DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2002-176 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  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 September 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  June  19,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled 
to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 based on his pay grade as a BM1 and 
calculated with a multiple of two for the four-year reenlistment contract that he signed 
on June 12, 2002, upon receipt of transfer orders to a new unit.  He alleged that he was 
never  counseled  about  how  reenlisting  several  weeks  prior  to  the  actual  end  of  his 
enlistment would diminish the size of his SRB because an SRB is based only on periods 
of service newly obligated under the reenlistment contract. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would  have 
extended his prior enlistment just up to the day he reported for duty at his new station 
and  reenlisted  at  that  time,  or  he  would  have  asked  to  have  his  report  date  delayed.  
                                                 
1 SRBs vary according to the length of each member’s active duty service, the number of months of service 
newly obligated by the reenlistment or extension of enlistment contract, and the need of the Coast Guard 
for personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB author-
ized for the member’s skill/rating, which is published in an ALCOAST.  Coast Guard members who have 
at least 21 months but no more than 6 years of active duty service are in “Zone A.”  Members who have 
completed at least 6 years but no more than 10 years of active duty service are in “Zone B.”  Members 
may not receive more than one bonus per zone.  COMDTINST 7220.33. 

However,  on  June  12,  2002,  he  alleged,  he  was  told  that  he  was  required  either  to 
reenlist or to sign an indefinite reenlistment. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On August 3, 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years, through August 2, 1996.  On May 28, 1996, the applicant extended his enlistment 
for three years, through August 2, 1999.  On May 18, 1999, the applicant extended his 
enlistment a second time, for one year, through August 2, 2000, in order to accept trans-
fer orders to a new station.   
 

On August 2, 2000, the applicant was advised that he was eligible for a Zone B 
SRB with a multiple of 1.5 if he enlisted for at least three years.  This counseling was 
documented on a form CG-3307 (“page 7”) in his record.  However, the applicant chose 
to  extend  his  enlistment  a  third  time,  for  a  fifth  year,  through  August  2,  2001.    On 
August 2, 2001, the applicant extended his original enlistment for another, sixth year, 
through August 2, 2002. 
 
 
In June 2002, the applicant received orders to transfer to a new station.  He was 
ordered to report by July 9, 2002.  On June 12, 2002, he reenlisted for four years.  He 
received an SRB under ALCOAST 585/01 calculated with a multiple of two but based 
on  only  46  months  of  newly  obligated  service  since  his  prior  enlistment  had  already 
obligated him to serve through August 2, 2002.  His reenlistment contract shows that he 
was advised that he would receive an SRB with a multiple of two, but there is no page 7 
in his record documenting proper SRB counseling. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Article 1.G.14. of the Personnel Manual provides that a member may extend his 

 
 
reenlistment: 
 

1.  For  any  number  of  full  years  not  less  than  two  nor  greater  than  six  years,  when 

requested by the member. 

2.  For any number of full years and/or full months up to six years to ensure sufficient 
obligated service for these purposes: … c. INCONUS and OUTCONUS assignments; 
[see] Article 4.B.6. … 

  

not exceed six years.” 

Article  1.G.14.c.  provides  that  the  “total  of  all  extensions  of  an  enlistment  may 

 
Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with more than 
six years of active duty “are required to have one year of OBLISERV remaining upon 
reporting to the new unit.”  

 

Article 1.G.2.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that reenlistments may be for 

periods of three, four, five, or six years. 

 
Article 2 of Commandant Instruction 7220.33 (the SRB Instruction) 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.”  The page 7 that members must sign normally states the amount of 
newly obligated service upon which their SRBs will be based. 
 

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.”   

 
ALCOAST 585/01 was issued on December 20, 2001, and was in effect from Feb-
ruary 1 through August 4, 2002.  It established SRB multiples for personnel in certain 
skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments for at least three years and up 
to six years.  Under ALCOAST 585/01, members in the BM rating in pay grade E-2 or 
above were eligible for an SRB calculated with a multiple of two.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On December 23, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board grant the applicant relief by correcting his record to show that he reenlisted 
for four years on August 3, 2002, thereby qualifying him for a Zone B SRB based on 48 
months of newly obligated service.  The Chief Counsel stated that the record supports 
the applicant’s allegation that he was not counseled about the fact that his SRB would 
be  based  on  46  months  of  newly  obligated  service  rather  than  48  months.    The  Chief 
Counsel  did  not  address  the  applicant’s  obligated  service  requirement  under  Article 
4.B.6. of the Personnel Manual or his transfer date. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On January 6, 2003, 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. 

 

 
3. 

 
4. 

2. 

 When the applicant received transfer orders in June 2002, he was required 
to obligate sufficient service to complete a full year of duty at his new station before he 
could accept the orders.  Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6.a.2.  Since his report date was 
July 9, 2002, he was required, by or before that date, to have obligated service through 
July 8, 2003.  Because he had already extended his original four-year enlistment for a 
total of six years, under Article 1.G.14.c. of the Personnel Manual, he could not extend 
his original enlistment again, for a seventh year.  Therefore, to have obligated service 
through July 8, 2003, he could only reenlist, and the minimum term of a reenlistment 
contract is three years.  Personnel Manual, Article 1.G.2.a.  

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  not  counseled  that  his  SRB  would  be 
based on just 46 months of newly obligated service instead of 48 months.  There is no 
page  7  in  his  record  documenting  proper  SRB  counseling,  as  required  by  the  SRB 
Instruction.    However,  when  an  applicant  proves  that  he  has  received  improper  SRB 
counseling, the Board’s policy is not to fulfill the erroneous promises made by the appli-
cant’s unit’s yeoman, but to return the applicant to the position he would have been in 
had he been properly counseled about his SRB eligibility. 

If the applicant had been properly counseled in June 2002, he would have 
been  told  that,  under  Article  4.B.6.a.2.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  before  accepting  his 
transfer orders and reporting to his new unit on July 9, 2002, he had to obligate service 
through  July  8,  2003.    In  addition,  he  would  have been advised that the only way he 
could  obligate  that  service  was  to  reenlist  for  three,  four,  five,  or  six  years  because, 
under  Article  1.G.14.c.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  he  could  not  extend  his  original 
enlistment for a seventh year and under Article 1.G.2.a., the possible terms of a regular 
reenlistment contract are three, four, five, and six years. 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  could 
have persuaded the Coast Guard to change his report date to the end of his enlistment 
on August 3, 2002, or he could have asked for another short extension.  However, he 
provided  no  evidence  that  such  requests  would  have  been  granted  by  the  Personnel 
Command just to enable him to avoid having two months of obligated service remain-
ing on his previous contract.  Nor has he proved that his command would have allowed 
him to wait until August 3, 2002, or even until the day he was supposed to report to his 
new station, July 9, 2002, to accept his transfer orders by fulfilling the requirement for 
obligated service. 
 

5. 

6. 

As indicated in Finding 4, in June 2002, to accept his transfer orders, the 
applicant was required to reenlist for at least three years.  Under Article 1.G.2.a. of the 
Personnel Manual, ALCOAST 585/01, and the provisions of the SRB Instruction, he was 
eligible to reenlist for three, four, five, or six years to receive a Zone B SRB calculated 
with a multiple of two and reduced by the two months of service remaining on his pre-
vious enlistment contract as extended.  In light of the fact that the applicant apparently 

was  not  counseled  about  the  SRB  rules  regarding  previously  obligated  service,  the 
Board finds that he should have the opportunity to change the term of his reenlistment 
contract from four years to three, five, or six years.  If he chooses to shorten the term of 
the contract to three years, however, the Coast Guard will be entitled to recoup some of 
his Zone B SRB.  
 
 
Although the Chief Counsel recommended changing the date of the appli-
cant’s  four-year  reenlistment  to  August  3,  2002,  such  a  correction  would  ignore  the 
obligated service requirement under Article 4.B.6.a.2. of the Personnel Manual.  There is 
no evidence in the record that in June 2002, the applicant’s command or the Personnel 
Command would have ignored this long-standing regulation. 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled only to the relief stated in Finding 6. 

7. 

8. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
After properly counseling the applicant regarding his choices under this order, 
the Coast Guard shall, at the applicant’s discretion, correct the term of his June 12, 2002, 
reenlistment contract to three, five, or six years, instead of four years.  If the applicant 
does not opt to have the term of this contract corrected to three, five, or six years, it shall 
remain in effect as a four-year reenlistment.   

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

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Margot Bester 

any correction made to his reenlistment contract under this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer