DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-048 
 
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 February 13, 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  November  14,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 
 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the following:  a 
four-year  reenlistment  contract  he  signed  on  April  30,  1997;  a  one-month  extension 
agreement dated April 30, 2001; and a six-year reenlistment contract he signed on April 
25,  2001.    He  asked  that  his  record  instead  show  that,  on  September  21,  1997,  he 
extended  his  enlistment  for  thirty-three  months,  then  reenlisted  for  six  years  on 
September  21,  1999,  his  sixth  active  duty  anniversary,  for  a  Zone  A  selective 
reenlistment bonus (SRB) under ALDIST 184/99. 

 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant stated that he signed a four-year reenlistment agreement on April 
30, 1997, in order to accept permanent change of station (PCS) orders to a new unit.  He 
alleged that he was told that to accept the orders, he was required to have three years’ 

obligated service remaining in the Coast Guard upon arriving at his new  unit in July 
1997.  The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard failed to counsel him concerning the 
effect of the four-year reenlistment on his future SRB entitlement.  There is no page 7 
entry in his record formally documenting SRB counseling prior to or on April 30, 1997, 
the date he reenlisted.  He alleged that had he been properly counseled, he would have 
extended  his  enlistment,  which  was  due  to  expire  on  September  20,  1997,  for  thirty-
three  months,  the  minimum  time  required  to  accept  his  PCS  orders,  rather  than 
reenlisting for four years.   

 
The  applicant  also  contended  that  he  was  not  properly  counseled  on  his  sixth 
active duty anniversary date.  He alleged that when he received SRB counseling on June 
7,  1999  and  September  27,  19991,  he  was  told  that  he  could  only  reenlist  within  sixty 
days of the end of an enlistment.  He argued that because his then current obligation 
was  not  due  to  expire  until  April  29,  2001,  he  signed  the  page  7s,  indicating  that  he 
understood his SRB options, with the belief that he could not reenlist for an SRB on his 
sixth anniversary on active duty.  He alleged that had he been properly counseled on 
his SRB eligibility, he would have reenlisted for the Zone A SRB available to him under 
ALDIST 184/99 on September 21, 1999, his sixth active duty anniversary.   

 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  from  his 
commanding  officer  (CO)  recommending  favorable  consideration  of  the  applicant’s 
request  for  relief.    The  CO  stated  that,  as  a  result  of  the  improper  counseling  the 
applicant received in 1997, he will be “denied an opportunity to receive a Zone ‘A’ SRB 
of approximately $17,000 prior to taxes [to which] … he should be entitled.” 
 
 

SUMMARY OF  THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On April 13, 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve under the 
Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP) for eight years.  On September 21, 1993, he 
was honorably discharged from the Reserve and enlisted in the regular component of 
the Coast Guard for four years, through September 20, 1997.   
 
On  April  30,  1997,  the  applicant  executed  a  four-year  reenlistment  contract, 
 
through April 29, 2001,  for the purpose of obligating service necessary to transfer to a 
new unit.  Although there is no page 7 in the applicant’s record formally documenting 
counseling about his obligated service requirement prior to accepting transfer orders, as 
required by Article 4.B.1.i.1.b. of the Personnel Manual, no Zone A SRB multiple existed 
for the applicant’s rating at the time of his reenlistment.  On July 22, 1997, the applicant 
reported to his new unit. 

                                                 
1 Although the CG-3307 (page 7) is dated September 1, 1999, the date written by the applicant’s signature 
appears to state September 27, 1999. 

 
 
On June 7, 1999 and September 27, 1999, the applicant’s command made page 7 
entries  in  his  record,  for  purposes  of  sixth  active  duty  anniversary  counseling.    Each 
page  7  entry  was  signed  by  both  the  applicant  and  a  petty  officer  first  class,  and 
contained the following language: 
 

I  hereby  acknowledge  that  I  have  read  and  fully 
understand  the  contents  and  explanation  of  COMDTINST 
7220.33 (series). 
 
I further acknowledge that I have been advised of the 
effects on my SRB computation/payment if I enter into 
an agreement to extend my enlistment. 

 
 
On  September  21,  1999,  the  date  of  the  applicant’s  sixth  anniversary,  ALDIST 
184/99 was in effect, authorizing a Zone A SRB, calculated with a multiple of two for 
members  in  the  FS  rating  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments 
between June 15, 1999 and December 31, 1999.  The applicant’s record shows that he did 
not reenlist or extend but continued to serve under his April 30, 1997 reenlistment and 
later  executed  a  thirty-day  extension,  as  authorized  by  the  commander,  through  May 
30, 2001. 
 
 
On May 1, 2001, the applicant was promoted to his current paygrade of E-6.  On 
May 25, 2001, he reenlisted for six years, through May 24, 2007, to receive a Zone B SRB 
calculated  with  a  multiple  of  one  under  ALCOAST  127/01.    To  date,  he  continues  to 
serve on active duty. 
 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On June 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny relief in the applicant’s case. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that because the applicant’s case is analogous to that 
in  BCMR  Docket  No.  1999-014,  the  Board  should  similarly  conclude  that  SRB 
regulations fail to “establish a duty to counsel members on all possible future effects a 
current reenlistment/extension may have on future SRB eligibility” and thereby, deny 
relief in the instant case.  The Chief Counsel contended that the Board should find that 
the Coast Guard had no duty to counsel the applicant regarding the potential effect of 
his  April  30,  1997  reenlistment  on  future  SRB  eligibility.    He  further  argued  that 
although  the  Coast  Guard  erred  in  failing  to  counsel  the  applicant  concerning  SRBs 
when he reenlisted in April 1997, the error was harmless because no SRB multiple was 
available for his rating at that time .  
 

 
The  Chief  Counsel  further  alleged  that  the  applicant  failed  to  prove  that  the 
Coast Guard did not counsel him regarding his eligibility to reenlist for an SRB on his 
sixth active duty anniversary.  He stated that the SRB regulation (COMDTINST 7220.33) 
provides  that  members  may  reenlist  on  or  anytime  during  the  three  months 
immediately prior to their sixth or tenth active duty anniversary.  He further stated that 
the applicant’s record contains page 7 entries dated June 7, 1999 and September 1, 1999, 
indicating  that  he  was  counseled  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  COMDTINST 
7220.33.  He contended that because the applicant acknowledged that he read and fully 
understood the contents and explanation of the SRB regulations, the applicant’s record 
shows  that  he  was  properly  counseled  on  his  eligibility  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  on  his 
sixth  anniversary.    He  asserted  that  the  applicant’s  allegation  of  receiving  improper 
counseling is wholly inconsistent with that which is documented in his record. 
 
The Chief Counsel contended that although the applicant could have extended 
 
his enlistment for a lesser period of time to accept PCS orders, he chose to extend his 
enlistment for four years on April 30, 1997 .  He stated that once the applicant received 
his PCS orders, he was required to accept the orders and the associated obligation or 
reject  them  and  serve  the  remainder  of  his  obligated  service.    The  Chief  Counsel 
asserted that in the absence of fraud or duress, the Board should find that the applicant 
freely chose to accept the PCS orders and is bound by his agreement.  He further stated 
that  as  a  result  of  the  foregoing,  the  applicant’s  agreement  to  reenlist  is  neither 
erroneous or unjust.  The Chief Counsel stated that the applicant has failed to prove that 
he has suffered an injustice that “shocks the sense of justice” merely because of the less 
than optimal results of his voluntary decision to enter into a reenlistment agreement on 
April 30, 1997. 
 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  1,  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 4.B.1.i.1.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that members who receive 
PCS orders must be counseled about obligated service requirements and sign a page 7 
documenting that counseling.   
 

Article 4.B.6.a.1. provides that members serving in a grade E-4 and above with 
fewer than six years of active duty service may not accept PCS order unless they reenlist 

or extend to have enough obligated service for a full tour of duty upon reporting to a 
new unit. 
 

ALDIST 184/99, issued May 13, 1999, established SRBs for personnel in certain 
skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  June  15,  1999,  and 
December 31, 1999.  The Zone A multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members 
in the XX rating was two. 
 
SRB Manual Provisions   
 
 
Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (Reenlistment Bonus Programs 
Administration), Section 2 states 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.” 
 
   
Enclosure (3) to the instruction requires that members sign a page 7 administra-
tive  entry  indicating  that  they  have  received  and  read  Enclosure  (5),  entitled  “SRB 
Questions  and  Answers.”    Enclosure  (5)  explains  that  previously  obligated  service 
reduces an applicant’s SRB.  It further advises members, “[w]hen  coming up on your 
end of enlistment, carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages of reenlisting vice 
extending.”  
 
Enclosure  (3)  to  the  instruction  states  that  during  the  three  months  prior  to  a 
 
member’s 6th, 10th, or 14th active duty anniversary date, the member must be counseled 
concerning his or her eligibility for an SRB, and the counseling must be memorialized in 
the member’s record with a page 7 signed by the member.  The format for the required 
page 7 is reproduced below: 
 

Date:  I have been provided with a copy of enclosure (5) to Commandant 
Instruction  7220.00  (series)  entitled  “SRB  Questions  and  Answers.”    I 
have been informed that: 
 
My  current  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus  (SRB)  multiple  is  ____  and  is 
listed in ALDIST ____, which has been made available for my review. 
 
