DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-001 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 October 7, 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 full Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 based on his pay grade as an MK2, 
rather than a partial SRB reduced by previously obligated service under an extension 
contract.  He alleged that when he signed an extension contract on March 22, 2002, to 
obligate  sufficient  service  to  accept  his  transfer  orders,  he  was  advised  that  he  could 
cancel it before it became operative on January 11, 2003, and reenlist to receive a maxi-
mum SRB.  However, he later learned that he could not cancel the extension contract 
and  that  the  months  of  service  he  had  obligated  would  count  against  any  SRB  he 
received for reenlisting. 
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  the  applicant  submitted  a  memorandum  from  a 
chief  warrant  officer  at  his  unit,  who  stated  that  his  office  incorrectly  counseled  the 
                                                 
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.” COMDTINST 7220.33. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2003-001                                                                  p. 2 

applicant that he could cancel his extension contract, regardless of its length, before it 
became operative to receive a full SRB. 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 11, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years, through January 10, 2003.  In March 2002, the applicant received transfer orders 
to  the  Marine  Safety  Office  in  Honolulu.   To accept the transfer orders, he signed an 
extension contract for an additional two years and six months of service, obligating him 
to serve from January 11, 2003, through July 10, 2005.  When he signed the extension 
contract, the applicant was an MK3 awaiting advancement to MK2.  
 
 
On June 28, 2002, the applicant reported to his new station in Honolulu.  On July 
1, 2002, he was advanced from MK3 to MK2.  The extension contract went into effect on 
January 11, 2003. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Article 1.G.14.a.2. of the Personnel Manual provides that a member may extend 
 
his reenlistment “[f]or any number of full years and/or full months up to six years to 
ensure sufficient obligated service [OBLISERV] for these purposes: … c. INCONUS and 
OUTCONUS assignments; [see] Article 4.B.6.” 
 

Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual 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.”  Article 
4.B.6.b. provides that the transfer orders of a member who refuses to meet the OBLI-
SERV requirement may be canceled, and the member will be reassigned for the remain-
der of his enlistment in accordance with the needs of the Coast Guard. 

 
Article  4.A.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the  tour  length  for  an 
enlisted member assigned to any shore unit on Oahu is four years.  The tour length for 
shore units on the other islands of Hawaii is three 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.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19.2.b. of 
the  Personnel  Manual  provide  that  extension  contracts  for  terms  of  two  years or less 
may  be  canceled  prior  to  their  operative  dates  to  allow  the  member  to  sign  a  new, 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2003-001                                                                  p. 3 

longer extension or reenlistment contract to receive an SRB.  A canceled short extension 
contract executed to fulfill an OBLISERV requirement does not diminish the size of the 
SRB received under the new contract. 
 

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 who were MK2s (but not MK3s) were 
eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of two.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On February 28, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that 
the Board grant the applicant relief by voiding the March 22, 2002, extension contract 
and reenlisting him on July 2, 2002, after his advancement to MK2, to qualify him for a 
Zone A SRB. 
 
 
The  Chief  Counsel  compared  this  applicant’s  case  to those of the applicants in 
BCMR docket numbers 2002-116 and 2002-1682 and stated that the record supports the 
applicant’s allegation of erroneous counseling. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On February 28, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond.    On  March  18,  2003,  the  applicant 
responded, stating that he agreed with the Chief Counsel’s recommendation. 
                                                 
2  In BCMR Dkt. No. 2002-116, the applicant asked the Board to correct the date of an extension contract 
from February 20, 2002 (when he was a TC3), to April 2, 2002 (after he was advanced to TC2), so that he 
would receive the Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) that he earned for that contract based on the 
higher  multiple  that  was  in  effect  for  TC2s  under  ALCOAST  585/01.    He  alleged  that  if  he  had  been 
properly counseled, he would have waited to sign the contract until after he was advanced.  He signed 
the  contract  upon  receiving  transfer  orders  that  required  him  to  obligate  additional  service  before 
accepting the orders and reporting to his new unit in July 2002.   

