DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-026 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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 January 18, 2002, 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 August 15, 2002, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he reen-
listed on his sixth active duty anniversary, January 14, 2001, to receive a selective reen-
listment  bonus  (SRB)  pursuant  to  ALCOAST  218/00.    He  alleged  that  he  was  never 
counseled about his opportunity to reenlist on that day for the SRB and that, if he had 
been, he would have reenlisted.  In support of his allegations, he submitted copies of 
SRB  regulations  and  a  copy  of  his  September  2000  leave  slip,  the  back  side  of  which 
bears the following notice:  “SRB counseling required within 3 months of 6th, 10th, or 
14th AD base date.  See your unit admin office for a page 7 entry.” 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On February 29, 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  
 
He had previously served in the military for a total of five years and two months.1  On 
                                                 
1  The  applicant  had  served  in  the  xxxx  for  three  years  and  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  26  months,  from 
November  28,  1995,  to  January  12,  1998,  when  he  was  honorably  discharged  because  of  xxxxxxxxxxxx.  
During that first enlistment in the Coast Guard, he received three negative administrative entries (page 
7s) in his record.  The page 7s indicated that he was counseled about having an apathetic attitude, failing 
to follow instructions, and leaving a communications center without properly securing the door. 

his  September  30,  2000,  performance  evaluation,  he  received  marks  of  4  and  5  (on  a 
scale  of  1  to  7,  with  7  being  best),  his  commanding  officer’s  recommendation  for 
advancement, and a satisfactory conduct mark. 

 
On December 11, 2000, the applicant’s command entered a page 7 in his record 
indicating that he had bounced a $xx.xx check at the Exchange.  The page 7 states that, 
although he was notified of the problem on August 31 and September 25, he failed to 
pay the debt and “forced the exchange to collect this debt by way of Pay Adjustment 
Authorization. Writing a check with insufficient funds to cover the payment is punish-
able by the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. …  You are counseled that unsatisfactory 
progress toward resolution of financial difficulty should be considered as evidence of 
an unacceptable standard of conduct which warrants consideration for separation from 
the Coast Guard or for a recommendation against reenlistment.”  

 
January 14, 2001, marked the applicant’s completion of six years of active service. 
There is no page 7 entry in his record documenting SRB counseling prior to the anniver-
sary.   

 
On  the  applicant’s  performance  evaluation  dated  March  31,  2001,  he  received 
marks of 4 and 5 (with more 5s than before), his commanding officer’s recommendation 
for  advancement,  and  a  satisfactory  conduct  mark.   As of July 16, 2002, the applicant 
and the commanding officer who signed the page 7 both continued to work at the same 
station. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 31, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that relief should be denied because the applicant “has 
failed to prove he would have received the required recommendation to reenlist from 
his commanding officer on January 14, 2001.  He stated that such a recommendation is 
required under Article 1.G.5.1.b.3. of the Personnel Manual and that the text of the page 
7 in the applicant’s record dated December 11, 2000, “creates a rebuttable presumption” 
that his command would not have allowed him to reenlist for the SRB on his anniver-
sary.  He stated that if the applicant “presented clear evidence indicating his command 
would have approved such a request in January 2001, the Coast Guard would consider 
withdrawing its recommendation to deny relief.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On June 3, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion to 

 
 
the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.  No response was received. 
 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 1.G.5.3. of the Personnel Manual states that “[e]ach member must receive 
from the officer effecting discharge a specific recommendation of whether or not he or 
she should be allowed to reenlist.  In making such recommendation, the officer effecting 
discharge  should  consider  the  member's  overall  performance,  potential  for  continued 
service, and conduct during the current enlistment.  If a member has received an unsat-
isfactory  conduct  mark,  court-martial  conviction(s),  or  NJP  [non-judicial  punishment] 
punishment(s), the officer effecting discharge should also consider how the severity and 
nature of the offense(s) impact the member's overall record of service during the current 
enlistment.” 

 
Article  10.B.7.1.  of  the  Personnel  Manual provides that, in deciding whether to 
recommend a member for advancement, “the rating chain must consider past perform-
ance, it must also consider and base the recommendation on the member's potential to 
perform satisfactorily the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade, quali-
ties of leadership, and adherence to the Service's core values.” 
 
