DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-039 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 February 24, 2003, 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 August 21, 2003, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record by canceling a three-
year extension of enlistment contract that he signed on May 1, 2002, in order to obligate 
sufficient service to accept his transfer orders.  He alleged that he was advised that he 
could not accept the transfer orders without obligating sufficient service to complete a 
full tour of duty at his next station, so he signed the three-year extension contract.  He 
alleged that he was advised that, if his rating became eligible for a selective reenlistment 
bonus (SRB) before the extension went into effect on November 2, 2002, he could cancel 
it and reenlist to receive an SRB.   
 

The applicant alleged that, when his rating actually became eligible for an SRB 
before his extension went into effect, he reenlisted for six years on November 2, 2002.  
However,  instead  of  receiving  an  SRB  calculated  on  all  six  years  of  the  contract,  he 
received  an  SRB  based  on  only  three  years,  because  the  canceled  extension  contract 
constituted previously obligated service that counted against number of years of newly 
obligated service on which his SRB was based.  The applicant asked the Board to void 
the three-year extension contract so that he would get an SRB based on all six years of 
service obligated under his reenlistment contract. 

 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant pointed out that his command failed 
to have him sign a CG-3307 (“page 7”) to acknowledge receiving proper SRB counseling 
when he signed the extension contract on May 1, 2002.   
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  November  2,  1998,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of 
four years, through November 1, 2002.  In January 2002, he received transfer orders to 
report  to  a  new  station  in  Alaska  in  July  2002.    On  May  1,  2002,  to  have  sufficient 
obligated service to accept the transfer orders, the applicant signed a three-year exten-
sion contract, obligating service in the Coast Guard through November 1, 2005.  There is 
no  page  7  in  his  record  documenting  SRB  counseling  when  he  signed  the  contract.  
However,  the  extension  contract  itself  contains  two  paragraphs  regarding  the  appli-
cant’s  SRB  eligibility  (he  was  then  ineligible)  and  SRB  entitlement.    By  signing  this 
contract, the applicant acknowledged having (1) received a copy of “SRB Questions and 
Answers” based on the Commandant’s SRB Instruction; (2) understood the effect of his 
extension  on  his  future  SRB  eligibility;  and  (3)  had  the  opportunity  to  read  the  SRB 
Instruction; and (4) had all his questions about his SRB entitlement answered. 
 
 
 
 
On October 24, 2002, his new command counseled him about SRBs and had him 
sign a page 7, which erroneously indicated that if he reenlisted for six years, he would 
receive an SRB based on all six years of service.  
 
 
On  November  2,  2002,  the  applicant  canceled  his  three-year  extension  contract 
and reenlisted for six years.  However, the reenlistment contract properly and promi-
nently states in bold, capitalized type that the applicant’s SRB would be based on only 
36 months of newly obligated service. 
 

On July 28, 2002, the applicant was transferred to a cutter based in Alaska. 

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. of the Personnel Manual provides that members will not be trans-
ferred  to  a  unit  based  outside  the  continental  United  States  unless  they  have  already 
obligated  sufficient  service to complete a full tour of duty upon reporting to the new 
unit.  

 
Article  4.A.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  the  tour  length  for  an 

enlisted member assigned to any cutter in Alaska 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 includes the multiple of the SRB 
for  which  they  are  eligible,  the  amount  of  newly  obligated  service  upon  which  their 
SRBs will be based, and an acknowledgement that they have (1) received a copy of “SRB 
Questions  and  Answers”;  and  (2)  had  their  questions  about  their  SRB  entitlement 
answered. 

 
 
Article 1.G.19.2.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that extension contracts may 
be  canceled  prior  to  their  operative dates if the member reenlists for a longer period.  
However, under paragraph 3.d.(6) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction, the term of a 
canceled extension will continue to count as previously obligated service and diminish 
the  size  of  any  SRB  the  member  might  receive  for the longer reenlistment, unless the 
extension was for a term of two years or less and was executed to fulfill an obligated 
service requirement for transfer or training. 
 

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.”  

 
Paragraph  1.c.(8)  of  Enclosure  (1)  to  the  SRB  Instruction  explains  that  only 
months of service that are newly obligated under a reenlistment or extension contract 
count in the calculation of an SRB.  

 
ALCOAST 329/02, issued on July 2, 2002, established SRB multiples for person-
nel in certain skill ratings who reenlisted or extended their enlistments between August 
5, 2002, and June 30, 2003, for at least three years and up to six years.  Under ALCOAST 
329/02,  members  who  were  DC2s  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a 
multiple of one.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  June  3,  2003,  the  Chief  Counsel  of  the  Coast  Guard  recommended  that  the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 

The  Chief  Counsel  argued  that  the  record  indicates  that  the  applicant  was 
properly counseled about SRBs on May 1, 2002, even though no page 7 was signed.  He 
pointed  out  that  the  advice  the  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  given  at  that  time  was 
true:  He could cancel his three-year extension before it went into effect and reenlist to 
get an SRB.  Moreover, the Chief Counsel pointed out, when the applicant signed the 

extension contract, he acknowledged having had a chance to read the SRB Instruction, 
and having understood the effect of his extension on his future SRB eligibility.   
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On  June  9,  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. 
 

2. 

 When  the  applicant  received  transfer  orders  in  January  2002,  he  was 
required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at his new station 
in Alaska before he could accept the orders.  Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6.  Under 
Article  4.A.5.b.  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  a  tour  length  on  a  cutter  based  in  Alaska  is 
three years.  The applicant’s report date was July 28, 2002, and his original enlistment 
was due to end on November 1, 2002.  Therefore, to comply with regulations, he was 
required to extend his contract for at least two years and nine months (33 months in all), 
from  the  end  of  his  original  enlistment  through  August  1,  2005,  since  extension  con-
tracts  must  be  for  periods  of  whole  years  or  months.  Personnel  Manual,  Article 
1.G.14.a.2.   However, his command apparently required him to extend his service for 
three full years, which was not required under the regulations.    

 
3. 

As the Chief Counsel pointed out, the advice the applicant alleged he was 
given was absolutely true—in that (a) he had to sign an extension contract to accept the 
transfer  orders  and  (b)  he  could  later  cancel  it  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB.    However,  the 
advice  was  also  incomplete  if  it  led  him  to  believe  that,  by  canceling  the  extension 
contract,  the  three  years  would  not  count  as  previously  obligated  service  to  diminish 
any SRB he might receive under a longer reenlistment contract.  He should have been 
advised  on  May  1,  2002,  that  although  he  could  cancel  the  three-year  extension  and 
reenlist for six years if he later became eligible for an SRB, only three years of the new 
enlistment  would  count  as  newly  obligated  service  in  the  calculation  of  his  SRB.    See 
COMDTINST  7220.33,  Encl.  (1),  para.  1.c.(8)  and  3.d.(6).    The  three-year  extension 
contract would in effect diminish his eligibility for an SRB by one-half.  Although the 
applicant signed his extension contract, acknowledging SRB counseling, the absence of 
a  page  7  in  his  record  suggests  that that counseling was not as complete as it should 
have been. 
 

4. 

The applicant asked that the Board correct his record so as to entitle him 
to a full SRB based on all six years of service under his enlistment contract.  The page 7 
in his record indicates that he was erroneously advised on October 24, 2002, the week 
before  he  signed  the  reenlistment  contract,  that  his  SRB  would  not  be  diminished  by 
any  previously  obligated  service.    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 applicant’s command, but to return the applicant to the position 
he  would  have  been  in  had  he  been  properly  counseled.    Moreover,  any  misunder-
standing about the size of his SRB created by the erroneous page 7 on October 24th was 
cleared up by the time the applicant signed the reenlistment contract on November 2, 
2002,  as  it  prominently  declared  that  the  SRB  would  be  based  on  only  36  months  of 
newly obligated service. 

6. 

If  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  on  May  1,  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  28,  2002,  he  had  to  obligate 
sufficient  service  to  complete  a  full  three-year  tour by extending his enlistment for at 
least 33 months.  In addition, he would have been advised that because the extension 
contract  he  would  have  to  sign  to  accept  the  tour  in  Alaska  was  for  more  than  two 
years’  duration,  under  paragraph  3.d.(6)  of  Enclosure  (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 para-
graph 3.d.(13) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction. 
 
 
The  applicant  has  neither  alleged  nor  proved  that  on  May  1,  2002,  he 
would have rejected his transfer orders by refusing to sign an extension contract if he 
had  known  that  the  extension  contract  would  diminish  the  size  of  a  possible,  future 
SRB. 
 
 
Although  the  Chief  Counsel  recommended  denying  relief,  the  applicant 
has  proved  that  his  command  erred  on  May  1,  2002,  by  requiring  him  to  extend  his 
contract for a full three years, when only a 33-month extension was necessary for him to 
accept his transfer orders.  In signing the three-year contract, he unnecessarily obligated 
three additional months of service, and his SRB was therefore diminished by those three 
months of service. 
 
 
Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  should  be  granted  in  part  by 
changing  the  term  of  his  extension  contract  from  three  years  to  two  years  and  nine 
months. 

7. 

 
5. 

8. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER 

 

military record is granted as follows: 

 
The term of his extension contract dated May 1, 2002, shall be corrected to two 

years and nine months instead of three years. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him the additional sum he is due under ALCOAST 

 
 

329/02 as a result of this correction. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Felisa C. Garmon 

 

 

 
 Quang D. Nguyen 

 

 

 
 G. Alex Weller