DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2002-132 
 
  

 

 
 

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  July  5,  2002,  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This  final  decision,  date  May  22,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record by canceling the reenlistment 
contract he signed on August 15, 2000 and reenlisting him for six years to obtain a Zone 
B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB).    He  alleged  that  on  May  26,  2000,  he  was 
erroneously advised that pursuant to ALDIST 218/00, he would receive a Zone A SRB if 
he  reenlisted  for  six  years.    He  submitted  with  his  application  a  copy  of  the  page  7, 
which  shows that he  was counseled on his  eligibility to receive a Zone A SRB with a 
multiple  of  one-half.    He  alleged  that  under  ALDIST  218/00,  however,  the  SRB 
authorized  for  his  rating  was  only  for  members  in  Zone  A  (having  no  more  than  six 
years of active duty service).  He alleged that because he had served more than six years 
of active duty and was no longer in Zone A, he was ineligible for the SRB.  He alleged 
that, if he had been properly counseled, he would not have reenlisted for six years on 
August 15, 2000.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On August 31, 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for four years.  On 
July 25, 1997, he extended this contract for three years, through August 30, 2000.  The 

extension contract he signed includes language acknowledging SRB counseling, but the 
SRB  information  is  marked  “NA,”  or  not  applicable,  as  there  was  no  multiple 
authorized for his rating at that time.   
 
 
On April 10, 2000, after having been advanced to E-5, the applicant signed a page 
7 entry (Administrative Remarks) for SRB counseling.  He was advised that no multiple 
was currently authorized for his rating under ALDIST 184/99.   
 
 
On  May  19,  2000,  the  Commandant  of  the  Coast  Guard  issued  ALCOAST 
218/00, which authorized members in the XX rating in Zone A to receive an SRB with a 
multiple  of  one-half,  if  they  reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments  between 
July 1, 2000 and January 31, 2001. 
 
On May 26, 2000, the applicant signed a page 7 entry, which advised him that he 
 
was  eligible  to  reenlist  or extend  for  a  maximum  of  6  years  to  receive  an  SRB  with  a 
multiple of one-half pursuant to ALDIST 218/00.   
 
 
On August 15, 2000, the applicant executed a six-year reenlistment contract.  He 
did  not  receive  the  SRB,  as  promised  in  the  page  7,  because  at  the  time  of  his 
reenlistment, he had served for over six years on active duty and was in Zone B rather 
than Zone A.  He did not receive a Zone B SRB either because there was no multiple 
authorized for his rating in Zone B. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 29, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board grant the applicant conditional relief.  He admitted that the record supports 
the applicant’s allegation of error.  He argued however, that prior to the applicant being 
granted relief, he should provide (1) a satisfactory explanation for his nearly two-year 
delay  in  filing  his  application,  and  (2)  in  authentication  of  the  signed  page  7,  a 
declaration from the officer who counseled the applicant on May 26, 2000. 
 
 
The Chief Counsel recommended that upon submission of the above-mentioned 
evidence, the applicant’s August 15, 2000 contract should be voided and replaced with a 
one-year  extension  agreement,  followed  by  a  six-year  reenlistment  as  of  August  15, 
2001,  which  would  qualify  him  for  a  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  two  under 
ALCOAST 127/01. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On December 2, 2002, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to 

 
 
the applicant and invited him to respond within 15 days.   
 

On December 12, 2002, the applicant’s former XO submitted a statement, which 

 
authenticated the May 26, 2000 page 7 submitted with the applicant’s application. 
 

On  December  17,  2002,  the  Board  received  a  statement  from  the  applicant 
explaining that he used his best efforts to rectify the issue involving his SRB eligibility.  
However, he argued that his adherence to following the Chain of Command, coupled 
with the fact that his former Personnel Reporting Unit’s (PERSRU) yeoman misplaced 
his personal data record (PDR) file, slowed his efforts tremendously.  He stated that he 
was unaware that he could seek relief from the Board until a Master Chief advised him 
to submit an application for correction of his military record.  He also stated that part of 
the delay in the Board receiving his application was attributable to a six-month delay in 
his yeoman mailing his application, after which, he mailed the application himself.   
 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A) 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

Article  1.G.15.a.1  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  entitled  “Extension  of  Term 
Enlistment,” provides that members may voluntarily extend or reextend their term of 
enlistment “[f]or any number of full years not less than two nor greater than six years, 
when  requested  by  member[s].”    Article  1.G.15.c.  provides  that  “[t]he  total  of  all 
extensions of an enlistment may not exceed six years.” 
 
SRB Manual Provisions 
 
 
Article  3.a.(3)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33 
(Reenlistment  Bonus  Programs  Administration)  states  that  in  order  for  members  to 
receive  a  Zone  A  SRB,  they  must  have  completed  not  more  than  six  years  of  active 
service on the date of reenlistment.   
 
ALCOAST  127/01,  issued  by  the  Commandant  on  March  27,  2001,  authorized 
 
SRBs for members who reenlisted or extended their current enlistments between May 1, 
2001 and January 31, 2002.  An SRB with a multiple of two was authorized for members 
in  the  XX  rating  in  Zone  B  (having  at  least  six  but  less  than  ten  years  of  active  duty 
service). 
 
 
ALCOAST 329/02, issued by the Commandant on July 3, 2002, authorized SRBs 
for members who reenlisted or extended their current enlistments beginning August 5, 
2002.  An SRB with a  multiple of three was  authorized for members in the XX rating 
who attained pay grade E-5 or higher and were in Zone B (having at least six but less 
than ten years of active duty service).   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

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  was  entitled  to  proper  counseling  concerning  his  eligibility  for  an  SRB 
under ALDIST 218/00 when he reenlisted on August 15, 2000. 
 
 
To qualify for a Zone A SRB, a member must have no more than six years 
of  active  duty  service  completed  on  the  date  of  his  reenlistment.    See  COMDTINST 
7220.33, Article 3.a.(3).  Although the applicant had nearly seven  years of active duty 
service on the date of his reenlistment, the Coast Guard promised him a Zone A SRB.  
The applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was improperly 
counseled by his command about his SRB eligibility under ALDIST 218/00. 
 
 
In  response  to  the  Chief  Counsel’s  advisory  opinion,  the  applicant’s 
former XO submitted a letter to authenticate the May 26, 2000 page 7.  Consequently, 
the applicant has proven to the satisfaction of the Board that the page 7 is a valid part of 
his record.   
 
 
In recommending relief, the Chief Counsel proposed that the applicant’s 
record  be  corrected  by  replacing  his  August  15,  2000  reenlistment  with  a  one-year 
extension agreement, followed by a six-year reenlistment contract to qualify for a Zone 
B  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  two  under  ALCOAST  127/01.    However,  under 
Article  1.G.15.a.1  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  no  member  can  voluntarily  extend  an 
enlistment for less than two years.   
 
 
Therefore, if the applicant had not reenlisted on August 15, 2000, then on 
August 30, 2000, the expiration date of his original enlistment, as extended, he would 
have  been  allowed  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  the  minimum  of  two  years,  through 
August  30,  2002.    Thereafter,  he  would  have  been  allowed  to  reenlist  for  six  years  to 
receive a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of three pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02.   
 
 
7. 
above.   
 
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  the  findings 

5. 

6. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

His six-year reenlistment contract dated August 15, 2000, shall be null and void. 

The  application  of  XXX  XXXXXX  X.  XXXXXX,  xxx  xx  xxxx,  USCG,  for  the 

 
 
correction of his military record is granted as follows:   
 
 
 
 
His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  August  30,  2000,  upon  the 
termination of his original enlistment as previously extended, he voluntarily extended 
his  enlistment  for  two  years,  from  August  31,  2000,  to  August  30,  2002,  and  that  on 
August 31, 2002, he reenlisted for six years, through August 30, 2008. 
 

The Coast Guard shall pay him any sum he is due under ALCOAST 329/02 as a 

   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 

 

 

 
 
 Francis H. Esposito 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

result of this correction.