DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-020 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  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 November 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 by voiding a four-
year  reenlistment  contract  that  he  signed  on  July  16,  2002,  based  on  the  promise  of  a 
Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)1  that  he  never  received,  and  by  replacing 
that contract with a one-year extension contract.  He alleged that he was advised that he 
would receive the SRB even though he did not have the coxswain’s qualification neces-
sary to be eligible for the SRB under ALCOAST 585/01, which was then in effect. 
 
 
The applicant submitted with his application a statement from his PERSRU (per-
sonnel reporting unit), who wrote that “due to administrative oversight, [the applicant] 
was not properly counseled on the exact requirements (i.e. Coxswain Qualification) in 
order to receive an SRB.  This led [him] to enter a reenlistment [for] which he did not 
                                                 
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. 

obtain the benefits he assumed were to be provided—a Zone A selective reenlistment 
bonus, multiple of 1.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On January 28, 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years,  through  January  27,  2001.    On  July  1,  1999,  after  receiving  transfer  orders  to  a 
new  station,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  an  SRB  multiple  was  authorized  for  his 
rating  and  that  if  he  reenlisted  or  extended  his  enlistment  for  at  least  three  years,  he 
would receive the SRB.  However, the applicant chose to obligate only the one year—
through January 27, 2002—of additional service that was necessary to accept his transfer 
orders.    On  January  3,  2001,  the  applicant  signed  a  second,  seven-month  extension 
contract through August 27, 2002, in order to obligate sufficient service to attend school. 
 
 
On May 2, 2002, the applicant signed a three-year extension contract in order to 
accept transfer orders to a station in Puerto Rico.  On July 16, 2002, he reenlisted for four 
years,  which  effectively  canceled  his  three-year  extension  contract.    His  reenlistment 
contract shows that he was promised an SRB. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Article 4.B.6.a. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with fewer than 
 
six years of active duty may not be transferred “unless they reenlist or extend to have 
enough  obligated  service  for  a  full  tour  on  reporting  to  a  new  unit.”    Article  4.A.5.b. 
specifies that a full tour of duty at the station to which the applicant was transferred is 
three years.  Article 1.G.15. provides that, prior to a member’s being transferred over-
seas, “the voluntary agreement to extend must be executed and accepted by the com-
manding officer before the transfer is effected.” 
 
 
reenlistment: 
 

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

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. … 

  
Article 1.G.18. of the Personnel Manual states that, “[u]nless canceled for one of 
 
the reasons in Article 1.G.19., an Agreement to Extend Enlistment becomes effective on 
the date next following the normal date the enlistment expires or the enlistment expira-
tion date as voluntarily extended … .”  Article 1.G.19.2.b. provides that a “commanding 
officer may cancel an Agreement to Extend Enlistment on the effective extension date 
when the individual concerned has reenlisted or extended on that date for any author-
ized enlistment term longer than the original extension agreement.” 

 

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.  Under 
ALCOAST  585/01,  members  in  the  BM  rating in pay grade E-4 who had certain cox-
swain qualifications were eligible for an SRB calculated with a multiple of one.  Under 
ALCOAST 329/02, which went into effect on August 5, 2002, E-4s in the BM rating had 
to have successfully completed the Navigation Rules Exam to be eligible for an SRB. 

 
Article  2  of  Commandant  Instruction  7220.33  (Reenlistment  Bonus  Programs 
 
Administration) 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.”   
 

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.”  However, paragraph 
3.d.(6) states that an “exception to this rule is made for extensions of 2 years or less … 
required of a member for transfer, training, advancement, or tuition assistance.  These 
extensions may be canceled prior to their operative date for the purpose of immediate 
reenlistment or longer extension without any loss of SRB entitlement.” 

 
 
Paragraph 3.d.(9) of Enclosure (1) states that “[c]ommanding officers are author-
ized to effect early discharge and reenlist members within 3 months prior to their 6th, 
10th, or 14th year active service anniversary dates (not to be confused with the normal 
expiration of enlistment), for the purpose of qualifying for a Zone A, B, or C SRB respec-
tively.  In such cases, SRB payments will be reduced by any portion of unserved service 
obligation.” 
 