In accordance with article 12-B-4, CG Personnel Manual, I am eligible to 
reenlist/extend my enlistment for a maximum of ____ years. 
 
My SRB will be computed based on ____ months newly obligated service. 
 
I must reenlist on or 3 months prior to (     date      ), which is my 
(6th/10th/14th)  active  duty  anniversary  date,  in  order  to  receive  a  Zone 
(A, B,or C) SRB. 
 
The  following  SRB  policies  were  unclear  to  me,  but  my  SRB  counselor 
provided me with the corresponding answers:  (list specifics) 
 
 
________________________________         ________________________________ 
(Signature of Member/date)                (Signature of Counselor) 
 

 
 

Article 3.d.(1) of Enclosure (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.” 
 
 
Article  3.d.(9)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  instruction  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 expiration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, 
or C SRB respectively.  In such cases, SRB payments will be reduced by any portion of 
unserved service obligation.” 
 
 

BCMR DOCKET NO. 1999-014 

 
 
In BCMR Docket No. 1999-014, the applicant asked the Board to change a four-
year  reenlistment  dated  March  1997  to  a  two-year  extension  in  order  to  maximize  an 
SRB he received for reenlisting for six years on his tenth anniversary in July 1998.  There 
was  no  page  7  in  the  applicant’s  record  indicating  that  he  had  been  counseled 
concerning  SRBs  prior  to  signing  the  four-year  reenlistment  contract.    However,  an 
extension contract signed by the applicant in March 1996 stated that he had been given 
the chance to review the SRB Instruction, including “SRB Questions and Answers,” and 
that he understood the effect of his extension on his current and future SRB eligibility. 
 
 
the 
recommendation of the Coast Guard.  The Board found that the Coast Guard had erred 
by failing to counsel the applicant when he reenlisted in 1997, but concluded that 
 

in  accordance  with 

The  Board  denied 

the  applicant’s 

request, 

the  applicant’s  present  contention  amounts  to  a  retrospective  review  of  his  military 
record  based  on  a  later  opportunity  that  the  applicant  could  not  have  known  about  in 
1997.  …  [S]ince  there  was  no  SRB  multiple  for  the  applicant’s  rate  in  1997,  and  the 
applicant is not alleging this, any error that occurred at that time was harmless. …  The 
Board  is  not  persuaded  that  if  the  applicant  had  received  a  page  7  entry  in  1997,  he 
would  have  extended  for  two  years  rather  than  reenlisting  for  four  years.  …    The 
applicant’s reenlistment history suggests that he would have reenlisted for four years in 
1997 (as he did) because he had previously enlisted for four years both in 1988 and 1992. 
…  Additionally, the required page 7 counseling entry does not mandate a discussion of 
the effect of either an extension  or reenlistment on a future SRB.  The Board notes that 
just  a  year  before  his  1997  reenlistment,  the  applicant  acknowledged  on  his  1996 
extension  agreement  that  he  had  been  informed  about  is  SRB  eligibility  (although  one 
was  not  available  for  him)  and  that  he  understood  the  effect  that  the  extension  would 
have on his current and future SRB eligibility.  Yet, he reenlisted in 1997 without asking 
any questions.  The Board finds that even with the SRB counseling in 1997, the applicant 
would have probably reenlisted for four years.  …  ‘The Board is only obligated to grant 
enough relief to correct what it sees as an injustice.’  Reale v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 

1010, 1011 (1976).  The Board does not find that any corrective action is necessary in this 
case.  …    [T]he  Board’s  job  is  not  to  perfect  records  but  to  correct  harmful  errors  and 
remove injustices. 

 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

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 had a right to be properly counseled concerning his SRB eligibility when 
he reenlisted for four years on April 30, 1997.  Proper counseling includes the receipt of 
“SRB  Questions  and  Answers,”  which  alerts  members  to  the  fact  that  previously 
obligated service diminishes any SRB for which a member might later become eligible.  
The  right  to  proper  SRB  counseling,  however,  fails  to  “mandate  a  discussion  of  the 
effect of either an extension or reenlistment on a future SRB.”  BCMR Docket No. 1999-
014.  The record contains no evidence of any regulation that establishes such a duty on 
the part of the Coast Guard.2   
 
 
In  accordance  with  regulations,  proper  counseling  must  also  be 
documented  by  a  page  7  entry,  signed  prior  to  accepting  PCS  orders.    Personnel 
Manual, Article 4.B.1.i.1.b.  There is no evidence in the record indicating that prior to 
accepting  PCS  orders  in  April  1997,  the  applicant  was  ever  counseled  about  SRBs. 
Nevertheless,  although  the  applicant’s  command  failed  to  counsel  him  in  accordance 
with applicable regulations, there was no SRB multiple in effect for his rating in April of 
1997.    As  a  result,  the  applicant  has  not  proved  that  he  was  prejudiced  by  the  Coast 
Guard’s error, and the Board finds that the error was harmless.  
 