 
Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
Administration), Section 3.d.(1), states that “[m]embers with exactly 6 years active duty 
on the date of reenlistment or operative date of extension will be entitled to the Zone A 
multiple in effect for their rating if they are otherwise eligible.” 
  
 
Section 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officers are authorized 
to effect early discharge and reenlist members within 3 months prior to their 6th, 10th, 
or 14th year active service anniversary dates (not to be confused with the normal expi-
ration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-
tively.” 
 
 
Enclosure  (3)  to  the  instruction  provides  that  during  the  three  months  prior  to 
their 6th, 10th, and 14th anniversary dates, members must be counseled about their eli-
gibility for an SRB.  The counseling must be documented in a page 7 entry signed by the 
member. 
 

ALCOAST 218/00, issued on May 19, 2000, established SRBs for personnel in cer-
tain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments between July 1, 2000, and 
January 31, 2001.  An SRB multiple was authorized for the applicant’s rating. 

 

PRIOR SIMILAR CASES 

 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-006, the Board denied an applicant’s request to correct 
his record by creating a reenlistment that would entitle him to an SRB because, during 
the  six-month  period  before  his  anniversary,  he  received  six  negative  page  7  entries 

documenting substandard and irresponsible job performance.  The Board found that the 
applicant’s commanding officer would not have allowed him to reenlist. 

 
In BCMR Docket No. 2000-122, the Board granted an applicant’s request to cor-
rect his record by creating an extension contract that would entitle him to an SRB even 
though, three months before the date of the extension, he received NJP for assaulting a 
member  with  a  curtain  rod  in  a  manner  “likely  to  produce  grievous  bodily  harm.”  
After the assault and less than a month before the requested date of the extension, how-
ever, he had received evaluation marks of 3.6 (out of 4.0) in proficiency, 3.4 in leader-
ship,  and  4.0  in  conduct,  making  his  average  marks  for  the  enlistment  3.5  for  profi-
ciency, 3.4 for leadership, and 3.9 for conduct.  Moreover, five months later, his com-
manding officer had allowed him to extend his contract for three years to accept trans-
fer orders.  The Board found that despite the NJP, the preponderance of the evidence 
suggested that the applicant’s commanding officer would have permitted him to extend 
his enlistment for four years to receive an SRB. 
 

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

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

3. 

2. 

 Under  Enclosure  (3)  to  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33,  the  applicant 
had a right to be counseled concerning his eligibility to receive an SRB under ALCOAST 
218/00 on his sixth active duty anniversary.  The regulation includes no exception for 
members  who  are  not  eligible  because  they  do  not  have  their  commanding  officers’ 
permission to reenlist.  The applicant was entitled to counseling about his SRB eligibil-
ity even if he did not have his commanding officer’s permission to reenlist.   
 
 
 Enclosure  (3)  also  requires  that  SRB  counseling  be  memorialized  on  a 
page 7 entered in a member’s record.  No such page 7 entry appears in the applicant’s 
record,  and  the  lack  of  one  does  not  prove  or  even  suggest  that  he  was  not  recom-
mended  for  reenlistment  by  his  commanding  officer.    In  light  of  the  lack  of  a  page  7 
entry documenting SRB counseling in the applicant’s record, the Board concludes that 
the Coast Guard erred by failing to counsel him about his SRB eligibility.  However, the 
Board  must  still  determine  whether  that  error  actually  harmed  the  applicant  by 
depriving him of an SRB he would otherwise have received. 
 
Under  the  provisions  of  COMDTINST  7220.33,  members  are  eligible  to 
 
reenlist on their sixth active duty anniversaries to receive an SRB if one is authorized for 
their rating.  Under Article 1.G.5.1.b.3. of the Personnel Manual, however, the applicant 

4. 

could not have reenlisted on January 14, 2001, without his commanding officer’s recom-
mendation.  The Deputy General Counsel has stated in BCMR Docket No. 2000-037 that 
in cases before the Board, the burden of proof, which is the preponderance of the evi-
dence, remains with the applicant.  Therefore, even though the applicant has proved by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the Coast Guard erred in failing to counsel him 
about the SRB, to be entitled to the correction he has requested, he must still prove that 
he was harmed by that error in that he would have been recommended for reenlistment 
by his commanding officer if he had asked to reenlist on January 14, 2001. 
 

5. 

Absent negative information in an applicant’s record, the Board normally 
assumes that the applicant would have been recommended for reenlistment by his or 
her commanding officer.  The Chief Counsel argued that the page 7 in the applicant’s 
record dated December 11, 2000, “creates a rebuttable presumption” that his command 
would not have allowed him to reenlist on January 14, 2001.  However, the language of 
the page 7 is extremely tentative in that it states that his actions “should be considered 
as evidence of an unacceptable standard of conduct which warrants consideration … for 
a recommendation against reenlistment,” rather than stating outright that the applicant 
is not recommended for reenlistment or that his actions actually warrant a recommen-
dation against reenlistment.  In light of the extremely tentative nature of the statement, 
the Board finds that it amounts to a warning about the potential consequences of fur-
ther bad behavior and does not prove that the applicant had actually lost his command-
ing officer’s recommendation for reenlistment.  Therefore, the Board will not presume 
that he had actually lost his commanding officer’s recommendation. 

 
6. 

 
The applicant’s record prior to his sixth anniversary is not nearly as poor 
as that of the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 1999-006.  The page 7 documented coun-
seling about having bounced a check and not repaying the money promptly, which is 
not  as  bad  as  assaulting  a  fellow  member  with  a  curtain  rod  in  a  manner  “likely  to 
produce grievous bodily harm,” like the applicant in BCMR Docket No. 2000-122.  In 
the latter case, the Board granted relief only because the applicant’s performance eval-
uation—dated two months after the assault and less than one month before the request-
ed date of extension—persuaded the Board that the applicant would have received his 
commanding officer’s permission to extend his enlistment.  In the instant case, there is 
no such intervening evidence between December 11, 2000, when he received the page 7 
and January 14, 2001, his sixth anniversary.   
 

7. 

 On  the  applicant’s  performance  evaluation  dated  March  31,  2001,  how-
ever, he received his commanding officer’s recommendation for advancement—the cri-
teria for which are certainly more stringent than those for a recommendation for reen-
listment—and marks that were all at least average and that were slightly higher than 
those  on  his  previous  evaluation,  in  which  he  also  received  his  commanding  officer’s 
recommendation for advancement.  Although the performance evaluation is dated two 
and  one-half  months  after  the  applicant’s  sixth  anniversary,  the  Board  finds  that  his 
receipt of good marks, a satisfactory conduct mark, and his commanding officer’s rec-

ommendation  for  advancement  outweighs  the  tentative  warning  in  the  page  7  dated 
December  11,  2000,  as  evidence  of  whether  the  commanding  officer  would  have  rec-
ommended him for reenlistment on January 14, 2001. 

 
8. 

In his advisory opinion, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant should 
be required to present more evidence that his commanding officer would have recom-
mended him for reenlistment.  The applicant did not do so and did not respond to the 
advisory opinion.  He still works at the unit where he was stationed in January 2001 and 
has  had  ample  time  to  seek  a  statement  from  his commanding officer.  However, the 
fact that the applicant chose to rely on his record and not present further evidence of his 
command’s  estimation  of  his  performance  cannot  reasonably  be  considered  evidence 
that  his  commanding  officer  would  have  denied  him  a  recommendation  for  reenlist-
ment in January 2001. 
 
 
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponder-
ance of the evidence in the record that the Coast Guard’s error in failing to counsel him 
about his eligibility to reenlist for an SRB on his sixth active duty anniversary was not 
harmless.  Moreover, the Board finds that, if he had been properly counseled, he would 
have sought and been allowed by his commanding officer to reenlist for six years.  
 

9. 

10.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  for  correction  of  his  military 

record is granted. 

ORDER 

 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that he reenlisted for six years on his sixth 
active  duty  anniversary,  January  14,  2001,  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  under  ALCOAST 
218/00.   

 
The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  him  any  sum  he  may  be  due  as  a  result  of  this 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
Christopher A. Cook  

 

 

 
Karen L. Petronis  

 

 

 
Kathryn Sinniger  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

correction.