DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-095 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The application was docketed on 
May 8, 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  

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he reenlisted for 
six years on February 5, 2001, to receive a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated 
with  a  multiple  of  2.5  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST  488/00.    He  stated  that  he  had 
missed  the  opportunity  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  because  he  was  convalescing.    He  also 
asked  the  Board  to  correct  two  short-term  extension  contracts  entered  in  his  record 
while he was convalescing and to void an indefinite reenlistment contract he signed on 
July 16, 2001. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS AND RECORD 

 

On March 5, 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  While working on 
an  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  tower  on  xxxxxxxx,  199x,  he  fell  xx  feet  and  incurred  multiple 
injuries to his spine, head, shoulder, ribs,  wrist, and soft tissues.   On March 28, 2000, 
while he was still recovering, an Initial Medical Board (IMB) was convened to assess his 
condition.  The IMB determined that he was fit for limited duty for the following six 
months  (no  sea  duty  or  lifting  more  than  ten  pounds)  and  that  he  was  expected  to 

become  fit  for  full  duty  so  that  no  further  processing  under  the  Physical  Disability 
Evaluation System was necessary.  

 
While  still  in  recovery  and  performing  limited  duty,  the  applicant’s  enlistment 
terminated on August 4, 2000.  He wanted to extend his enlistment or reenlist but was 
told that he could not do so while he was still recovering and fit for only limited duty.  
Instead,  he  was  given  an  involuntary  six-month  extension,  which  went  into  effect  on 
August 5, 2000.  On February 5, 2001, because he was still recovering from his injuries 
and assigned to limited duty, he was again given an involuntary six-month extension, 
through August 4, 2001. 

 
The  applicant’s  tenth  anniversary  on  active  duty,  which  is  the  end  of  Zone  B,1 
occurred on March 5, 2001.  Under ALCOAST 488/00, which was in effect from Febru-
ary 1 through April 30, 2001, no SRB multiple was authorized for members in the MK 
rating in Zone B on that day.  In fact, throughout the four years during which the appli-
cant was in Zone B, from March 5, 1997, through March 5, 2001, no Zone B SRB multiple 
was ever authorized for the MK rating.2 

 
On July 16, 2001, after his command received notice that he was fit for full duty, 

the applicant was allowed to reenlist indefinitely in the Coast Guard. 

 
The applicant alleged that, because he was never found to have a temporary or 
permanent physical disability, he should not have been given the two six-month invol-
untary extensions and he should have been allowed to extend or reenlist for a long term 
to  receive  an  SRB.    In  support  of  his  allegation,  he  submitted  several  letters  from  his 
chain  of  command  stating  that  the  applicant  should  have  been  allowed  to  reenlist  to 
receive the maximum SRB prior to his tenth anniversary. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
On October 28, 2002, the Chief Counsel submitted an advisory opinion in which 
 
he recommended that the Board grant the applicant’s request by reenlisting him for six 
years on his tenth anniversary.  The Chief Counsel stated that because the applicant was 
later found fit for full duty, clearly intended to reenlist, and promptly sought relief, his 
request should be granted “based on the equities of this case.”  
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

                                                 
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. 
2 See ALDISTs 135/97, 226/97, 046/98, 206/98, 290/98, and 184/99; and ALCOASTs 184/99, 218/00, and 
488/00. 

 
 
On November 4, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the advisory opin-
ion and invited him to respond within 15 days.  The applicant responded on November 
12, 2002, stating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation. 

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 asked the Board to make certain corrections to his record so 
that,  under  ALCOAST  488/00,  he  would  receive  an  SRB  for  a  six-year  reenlistment 
dated February 5, 2001.  The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board reenlist him instead on his tenth active duty anniversary, March 5, 2001, for the 
SRB. 

 
3. 

The applicant enlisted on March 5, 1991, and so was in Zone B from March 
5, 1997, to March 5, 2001.  At no time during those four years was a Zone B SRB ever 
authorized for members in the MK rating.3  From February 1 through April 30, 2001, 
ALCOAST 488/00 was in effect.  It authorized an SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.5 
for members in the MK rating in Zone A, but it did not authorize any SRB multiple for 
those in Zone B like the applicant. 
 

4. 

 Because  no  Zone  B  SRB  was  ever  authorized  for  the  applicant’s  rating 
while  he  was  in  Zone  B,  neither  the  corrections  he  requested  nor  the  correction  the 
Chief Counsel recommended would cause him to be entitled to an SRB.  In fact, there is 
no  correction  that  the  Board  could  make  to  his  enlistment  or  extension  contracts  that 
would cause him to be eligible for a Zone B SRB under the law. 

 
5. 

Under ALCOAST 127/01, a Zone B multiple was authorized for members 
in the MK rating who reenlisted after May 1, 2001.  However, by that date, the applicant 
was already in Zone C, for which no SRBs were authorized. 

 
6. 

Whether the applicant was legally entitled to extend or reenlist for a long 
period  while  he  was  convalescing  is  irrelevant  to  the  Board’s  decision  in  this  matter 
because under the various ALDISTs and ALCOASTs in effect while he was in Zone B, 
he was never eligible for an SRB.   

                                                 
3 Id. 

 
7. 

Because  the  applicant  requested  the  revisions  to  his  contracts  solely 
because he believed they would make him entitled to an SRB and because his belief was 
erroneous, the Board finds no reason to correct his record. 

 
8. 
 

 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the application should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

record is denied. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Terence W. Carlson 

 

 

 
 Charles Medalen 

 

 

 
 Karen L. Petronis