Paragraph  3.d.(1)  of  Enclosure  (1)  states  that  “[m]embers  with  exactly  6  years 
active duty on the date of reenlistment or operative date of extension will be entitled to 
the Zone A multiple in effect for their rating if they are otherwise eligible.” 
  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On March 26, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 
Board grant the applicant relief by voiding his reenlistment contract dated July 16, 2002.  
He stated that the record supports the applicant’s allegation that he reenlisted based on 
the promise of a Zone A SRB for which he was not eligible because he did not have cox-
swain’s qualifications.  The Chief Counsel did not address the applicant’s request for a 
one-year extension. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On March 31, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond.    On  April  10,  2003,  the  applicant 
responded, stating, “I accept the advisory opinion recommendation to receive a one (1) 
year short-term extension.” 
 

 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 four-year reenlistment contract that the applicant signed on July 16, 
2002, shows that he was erroneously promised an SRB in exchange for the reenlistment.  
He was not eligible for the SRB under ALCOAST 585/01 because he did not have the 
necessary coxswain’s qualifications.  In addition, there is no evidence in the record that 
he had successfully completed the Navigation Rules Exam, which would have permit-
ted  him  to  reenlist  after  ALCOAST  329/02  went  into  effect  on  August  5,  2002,  but 
before  his  three-year  extension  contract  became  operative  on  August  28,  2002.    The 
Board finds that the applicant’s reenlistment contract is voidable because it included an 
erroneous promise of an SRB for which the applicant was not eligible. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

The applicant asked for the four-year reenlistment contract to be replaced 
with  a  one-year  extension  contract.    However,  under  Article  1.G.14.  of  the  Personnel 
Manual,  the  minimum  possible duration of an extension contract that a member may 
receive upon his own request is two years.  Moreover, when an applicant proves that he 
has  received  improper  counseling,  the  Board’s policy is to return the applicant to the 
position he would have been in had he been properly counseled about his SRB eligibil-
ity.  The applicant has not shown that, if he had not reenlisted for four years, he would 
have  been  allowed  to  cancel  the  three-year  extension  contract  that  he  had  signed  on 
May 2, 2002, to accept his transfer orders in accordance with Articles 4.B.6.a. and 1.G.15. 
of  the  Personnel  Manual,  and  extend  his  reenlistment  contract for just one year.  The 
Coast  Guard’s  error  in  promising  the  applicant  an  SRB  for  the  reenlistment  does  not 
entitle him to avoid the obligated service requirement for his transfer orders. 

If  the  applicant  had  been  properly  advised  in  July  2002  that  he  was  not 
eligible for an SRB because he lacked the necessary qualifications, he would not have 
reenlisted and the three-year extension contract that he signed on May 2, 2002, to obli-
gate sufficient service to accept his transfer orders to Puerto Rico would not have been 
canceled.  Under Article 1.G.19., the extension contract could only be canceled because 

5. 

he signed the longer, four-year contract.  Under Article 1.G.18., the extension contract 
would have become operative on August 28, 2002, if the applicant had not reenlisted for 
four years on July 16, 2002. 
 
 
The Board notes that the applicant’s sixth anniversary on active duty fell 
on January 28, 2003.  Members are entitled to counseling concerning their eligibility to 
be  discharged  and  reenlisted  on  their  sixth  anniversaries  to  receive  a  Zone  A  SRB.  
There is no evidence in the applicant’s record of proper sixth anniversary counseling, 
and it is not clear to the Board whether he was eligible for an SRB by that date under 
ALCOAST 329/02.   
 

6. 

Accordingly,  partial  relief  should  be  granted  by  voiding  the  applicant’s 
four-year reenlistment contract dated July 16, 2002, and reinstating his three-year exten-
sion  contract  dated  May  2,  2002.    In  addition,  the  Coast  Guard  should  determine 
whether the applicant was eligible for a Zone A SRB on his sixth active duty anniver-
sary  under  ALCOAST 329/02 and, if he was eligible, it should reenlist him for three, 
four, five, or six years as of that date, at his discretion. 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  597  16  4477,  USCG,  for 

correction of his military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
His  four-year  reenlistment  contract  dated  July  16,  2002,  shall  be  null  and  void 
and his three-year extension contract dated May 2, 2002, shall no longer be canceled but 
shall have become operative on August 28, 2002, in accordance with Article 1.G.18. of 
the Personnel Manual.   

 
 

        

 
 
 Margot Bester 

 
In addition, the Coast Guard shall determine whether the applicant was eligible 
for a Zone A SRB on his sixth active duty anniversary under ALCOAST 329/02 and, if 
he was eligible, it shall reenlist him for three, four, five, or six years as of that date, at his 
discretion.  The Coast Guard shall pay the applicant any sum he may be due as a result 
of any correction made to his record in accordance with this order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer