DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No. 2002-028 

FINAL DECISION 

 

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 29, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  complete  application  for  correction  of  her  military 
record. 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  12,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case.  

The applicant alleged that she was not properly counseled regarding the option 
of  reenlisting  on  her  sixth  active  duty  anniversary  in  order  to  receive  a  selective 
reenlistment bonus (SRB).  She stated that proper counseling should have included the 
fact that she was eligible for a Zone A SRB on her sixth active duty anniversary, July 5, 
2000.     

On July 5, 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  On May 
1, 1998, she extended her enlistment for three years.  On December 9, 1998, she further 
extended for four months to attend training.  On August 25, 2000, she again extended 
for a period of 12 months.   

On April 6, 2000, approximately three months prior to the applicant’s sixth active 
duty anniversary, she was given an administrative remarks (page 7) entry, in which she 
was advised of the following: 

I  have  been  advised  that  my  current  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB) 
multiple  is  N/A  and  is  listed  in  ALDIST  184/99,  which  has  been  made 
available  to  me.    I  am  eligible  to  reenlist/extend  my  enlistment  up  to  a 
maximum of 6 years.  My SRB will be computed based on N/A months of 
newly obligated service.  I must reenlist on or 3 months prior to [July 6, 
2000]  which  is  my  [sixth  year]  active  duty  anniversary  date,  in  order  to 
receive a Zone A SRB.  I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully 
understand  the  contents  and  explanation  of  COMDTINST  7220.33 
(SERIES). 

 
ALDIST  184/99  on  which  the  applicant  was  counseled  did  not  contain  an  SRB 
multiple for the HS rating.  However, on May 19, 2000, ALCOAST 218/00 was issued 
authorizing a multiple of .5 for the HS rating.  The multiples announced in ALCOAST 
218/00 became effective on July 1, 2000.  (The applicant sixth active duty anniversary 
was July 5, 2000.)  The applicant was not counseled with respect to the SRB opportunity 
available under ALCOAST 218/00.   

When  the  applicant  extended  her  enlistment  for  one  year  on  August  25,  2000 

with an operative date of November 5, 2001, she acknowledged the following entry. 

I have been provided with a copy “SRB Questions and Answers: based on 
Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (series).  I have been informed that:  My 
current Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) multiple under Zone A is 1/2 
and  is  listed  in  AlCOAST  218/00,  which  has  been  made  available  for 
review.    I  further  understand  the  eligibility  requirements  for  Zone  A,  B, 
and C. SRBs and that the maximum SRB paid to my current pay grade is 
$45,000.  My SRB will be computed based on 12 months newly obligated 
service. 1  

 

The  applicant’s  military  record  contains  a  four-year  enlistment  contract  signed 
on October 10, 2001, which is marked “deleted”.  The applicant explained that as she 
approached the end of her enlistment and prior to the operative date of her August 25, 
2000  one-year  extension,  she  inquired  about  an  SRB  and  was  told  that  one  was 
available.  She therefore requested the cancellation of her August 25, 2000 extension and 
reenlisted for four years on October 10, 2001 for a Zone B SRB.  She stated that when she 
did  not  receive  the  first  allotment  in  December  2001,  she  contacted  her  Personnel 
Reporting Unit.  She was then told that she was not entitled to an SRB.  (The applicant 
was  not  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  because  she  was  not  serving  in  pay  grade  E-5  or 
higher at the time of her attempted reenlistment.) The applicant stated that she “signed 
the [reenlistment] contract in . . . November under the presumption that I would receive 
that SRB only to have someone tell me, after I budgeted and planned for that money, 
that  I  was  not  entitled  to  it,  this  is  an  injustice  and  violates  the  Good  Faith  and 
contractual laws.”  The applicant stated that since the Coast Guard refused to honor the 
reenlistment  contract,  she  was  given  the  option  of  canceling  it,  which  she  did.  
However, the August 25, 2000 extension was reinstated.   

The  applicant  stated  that  when  the  12  month  extension  became  operative  on 
November 5, 2001, she did not received an SRB payment because she had exceeded six 
years,  the  maximum  time  allowed  for  payment  of  a  Zone  A  SRB  by  one  month  and 
twenty days.  

The  applicant  submitted  a 

letter 

(CO) 
recommending that the Board grant the applicant’s request for relief.  He stated that “if 
proper counseling was done, [the applicant] would have cancelled the two extensions 

from  her  commanding  officer 

                                                 
1      According  to  the  SRB  regulation,  a  member  must  enlist  or  extend  for  a  minimum  of  36  months  to 
receive an SRB.   

for 16 months and reenlisted for a period of five years.”  He stated that the applicant 
was not counseled on the May 19, 2000 ALCOAST announcing new SRB multiples.    

Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On June 24, 2002, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Chief Counsel 

of the Coast Guard. He recommended that the Board deny the request for relief. 

The Chief Counsel stated that the evidence contradicts the applicant’s claim that 
she  was  not  counseled  with  respect  to  her  option  to  reenlist  for  the  purposes  of 
obtaining an SRB on her sixth year enlistment anniversary.  He stated that the record 
reveals that on April 6, 2000, the applicant was properly counseled in accordance with 
the SRB regulation.  He further stated there is no requirement that the Coast Guard re-
counsel its members about a subsequent ALCOAST announcing new SRB multiples.   

 

The Chief Counsel further stated as follows: 

The  record  reveals  that  Applicant,  a  6-year  service  veteran  in  July  2000, 
had  received  SRB  counseling  on  three  occasions  prior  to  July  2000  in 
addition to her April 2000 SRB counseling2 . . . Those counseling sessions 
would  have  included  information  indicating  that  SRB  messages  are 
disseminated  without  notice  and  at  random  time  intervals.    .  .      Hence, 
Applicant  was  on  notice  as  to  possible  SRB multiple changes that might 
increase  or  decrease  the  bonus  amount  to  which  the  member  would  be 
entitled.   
 
[O]ne month after her 6-year service anniversary, Applicant failed to take 
advantage of an opportunity to extend or reenlist for a SRB by failing to 
obligate  sufficient  service  to  qualify  for  a  SRB.   Taken together with her 
lengthy  delay  in  making  application  to  the  Board  for  relief  and  her 
average performance history, the Board should conclude that the equities 
do not tip in favor of granting relief.   

Applicant’s Response to the Views of the Coast Guard 
 

On  June  10,  2002,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s  reply  to  the  views  of  the 

Coast Guard.  She disagreed with them.   

The applicant stated that just because “you sign that line on your contract about 
SRBs . . . does not mean that you have been counseled correctly.”  She stated that she 
and  others  rely  on  the  yeomen  to  be  knowledgeable  about  their  jobs  and  capable  of 
informing  service  members  about  matters  that  affect  their  careers  and  financial 
situations. 
                                                 
2  The  applicant’s  extension  of  enlistments  dated  December 9, 1998 and May 1, 1998, each contained an 
SRB Eligibility Acknowledgement clause, which contained the same information as that on the August 25, 
2000  extension,  except  she  was  told  that  her  SRB  bonus  was  N/A  (not  applicable)  and  was  listed  in 
ALDIST N/A. 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33,  Section  3.b.(3),  states,  in  pertinent  part,  as 
follows:    “Members  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  COMDTINST  72230.33  states,  in  pertinent  part,  as  follows:  
“Commanding  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 expiration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying 
for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respectively.”   

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  based  on  the 
applicant’s  submissions  and  military  record,  the  Coast  Guard’s  submission,  and 
applicable law: 

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

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

2.  The Board finds that the applicant was counseled within three months of her 
sixth active duty anniversary date as required by COMDTINST 7220.33.  At the time the 
applicant received this counseling on April 6, 2000, there was no SRB multiple available 
for her rating.  
 

3.  However approximately one month later on May 19, 2000, ALCOAST 218/00 
was published announcing an SRB multiple of .5 for the applicant’s rating.  The Coast 
Guard  did  not  counsel  the  applicant  about  this  ALCOAST.  The  applicant  had  only  a 
small  window  of  opportunity  to  take  advantage  of  this  SRB.    The  multiples  became 
effective on July 1, 2000 and the applicant’s sixth anniversary on active duty was July 5, 
2000.  According to the SRB regulation the applicant could have no more than six years 
of  service  on  the  date  of  reenlistment  or  the  date  an  extension  becomes  operative  to 
qualify for a Zone A SRB.  Therefore, any reenlistment or operative extension after July 
5, 2000 would not qualify for a Zone A SRB. 

 
4.  Contrary to the Coast Guard’s arguments, it had a responsibility to counsel 
the applicant about her SRB opportunity under ALCOAST 218/00 even though she had 
already  been  counseled  on  April  6,  2000,  which  was  within  3  months  of  her  sixth 
anniversary  on  active  duty.  The  Deputy  General  Counsel  has  ruled  that  enlisted 
members are to be fully advised about their SRB opportunities.  See BCMR No. 1999-
022.  The  counseling  the  applicant  received  on  April  6,  2000  dealt  with  SRB  multiples 
available under ALDIST 184/99 but not ALCOAST 218/00.  In addition, the applicant’s 
CO admitted that the applicant was not counseled about the SRB opportunity available 
to  her  under  ALCOAST  218/00.    The  Coast  Guard  committed  an  error  by  not 
counseling the applicant about ALCOAST 218/00. 

5.   The Coast Guard’s argument that the applicant should have known to seek 
information  about  future  SRB  announcements  since  she  had  received  previous  SRB 
counseling  is  not persuasive, particularly in light of BCMR No. 1999-022. In addition, 
Enclosure  (1)  to  COMDTINST  7220.33,  Section  3.b.(3)  states,  in  pertinent  part,  as 
follows:    “Members  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 . . .“  [Emphasis added.]  The Coast Guard has not 
established that the applicant was not otherwise eligible for this SRB.  The Board is not 
convinced  that  the  applicant  should  have  somehow  known  about  ALCOAST  218/00 
since these announcements are sent to the commands and not individual members.    

 
6.  The Board notes that the applicant’s unit yeomen were just as confused about 
the  SRB  regulation  as  she  was.  In  a  August  25,  2000  extension  of  her  enlistment,  the 
applicant’s unit promised her an SRB based on 12 months of newly obligated service, 
when the SRB regulation clearly states that a member must obligate for a minimum of 
36 months to qualify for an SRB.  On October 10, 2001, the applicant’s unit attempted to 
reenlist her with a promise of a Zone B SRB for which she was not eligible because she 
was not serving in pay grade E-5, as required by the SRB regulation.  If the Board were 
to deny this case, it would be requiring the applicant to have a greater knowledge of the 
SRB  regulation  than  that  possessed  by  those  responsible  for  providing  SRB  guidance 
and advice to her. 

 
7.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant is entitled to relief. 

 

 
 

ORDER 

 

The application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, USCG, for the correction of her 
military  record  is  granted.  Her application shall be corrected to show that on July 5, 
2000, her sixth anniversary on active duty she reenlisted for five years for a Zone A SRB.  
The  extension  agreements  signed  on  December  9,  1998  and  August  25,  2000  are 
cancelled.  The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant the amount she is due as a result of 
this correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Michael K. Nolan  

 
Dorothy J. Ulmer  

        

 

 
Sherri L. Pappas