DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-027 
 
 
   

 

 
 

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. 
 
 
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 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  he 
reenlisted on February 26, 1999, instead of signing a three-year extension of enlistment 
contract on June 29, 1999.  The correction would entitle him to receive a Zone A selec-
tive reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 pursuant to ALDIST 290/98. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  February  26,  1999,  when  he  needed  to  obligate 
additional  service  to  accept  transfer  orders,  his  command  erroneously  counseled  him 
that he was not eligible for an SRB under the provisions ALDIST 184/99.  He alleged 
that his command should have counseled him that he was eligible for an SRB calculated 
with a multiple of one under ALDIST 290/98.   
 

                                                 
1  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s 
particular skills.  Coast Guard members who have served less than 6 years on active duty are in “Zone 
A.”  Members may only receive one SRB per zone. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a letter apparently signed 
by a chief warrant officer serving as the chief of the Personnel Services Division at the 
Integrated Support Command in xxxxxxxxxxxxx, who stated the following: 
 

1. 
On 26 February  1999, [the applicant] was counseled with ALDIST 184/99 as hav-
ing no SRB.  ALDIST 184/99 had not been released until 13 May 1999.  Member should 
have been counseled based on ALDIST 290/98 which states member entitled to Zone A 
SRB with a  multiple of one.  On 29 June 1999 [the applicant] extended his enlistment to 
meet  obligated  service  incident  to  PCS  transfer  for  2  years  and  5  months.    Due  to 
improper  SRB  counseling  this  member  was  not  provided  the  opportunity  to  reenlist  to 
claim  SRB  in  accordance  with  ALDIST  290/98  which  expired  on  14  June  99.    Member 
wishes to reenlist for a period of 5 years as of 26 February 1999 to claim SRB. … 
 
2. 
of reenlistment date. 

Highly recommend favorable consideration be give to [his] request for correction 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Section  2  of  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.”   
 

ALDIST 290/98 was issued on November 25, 1998, and became effective imme-
diately.    It  established  SRBs  for  personnel  in  certain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or 
extended their enlistments for at least three years.  The multiple to be used for calculat-
ing SRBs for members in the DC rating in Zone A was one.   
 

ALDIST 184/99 was issued on May 13, 1999.  It provided that the SRB multiples 
authorized  under  ALDIST  290/98  were  in  effect  only  through  June  14,  1999,  and  it 
established new multiples to go into effect on June 15, 1999.  The multiple to be used for 
calculating Zone A SRBs for members in the DC rating who reenlisted or extended their 
enlistments after June 15, 1999, was one-half.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  April  8,  1997,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four 
years, through April 7, 2001.  On June 29, 1999, he signed an extension contract obligat-
ing himself to an additional two years and five months, through September 7, 2003, so 
that he would have sufficient obligated service to accept transfer orders and perform a 
full four-year tour of duty at his next post.  On the contract, he acknowledged having 
reviewed ALDIST 184/99 and the SRB Instruction.  The contract indicates that he was 
not entitled to an SRB for his extension. 
 

 
The applicant’s record contains an administrative entry (“page 7”) dated June 21, 
1999, which states that he was advised that under ALDIST 184/99, there was no SRB 
multiple in effect for his rating.  The applicant’s record also contains a page 7 dated Feb-
ruary 26, 1999, which states that he was advised that under ALDIST 184/99, there was 
no  SRB  multiple  in  effect  for  his  rating.    On  both  page  7s,  he  acknowledged  having 
reviewed ALDIST 184/99 and the SRB Instruction. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On May 23, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  “the  Board  should  deny  relief  based  on  Appli-
cant[’s]  sworn  statement  alleging  he  was  counseled  in  February  1999  with  a  message 
released in May 1999.  He stated that the applicant’s sworn statement “is not credible as 
it involves an impossibility.”  He explained that ALDIST 184/99 did not exist in Febru-
ary  1999  and  that,  because  ALDISTs  are  numbered  sequentially  in  the  order  they  are 
released, it was impossible in February 1999 to know that the next ALDIST concerning 
SRBs  would  have  the  number  184/99.    In  fact,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  no  one 
could know what number the next SRB ALDIST would have until the day it was issued, 
May 13, 1999. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel further stated that sometime prior to June 29, 1999, the appli-
cant received transfer orders.  To accept them, he had to have at least four years of obli-
gated service to complete a full tour at his new unit.  Therefore, he extended his contract 
for two years and five months, which was the minimum amount of time necessary to 
accept the orders.  The Chief Counsel stated that this extension did not entitle the appli-
cant to an SRB because it was not at least three years long.  He stated that the appli-
cant’s command likely completed the extension contract to show that he was not enti-
tled to an SRB because he was not obligating sufficient service to qualify for one.  If the 
applicant had extended his enlistment or reenlisted for at least three years on June 29, 
1999, he would have received the SRB authorized under ALDIST 184/99.  
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  also  pointed  out  that  the  applicant  did  not  apply  for  relief 
until more than two and one-half years since the alleged error had passed.  He argued 
that  given  “the  lack  of  credibility  afforded  his  statements  and  the  lengthy  delay  in 
making  application,  the  Board  should  properly  find  that  Applicant’s  treatment  in  the 
instant case does not constitute an injustice.” 
 

Finally, the Chief Counsel stated that the applicant did not make any allegations 
with respect to his SRB counseling on June 21, 1999, and that if the applicant did make 
such allegations in his response to the advisory opinion, the Coast Guard would want 
an opportunity to respond. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On  May  28,  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  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant alleged that on February 26, 1999, he was erroneously coun-
seled about his SRB eligibility under ALDIST 184/99, which was not even issued until 
May 13, 1999.  A page 7 in his record and a statement from his new command seem to 
support his allegation.  However, the Board finds that the applicant’s allegation is not 
credible and that the page 7 in his record is misleading and not reliable.  As the Chief 
Counsel  stated,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  anyone  to  know  on  February  26, 
1999, the number or contents of the next SRB ALDIST.  

 
3. 

The applicant’s record also contains a page 7 dated June 21, 1999, which 
erroneously indicates that no SRB was authorized for his rating under ALDIST 184/99.  
In  fact,  ALDIST  184/99  authorized  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  one-half  for  the  appli-
cant’s rating, and if he had reenlisted or extended for at least three years, he would have 
received  it.    However,  the  applicant  twice  acknowledged  having  reviewed  ALDIST 
184/99, which clearly shows that the multiple for this rating was one-half.  Moreover, in 
light  of  the  misleading  page  7  dated  February  26,  1999,  in  the  applicant’s  record,  the 
Board does not trust the validity of the page 7 dated June 21, 1999.  Therefore, the Board 
finds  that  the  page  7  dated  June  21,  1999,  does  not  prove  that  he  was  miscounseled 
regarding his eligibility for an SRB in June 1999. 
 

4. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

      
 

military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

       
 

 

 
 L. L. Sutter 

 

 

 
 Nilza F. Velazquez 

 

 

 
 Blane A. Workie