DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-090 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 30, 2002, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 4, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  by  canceling  two 
short-term extension contracts and reenlisting him for four years as of January 20, 2002, 
to receive a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 under ALCOAST 127/01.   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  his  original  four-year  enlistment  was  ending  in 
January  2002  and  that,  although  he  had  previously  signed  two  short-term  extension 
contracts, he was eligible to cancel them to reenlist for a longer period.  He alleged that 
he  was  never  counseled  about  his  eligibility  and  that,  if  he  had  been,  he  would  have 
cancelled  the  extensions  and  reenlisted  for  four  years  upon  the  termination  of  his 
original enlistment. 

 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  from  his 
Personnel  Reporting  Unit  (PERSRU),  who  stated  that  in  February  2002,  while  he  was 
                                                 
1 SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the length of the reenlistment or extension 
of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel in the member’s skill rating.  Coast Guard members 
who have served between 21 months and 6 years on active duty are in “Zone A.”  Those with at least 6 years but 
fewer than 10 years of active service are in “Zone B.”  Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. 
 

reviewing  unit  records to determine who was eligible for an SRB, he noticed that the 
applicant had two short-term extensions in his record, both of which could have been 
cancelled so that he could receive an SRB.  However, because one extension had already 
become operative on January 20, 2002, it could not be cancelled. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 20, 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  On 
July 17, 1998, the applicant’s commanding officer noted in his record that the applicant 
had been involved in an “alcohol situation” and was awarded non-judicial punishment 
(NJP)  due  to  his  arrest  for  criminal  mischief,  theft,  and  underage  drinking  by  a  local 
police department.  However, because the police failed to perform a blood test or breath 
analysis, the underage drinking charge was dropped, though petty officers present at 
his arraignment reported that the smell of alcohol on the applicant’s breath was strong.  
The commanding officer warned him that any further alcohol incidents would result in 
NJP and possibly in separation from the Coast Guard.  
 
On January 3, 2000, the applicant signed a 13-month extension contract in order 
 
to  have  sufficient  obligated  service  to  attend  “A”  School  and  become  a  petty  officer.2  
On  June  17,  2001,  a  24-month  extension  contract  was  entered  in  his  record so that he 
would have sufficient obligated service to accept transfer orders.  Although the contract 
contains  language  acknowledging  SRB  counseling,  the  specific  information  about  the 
applicant’s  eligibility  for  an  SRB  is  erroneous,  and  the  Coast  Guard  was  unable  to 
provide a copy of the contract actually signed by the applicant. 
 
 
On July 22, 2001, the applicant was detained by the local police for driving under 
the  influence  and  behaved  in  a  confrontational  manner  toward  them.    He  was  not 
charged but was turned over to his command.  A test indicated that his blood alcohol 
level was 0.187%, well above the legal limit.  He was provided treatment and counsel-
ing and taken to mast for NJP.  In addition, on August 20, 2001, the Officer in Charge 
(OIC) of his station awarded him an unsatisfactory conduct mark, documented his first 
official “alcohol incident” in his record, and noted in his record that he was “not recom-
mended” for advancement. 
 
On  January  20,  2002,  the  first  extension  contract  signed  by  the  applicant  went 
 
into effect.  There are no “page 7” administrative entries in his record to show that he 
ever received SRB counseling. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Article  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33  (Reenlistment  Bonus  Programs 
 
Administration) provides that “[a]ll personnel with 14 years or less active service who 
                                                 
2    Although  the  applicant  indicated  in  his  application  that  he  had  signed  two  extension  contracts,  the 
second extension contract is not in the record before this board. 

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) states that, as 
part of proper SRB counseling, a member must be allowed to review the instruction.  
 

ALCOAST 127/01, issued on March 27, 2001, established SRBs for personnel in 
certain  skill  ratings  who  reenlisted  or  extended  their  enlistments  between  October  1, 
2001, and January 31, 2002.  The multiple to be used for calculating SRBs for members in 
the BM rating in Zone A was one.  

 
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.” 

 
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.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On October 4, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board grant the applicant “conditional relief.”   
 

The Chief Counsel stated that the record indicates that the applicant received no 
SRB counseling when he signed his first extension contract and that he was miscoun-
seled about the SRB multiplier at the time of the second extension contract.  He argued 
that, in light of this miscounseling, the Board should grant the applicant’s request if the 
applicant  can  submit  evidence  indicating  that  in  January  2002,  his  command  would 

have reenlisted him.  The Chief Counsel stated that because of the applicant’s alcohol 
incident in July 2001 and his loss of his command’s recommendation for advancement, 
it is not clear that the applicant would have been allowed to reenlist in January 2002.  
Therefore, he argued, the Board should grant relief upon the condition that the appli-
cant’s command indicate that he would have been allowed to reenlist in January 2002. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On October 15, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  On January 16, 2003, the 
Board received a memorandum from the OIC of the applicant’s station.  The OIC stated 
that in January 2002, he would have allowed the applicant to reenlist despite the disci-
plinary actions that were taken against him in August 2001. 
 

 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. 

Under  Article  2  of  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST  7220.33,  members 
are  entitled  to  proper  SRB  counseling  whenever  they  reenlist  or  extend  their  enlis-
tments, and such counseling must be documented in their records.  There is no evidence 
in the applicant’s record that he ever received proper SRB counseling.  Therefore, the 
Board agrees with the Chief Counsel that the Coast Guard erred by failing to counsel 
the applicant properly regarding his SRB eligibility. 

 
3. 

Enclosure (3) to the SRB Instruction provides that proper SRB counseling 
includes  an  opportunity  to  read  the  regulations  in  the  SRB  Instruction,  paragraph 
3.d.(6) of which states that an “exception to this rule [about the effect of prior extensions 
on SRB calculations] 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.”    If  the  applicant  had  received 
proper  SRB  counseling,  he  would  have  learned  that,  upon  the  end  of  his  original 
enlistment  on  January  19,  2002,  he  could  cancel  the  two  short-term  extensions  and 
reenlist  for  a  longer  period  to  receive  an  SRB  undiminished  by  previously  obligated 
service. 
 
4. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would 
have canceled the extensions and reenlisted for four years on January 20, 2002.  How-
ever, the main criterion each member must meet before reenlisting is the recommenda-
tion  of  the  command.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  1.G.5.3.    The  Chief  Counsel  argued 
that the applicant might not have received his command’s recommendation because of 
the alcohol incident documented in his record in July 2001.  In addition, the Board notes 
that  after  the  alcohol  incident,  the  applicant  lost  his  command’s  recommendation  for 
advancement. 
 
 
In response to the Chief Counsel’s advisory opinion, the applicant’s OIC 
submitted  a  statement  indicating  that  in  January  2002,  he  would  have  allowed  the 
applicant  to  reenlist  despite  the  disciplinary  actions  that  were  taken  against  him  in 
August 2001. 
 
 
Although the applicant lost his command’s recommendation for advance-
ment because of the alcohol incident in July 2001, the factors that commands are sup-

6. 

5. 

posed  to  consider  before  making  such  a  recommendation  in  accordance  with  Article 
10.B.7.1. of the Personnel Manual are different from and more stringent than the factors 
to be considered for a recommendation for reenlistment under Article 1.G.5.3.  There-
fore, the Board finds that the fact that the applicant lost his command’s recommenda-
tion for advancement because of the alcohol incident does not prove that he would not 
have been recommended for reenlistment in January 2002. 
 
 
The  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record 
indicates  that  the  applicant’s  command  would  have  allowed  him  to  cancel  his  exten-
sions and reenlist in January 2002 if he had requested it.  In addition, the preponderance 
of the evidence indicates that, if he had been properly counseled, he would have asked 
to cancel the extensions and reenlist for four years. 
 

7. 

8. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be granted. 

 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is granted as follows. 

 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that,  prior  to  their  operative  dates,  he 
canceled the two extension contracts dated January 3, 2000, and June 17, 2001, and that 
he  reenlisted  for  four  years  on  January  20,  2002,  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB  under 
ALCOAST 127/01.  

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
 Charles Medalen 

 

 

 
 Karen L. Petronis