 
Moreover, the Board is not inclined to find that the applicant would have 
extended  his  enlistment  for  the  minimum  amount  of  time  in  order  to  accept  his  PCS 
orders.   The applicant alleged that at the time he received his PCS orders, he was told 
that  he  needed  to  have  three  years’  obligated  service  remaining  in  the  Coast  Guard 
upon reporting to his new unit.  See Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual.  Instead 
of agreeing to the minimum required three-year obligation in April 1997, the applicant 

3. 

1. 

2. 

4. 

                                                 
2 In providing the Board with interpretive guidance on SRB cases with similar issues, the Deputy General 
Counsel ruled that there is no duty to advise a member to reenlist or extend for the minimum amount of 
time in order to receive the maximum SRB at a future reenlistment or extension, in the absence of “a 
regulation, order or directive of the Coast Guard.”  BCMR Docket No. 1999-042.   

5. 

executed a four-year service obligation.  The Board finds that, in light of the lesser term 
offered to the applicant in order to meet obligated service requirements and the greater 
term chosen by the applicant to meet the same, the record fails to indicate that he would 
have  chosen  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  just  thirty-three  months  to  accept  his  PCS 
orders if he had received SRB counseling.   
 
 
The applicant had a right to be counseled about SRBs within three months 
of his sixth active duty anniversary date, in order to receive a Zone A SRB, if one was in 
effect for his rating.  Enclosure (3) and Article 3.d.(1) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 
7220.33.    In  June  1999  (approximately  three  months  before  the  applicant’s  sixth 
anniversary) and in September 1999 (the month of his sixth anniversary), page 7 entries 
were  signed  by  the  applicant  and  entered  in  his  military  record.    The  Chief  Counsel 
argued that the page 7 entries prove that the applicant received proper SRB counseling 
in accordance with Coast Guard policy and regulations because the entries indicate that 
the  applicant  read  and  fully  understood  the  contents  and  explanation  of  the  SRB 
regulation.    However,  the  Board  finds  that  the  page  7  entries  do  not  meet  the 
requirements of the Coast Guard’s regulations in Commandant Instruction 7220.33, as 
neither page 7 satisfies the requirements of Enclosure (3) to the SRB Instruction.  
 
 
In accordance with Enclosure (3) to the instruction, part of the counseling 
interview must include a discussion of SRBs that the member is eligible for at the time 
of  counseling.    On  September  21,  1999,  the  date  of  the  applicant’s  sixth  anniversary, 
ALDIST 184/99 was in effect and authorized a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple 
of  two  for  the  applicant’s  rating.    There  is  no  page  7  in  the  applicant’s  record 
documenting  that  he  was  informed  about  this  SRB,  as  required  by  Enclosure  (3)  of 
COMDTINST  7220.33.    The  Board  finds  that  if  the  applicant  had  received  proper 
counseling, as urged by the Chief Counsel, the required page 7, discussing the multiple 
available, the maximum years of any reenlistment or extension, the number of months 
upon which the SRB would be based, and the reenlistment date would be memorialized 
in the applicant’s record.  Therefore, the applicant has proved by a preponderance of 
the  evidence  that  he  was  not  properly  counseled  by  his  command  on  his  sixth  active 
duty  anniversary  about  his  eligibility  to  reenlist  and  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  under 
ALCOAST 184/99. 
 

6. 

7. 

Accordingly,  the  Board  should  deny  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  thirty-
three month extension and grant relief by replacing the applicant’s six-year reenlistment 
contract dated May 25, 2001, with a six-year reenlistment contract dated September 21, 
1999, his sixth anniversary. 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

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

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

 
 
correction of his military record is granted, in part, as follows:   
 
 
signed on May 25, 2001,  shall be null and void. 
 
 
His record shall be corrected to show that he was discharged and reenlisted for 
six years on September 21, 1999, his sixth active duty anniversary, to receive a Zone A 
SRB with a multiple of two under ALDIST 184/99. 
 
 
and void. 
 
 
184/99 as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 

The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  the  amount  due  him  under  ALDIST 

The one-month extension contract that he signed on April 24, 2001, shall be null 

 

 
 Edmund T. Sommer, Jr. 

 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 
 
 Betsy L. Wolf