  enlistment  for  less  than 
two years.  Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.15.a.1.  Furthermore, the applicant could not 
extend for the minimum of two years because his original enlistment had already been 
extended for five years and one month.  Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.15.c. 
 
 
The Board finds that although the applicant would not have reenlisted for 
six years for an SRB he was not eligible for on October 9, 2001, he would have either 
been discharged or allowed to reenlist for three, four, five, or six years, notwithstanding 
his ineligibility to receive a Zone B SRB.   
 
 
Moreover, the applicant’s tenth active duty anniversary was June 9, 2002, 
and under COMDTINST7220.33, he was authorized to reenlist on that day for an SRB.  
If he had reenlisted for only three years on October 9, 2001, he could have subsequently 

4. 

5. 

6. 

reenlisted  for  six  years  on  June  9,  2002,  to  receive  an  Zone  B  SRB  under  ALCOAST 
585/01. 
 

7. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  should  deny  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  six-
month  extension  and  grant  relief  by  voiding  the  applicant’s  six-year  reenlistment 
contract dated October 9, 2001, and offering him the opportunity to reenlist on that day 
for three to six years and to reenlist again on his tenth anniversary for an SRB. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

If he chooses not to reenlist, the Coast Guard shall discharge him expeditiously.   

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

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

He shall be properly counseled concerning his options and the consequences of 

 
 
correction of his military record is granted, in part, as follows: 
 
 
the applicant signed on October 9, 2001 shall be null and void. 
 
 
He shall be allowed to reenlist for a term of three, four, five or six years, as of 
October 9, 2001, at his discretion.  He shall also be offered to reenlist again on June 9, 
2002, his tenth active duty anniversary, for an SRB.  If he chooses to reenlist as of June 9, 
2002, the Coast Guard shall pay him the Zone B SRB he would be due under ALCOAST 
585/01 as a result of this correction. 
 
 
his possible actions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Nilza F. Velazquez 

 

 

 
 L. L. Sutter 

 

 
 Blane A. Workie