DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2002-098 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
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 21, 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  February  19,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record so that he would receive a 
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) for the full 72 months (six years) for which he reen-
listed on July 18, 2002.   
 
 
The applicant alleged that when he received transfer orders in April 2001, they 
indicated that, to accept the orders, he would be required to obligate sufficient service 
to complete a full four-year tour of duty at his new station.  Since he was transferring in 
July  2001,  he  needed  to  obligate  service  through  July  2005  to  accept  the  orders.    His 
enlistment was due to expire on September 18, 2002, so he was advised to sign an exten-
sion contract for an additional 2 years and 10 months to have obligated service through 
July 18, 2005.  He alleged that his yeoman told him that, if he signed the extension con-
tract  and  became  eligible  for  an  SRB  before  September  18,  2002,  he  could  cancel  the 
extension  before  it  became  operative  to  reenlist  for  a  full  SRB,  undiminished  by  any 
previously obligated service.  Therefore, on April 11, 2001, he extended his enlistment 
for 2 years and 10 months (34 months) to accept the transfer orders. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in April 2002, before the extension contract was to go 
into effect, he inquired about reenlisting for an SRB and was told that even if he can-

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 2 

celed  the  extension  contract,  it  would  still  count  as  previously  obligated  service  and 
reduce his SRB by almost half:  if he reenlisted in September 2002 before the extension 
became operative for the maximum time allowed, 72 months, the 34 months of service 
obligated under the extension contract would not be included in the calculation of his 
SRB, which would be  based on only 38 months of newly obligated service.  When he 
inquired further, he alleged, he discovered that he had also missed the chance to receive 
an SRB when he signed the extension contract in April 2001 because only contracts of at 
least 36 months qualify a member for an SRB.  He alleged that in April 2001, his com-
mand failed to complete a “page 7” entry documenting SRB counseling, as required by 
regulation. 
 
 
The applicant concluded that because of the improper counseling he received, it 
was unjust for him to receive an SRB based on only 38 months of his 72-month contract. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 

On September 19, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years, 
through September 18, 1999.  On April 1, 1997, he extended the enlistment for one year, 
through September 18, 2000, to obligate sufficient service to attend school.  However, on 
September  19,  1999,  he  canceled  the  extension  by  reenlisting  for  three  years,  through 
September 18, 2002.  For this reenlistment, he received a Zone A SRB calculated with a 
multiple of 3 in accordance with ALDIST 184/99.1 

 
In  April  2001,  the  applicant  received  transfer  orders.    To  accept  them,  he  was 
required to have at least four years of obligated service to complete a full tour of duty at 
his new station from July 2001 through July 2005.  At the time, ALCOAST 488/00 was 
in effect, and it authorized a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 1 for members in 
the ET rating.  The applicant was still in Zone A in April 2001, but because any exten-
sion contract he signed would become operative on September 19, 2002, after he entered 
Zone B, he could have received a Zone B SRB by signing an extension contract of at least 
36 months’ duration. 

 
On April 11, 2001, the applicant signed a contract extending his enlistment for 34 
months, from September 19, 2002, through July 18, 2005, to accept the transfer orders.  
The contract indicates that the SRB information was “NA,” or not applicable, and there 
is no other documentation of SRB counseling in his record.  He received no SRB for this 
extension because only contracts of at least 36 months’ duration qualify a member for 
an SRB.  
                                                 
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. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 3 

 
On July 18, 2002, before the 34-month extension became operative, the applicant 
reenlisted  for  six  years,  through  July  17,  2008.    The  contract  states  that  in  accordance 
with  ALCOAST  329/02,2  the  applicant  was  eligible  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  based  on  36 
months of newly obligated service from July 18, 2005 (the end of his 34-month extension 
contract), through July 17, 2008.  On July 9, 2002, before signing this contract, he signed 
a page 7 entry for his record acknowledging having received SRB counseling and hav-
ing read and fully understood the SRB Instruction, COMDTINST 7220.33. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 21, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard submitted an advi-
sory opinion in which he recommended that the Board administratively close the case 
instead of issuing a decision.  The Chief Counsel alleged that when the applicant reen-
listed on July 18, 2002, because of the higher multiple in effect, he received a larger Zone 
B  SRB  than  he  would  have  received  if  he  had  signed  a  six-year  extension  contract  in 
April 2001. 
  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 28, 2002, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the advisory opin-
ion.    In  light  of  the  Chief  Counsel’s  recommendation,  the  Chair  recommended  to  the 
applicant that he consult with someone knowledgeable about SRB regulations and reply 
to the Board within 30 days.  In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant alleged 
that since he was told the extension could be canceled prior to its operative date with-
out reducing his SRB entitlement, it was unfair for those 34 months to be deducted from 
his SRB.  He asked the Board to correct his record to make the extension contract null 
and void and to show that he reenlisted on September 18, 2002, for six years to receive 
an SRB based on all 72 months of the contract. 

 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Section 2 of the SRB Instruction (COMDTINST 7220.33) provides that “[a]ll per-
 
sonnel with 14 years or less active service who reenlist or extend for any period, how-
ever  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)  requires  members  to  acknowledge  that  they  have  been 
counseled about SRBs, provided copies of the SRB Instruction and “SRB Questions and 
Answers,” and had all their questions about SRBs answered. 
 

                                                 
2 Actually, on July 18, 2002, ALCOAST 585/01 was in effect rather than ALCOAST 329/02.  However, the 
Zone B SRB multiple provided under the two ALCOASTs for members in the ET rating was the same: 3.5. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 4 

 
Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, entitled “Obligated Service for Assign-
ment,” provides that members with less than six years of active duty will not normally 
be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend to have enough obligated service for a full 
tour on reporting to a new unit. …  [A] member must comply with OBLISERV require-
ments before he or she will be permitted to execute his or her preferred assignment.”   
 
Paragraph 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19. of the 
 
Personnel Manual provide that extensions of two years or less may be canceled prior to 
their operative dates to allow the member to sign a new, longer extension or reenlist-
ment  contract  to  receive  an  SRB  and  that,  if  the  short-term  extension  was  signed  to 
enable the members to accept transfer or training orders, the term of the canceled exten-
sion will not reduce the size of the SRB received under the new, longer contract. 
 
Paragraph  3.f.  of  Enclosure  (1)  provides  that  SRB  payments  are  calculated  by 
 
(a) multiplying the member’s monthly basic pay (MBP) by both the number of months 
of newly obligated service under the contract (partial months are rounded up to whole 
months) and the SRB multiple authorized for the member’s rating and (b) dividing the 
result by 12:  SRB = MBP x months of newly obligated service x authorized multiple 
 

12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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  correct  his  record  so  that  he  would 
receive an SRB based on all 72 months of his July 18, 2002, contract.  He alleged that he 
was told in April 2001 that he would be able to get a full SRB if he became eligible for 
one later even if he signed a 34-month extension contract to accept his transfer orders.  
There  is  no  evidence  in  the  applicant’s  record  that  he  was  properly  counseled  about 
SRBs  in  April  2001  as  required  under  Section  2  of  the  SRB  Instruction,  COMDTINST 
7220.33.  In addition, however, the applicant has submitted no evidence to support his 
allegation that he was told that he would later be able to cancel the 34-month extension 
contract  and  get  a  maximum  SRB  without  reduction  for  previously  obligated  service.  
Moreover, he was required to sign a contract of at least 34 months’ duration, through 
July  2005,  to  accept  his  transfer  orders  regardless  of  the  contract’s  effect  on  his  SRB 
eligibility.  Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6.a.1.  Because of this requirement, he could 
not accept the transfer orders without signing a contract that would count as previously 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 5 

obligated service in the calculation of any Zone B SRB for which he might later become 
eligible. Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.19; COMDTINST 7220.33, Encl. (1), para. 3.d.(6). 

 
3. 

The  applicant  argued  that,  despite  the  rules  about  previously  obligated 
service in the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19. of the Personnel Manual, he  should 
receive  an  SRB  based  on  all  72  months  of  his  July  18,  2002,  contract  because  he  was 
advised in April 2001  that he would  be able to.  Although he has  not proved that he 
received this erroneous advice, assuming arguendo that he did, it is not the policy of this 
Board  to  fulfill  erroneous  promises  of  SRB  payments  to  which  members  were  never 
legally  entitled.    Rather,  the  Board’s  policy  is  to  correct  applicants’  records  so  as  to 
return  them  to  the  position  they  would  have  been  in  had  they  received  proper  and 
timely SRB counseling. 

 
4. 

Because the applicant’s enlistment was due to end on September 18, 2002, 
after his sixth active duty anniversary, any extension contract he signed in April 2001 of 
at  least  36  months’  duration  would  have  earned  him  a  Zone  B  SRB  calculated  with  a 
multiple of just 1under ALCOAST 488/00.  If on April 11, 2001, in response to proper 
SRB  counseling,  he  had  chosen  to  extend  his  contract  for  the  maximum  allowable  72 
months,  under  paragraph  3.f.  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  SRB  Instruction,  he  would  have 
received  a  Zone  B  SRB  based  on  his  monthly  basic  pay  (“MBP”),  times  72  months  of 
newly  obligated  service,  times  the  multiple  of  1  authorized  under  ALCOAST  488/00, 
divided by 12, or MBP x 72 x 1/12.  Therefore, if he had extended his contract for 72 
months  on  April  11,  2001,  he  would  have  received  a  Zone  B  SRB  of  six  times  his 
monthly basic pay.   

 
5. 

The Coast Guard argued that the case should be closed because the Zone 
B SRB the applicant received for reenlisting on July 18, 2002, when ALCOAST 585/01 
was in effect is greater than what he would have received under ALCOAST 488/00 on 
April 11 2001.  For his July 18, 2002, reenlistment, the applicant received a Zone B SRB 
based on his MBP, times the 36 months of service newly obligated under the contract, 
times the multiple of 3.5 authorized under ALCOAST 585/01, divided by 12, or MBP x 
36  x  3.5/12.    Therefore,  he  has  received  a  Zone  B  SRB  of  ten  and  one-half  times  his 
monthly  basic  pay.    The  Board  agrees  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  the  applicant  has 
received a bigger Zone B SRB than he could possibly have received if he had been prop-
erly and timely counseled about and taken advantage of the opportunity for a Zone B 
SRB under ALCOAST 488/00. 

 
6. 

Therefore, the Board concludes that the Coast Guard’s apparent failure to 
inform the applicant in April 2001 about his opportunity to receive a Zone B SRB under 
ALCOAST 488/00 was harmless error since he ultimately received a larger Zone B SRB 
than he would have under that ALCOAST.  As explained in finding 3, above, the Board 
will not correct his record to provide him with a 72-month SRB to which he was never 
legally entitled and for which, under Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, he could 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 6 

never have been entitled even if he had been properly counseled.  Since the record indi-
cates that the applicant was properly and timely counseled concerning the SRB regula-
tions prior to signing his July 18, 2002, reenlistment contract, the Board sees no reason 
to disturb it. 

 
7. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2002-098                                                                 p. 7 

 
 
 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is denied. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 
Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
Gloria Hardiman-Tobin 

 

 

 

 
 
David H. Kasminoff