DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-086 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 April 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  December  31,  2002,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling a three-
year extension contract he signed on February 20, 2002, when he was in pay grade E-4, 
and reenlisting him for six years as of April 2, 2002, the day after he was advanced to 
pay  grade  E-5.    He  alleged  that  when  he  received  his  transfer  orders  to  xxxxxxx  in 
February 2002, he was told that, to accept them, he needed to obligate sufficient service 
to complete a full three-year tour of duty at the new station.  He was to report to the 
new  station  on  May  15,  2002,  and  his  enlistment  was  due  to  end  on  July  6,  2002.  
Therefore, he extended his enlistment for three years, though July 6, 2005, to accept the 
transfer orders.   
 

The applicant alleged, however, that in February 2002, he knew that he would be 
advanced to E-5 before he had to report to the new station.  Therefore, he asked if he 
could  extend  his  enlistment  for  three  years,  but  then  cancel  it  before  his  transfer  and 
reenlist for six years after he was advanced so that he would get an SRB at the E-5 rate 
under ALCOAST 585/01.  However, when he tried to reenlist for an SRB after he was 
advanced, he was told that his three-year extension would reduce his SRB, since only 
extensions of two years or less can be canceled without offsetting the SRB received for a 
longer reenlistment. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  known  he  could  not  cancel  the  three-year 
extension, he would have waited to sign a contract until after he was advanced to E-5.  
The  three-year  extension  contract  he  signed  on  February  20,  2002,  has  “NA”  (not 
applicable)  typed  into  all  of  the  spaces  where  information  about  his  SRB  eligibility 
should  have  appeared.    There  is  no  other  entry  in  his  record  documenting  SRB 
counseling  in  February  2002,  although  there  is  a  “page  7”  entry  documenting  SRB 
counseling dated January 20, 2000. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Article 4.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with fewer than 
 
six years of active duty may not be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend to have 
enough  obligated  service  for  a  full  tour  on  reporting  to  a  new  unit.”    Article  4.A.5.b. 
specifies that a full tour of duty at the station to which the applicant was transferred is 
three years. 
 
Article  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.”   
 

ALCOAST  585/01  was  issued  on  December  20,  2001,  and  became  effective  on 
February 1, 2002.  It established SRBs for personnel in certain skill ratings who reenlist-
ed  or  extended  their  enlistments  for at least three years.  The multiple to be used for 
calculating SRBs for members in the BM rating in pay grade E-4 was one.  The multiple 
to be for such members in pay grade E-5 was two.  

 
Paragraph 3.f.(1) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction states that SRBs are cal-
culated  based  on  the  member’s  base  pay  on  the  day  before  he  signs  a  reenlistment 
contract. 

 
Paragraph  3.d.(13)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  SRB  Instruction  states  that  when  a 
member reenlists before finishing his previous contract term, “[a]ll periods of unexecut-
ed service obligation … will be deducted from SRB computation.”  However, paragraph 
3.d.(6) states that an “exception to this rule is made for extensions of 2 years or less … 
required of a member for transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance.  These 
extensions may be canceled prior to their operative date for the purpose of immediate 
reenlistment or longer extension without any loss of SRB entitlement.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 
On September 30, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the  Board  grant  the  applicant  alternative  relief.    He  alleged  that  “there  is  insufficient 
proof showing that the member’s intention [in February 2002] was to delay his exten-
sion  until  April—when  he  was  advanced  to  E-5—possibly  qualifying  him  for  an  SRB 
with a higher multiple.  However, he recommended that the Board replace the appli-
cant’s three-year extension dated February 20, 2002, with a six-year reenlistment so that 
the applicant would be eligible for the SRB authorized for his rating and pay grade on 
that day.  The Chief Counsel alleged that the page 7 entry documenting SRB counseling 
in the applicant’s record dated January 20, 2000, was actually signed in 2002, prior to 
the applicant’s extension. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On October 7, 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. 

 When the applicant received transfer orders to Alaska in February 2002, 
he was required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full three-year tour of duty 
before accepting the orders.  Personnel Manual, Articles 4.B.6.A. and 4.B.5.b.  He signed 
a three-year extension contract to accept the orders, but he alleged that someone told 
him that he could cancel that extension after being advanced to E-5 and reenlist for a 
larger SRB under ALCOAST 585/01.  Under the provisions of Enclosure (1) to the SRB 
Instruction, however, extensions of greater than two years’ duration count as previous-
ly obligated service against any SRB. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

The applicant alleged that in February 2002, he knew he would advance to 
pay  grade  E-5  before  being  transferred.    However,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record 
that in February 2002, the applicant was guaranteed advancement before his transfer.  
In  addition,  there  was  no  guarantee  in  February  2002  that  the  SRB  provided  under 
ALCOAST  585/01  would  still  be  in  effect  in  April  or  May  2002,  after  he  allegedly 
expected to advance. 

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the applicant’s com-
mand would have allowed him to avoid obligating sufficient service to accept his trans-
fer orders until April 2, 2002, just six weeks before he had to report to his new station in 

5. 

xxxxx.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has not proved by a preponderance 
of  the  evidence  in  the  record  that,  had  he  been  properly  counseled,  he  would  have 
chosen  and  been  allowed  to  wait  until  April  2,  2002,  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to 
accept his transfer orders. 
 
 
The  record  does  indicate,  however,  that  the  applicant  was  not  properly 
counseled with respect to his SRB eligibility in pay grade E-4 on February 20, 2002.  The 
Chief Counsel alleged that if the applicant had been properly counseled he would have 
reenlisted  for  six  years  on  that  day  to  receive  the  SRB  as  an  E-4.    However,  under 
paragraph  3.f.(1)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  SRB  Instruction,  the  applicant  could  have 
signed a six-year extension contract on February 20, 2002, with the expectation that by 
the  time  it  became  operative  on  July  7,  2002,  he  would  likely  have  advanced  to  pay 
grade  E-5  so  that  he  could  receive  the  larger  SRB  in  effect  for  that  pay  grade.    The 
applicant alleged that he was expecting to advance to E-5 soon, and the Chief Counsel 
did  not  contradict  this  allegation.    He  further  alleged  that  he  wanted  the  higher  SRB 
multiple in effect for the E-5 pay grade.  Although advancements are never guaranteed, 
the Board finds that if the applicant had been properly counseled about his eligibility 
for  an  SRB  under  ALCOAST  585/01  and  about  the  regulations  regarding  obligating 
service for transfer and previously obligated service, he would likely have extended his 
enlistment for up to six years to receive the SRB with the multiple of two in effect for 
members in his rating in pay grade E-5 under ALCOAST 585/01. 
 

6. 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  by  voiding  the  applicant’s  three-
year  extension  and  replacing  it  with  a  four,  five,  or  six  year  extension  contract  or 
reenlistment  contract  dated  February  20,  2002,  so  that  he  may  receive  an  SRB  at  pay 
grade  E-5,  if  he  chooses  an  extension  contract,  or  at  pay  grade  E-4,  if  he  chooses  to 
reenlist, under ALCOAST 585/01. 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

military record is granted as follows. 

 
After  proper  counseling  regarding  his  choices  under  this  order,  his  military 
record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that,  to  accept  his  transfer  orders  on  February  20, 
2002,  he  either—at  his  sole  discretion—extended  his  enlistment  for  4,  5,  or  6  years  to 
receive an SRB calculated at pay grade E-5 or reenlisted for 4, 5, or 6 years to receive an 
SRB  calculated  at  pay  grade  E-4,  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST  585/01.    The  3-year 
extension contract he signed on that day shall be null and void. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum he may be due as a result of 

 
 

 
 

this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Angel Collaku 

 

 

 

 
 Thomas A. Phemister 

 

 

 

 
 Mark A. Tomicich