The  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  relief  because  the 
applicant  was  awaiting  advancement  to  TC2  in  February  2002  and  did  not  need  to  sign  his  extension 
contract immediately in order to accept the orders to transfer in July.  The Board granted relief, agreeing 
with the Chief Counsel that the applicant could have waited until April 2, 2002, to sign the contract to 
obligate sufficient service to accept his transfer orders. 

In BCMR Dkt. No. 2002-168, the facts are essentially identical to those in Dkt. No. 2002-116, and 

the Chief Counsel’s recommendation was the same.  The Board granted the requested relief. 
 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2003-001                                                                  p. 4 

 

 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. 

 When  the  applicant  received  transfer  orders  in  March  2002,  he  was 
required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at his new station 
in  Honolulu  before  he  could  accept  the  orders.    Personnel  Manual,  Article  4.B.6.a.2.  
Under Article 4.A.5.b. of the Personnel Manual, a tour length at a shore unit on Oahu is 
supposed to be four years.  The applicant’s report date was June 28, 2002.  Therefore, to 
comply with regulations, he should have been required to extend his contract for three 
years and six months, through July 10, 2006.  However, his command only required him 
to extend his service through July 10, 2005.    

Since his report date was June 28, 2002, the applicant was required, by or 
before that date, to have obligated sufficient service for the tour in Honolulu.  He was 
not advanced to MK2 until July 1, 2002.  Therefore, he had to sign the extension contract 
while  still  an  MK3.    Under  ALCOAST  585/01,  MK3s  were  not  eligible  for  an  SRB.  
Moreover,  even  if  the  applicant  had  managed  to  delay  his  report  date  until  after  his 
advancement on July 1, there is no evidence in the record that the Coast Guard Person-
nel Command would have allowed him to wait from mid March until just before his 
transfer in July to meet the OBLISERV requirement to accept the transfer orders.  Such 
transfers require significant administrative preparations. 

The applicant has presented evidence to show that he was counseled that 
he could cancel the two-year, six-month extension before it became operative on Janu-
ary 11, 2003, to reenlist for a full SRB.  There is no page 7 in his record documenting 
proper SRB counseling, as required by the SRB Instruction.  However, when an appli-
cant proves that he has received improper SRB counseling, the Board’s policy is not to 
fulfill  the  erroneous  promises  made  by  the  applicant’s  command,  but  to  return  the 
applicant to the position he would have been in had he been properly counseled. 

If  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  in  March  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 June 28, 2002, he had to obligate 
sufficient  service  to  complete  a  full  four-year  tour.    In  addition,  he  would  have  been 
advised that because the extension contract he would have to sign to accept the tour in 
Honolulu was for more than two years’ duration, under paragraph 3.d.(6) of Enclosure 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2003-001                                                                  p. 5 

6. 

(1) to the SRB Instruction and Article 1.G.19.2.b. of the Personnel Manual, he could not 
cancel it before it became operative to receive an SRB without having his SRB reduced 
in accordance with paragraph 3.d.(13) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction. 
 
 
Although  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended  correcting  the  applicant’s 
record to show that he extended his contract as an MK2 on July 2, 2002, such a correc-
tion would ignore the OBLISERV requirement under Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel 
Manual.    There is no evidence in the record that in March 2002, the applicant’s com-
mand  or  the  Personnel  Command  would  have  ignored  this  long-standing regulation.  
Moreover, this applicant’s case is very different from the cases in BCMR docket num-
bers 2002-116 and 2002-168.  In both of those cases, the applicants were promoted to the 
higher rating soon after they received their transfer orders and long before they had to 
report to their new stations. 
 
 
Although  under  Article  4.A.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  the  applicant 
should  have  been  required  to  extend  his  enlistment  for  three  years  and  six  months, 
instead of two years and six months, to accept his transfer orders to the Marine Safety 
Office in Honolulu, correcting his record to accord with the regulation would not bene-
fit  him  as  it  would  increase  the  amount  of  his  obligated  service  and  therefore  might 
reduce  any  SRB  for  which  he  might  be  eligible  on  his  sixth  active  duty  anniversary, 
January 11, 2005. 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

7. 

8. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

Final Decision in BCMR Docket No. 2003-001                                                                  p. 6 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 

 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer