DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-062 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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  April  7,  2003,  after  the 
Board received the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  20,  2003,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant, currently a telephone technician third class (TT3), asked the Board 
to  remit  the  indebtedness  he  incurred  when  he  changed  ratings  and  the  selective 
reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 he had received for reenlisting on April 27, 1999, in his prior 
rating (electronics technician second class (ET2)) was recouped.2   
 

The applicant alleged that when he first considered changing his rating from ET 
to  TT,  he  asked  a  yeoman  at  his  Personnel  Reporting  Unit  (PERSRU)  what  he  would 
have  to  do,  whether  he  would  lose  a  rank,  and  whether  he  could  keep  his  SRB.    He 
alleged  that  the  yeoman  told  him  that  he  would  have  to  lose  one  rank  (from  second 

                                                 
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,  and  the  need  of  the  Coast  Guard  for 
personnel with the member’s particular skills, which is reflected in the “multiple” of the SRB authorized 
for the member’s rating.  Coast Guard members who have more than 21 months but less than 6 years of 
active  duty  service  are  in  “Zone  A.”   Those with between 6 and 10 years of active duty are in Zone B.  
Members may not receive more than one bonus per zone. 
 
2  On April 27, 1999, ALDIST 290/98 was in effect, authorizing an SRB calculated with a multiple of 3 for 
members in the ET rating and an SRB calculated with a multiple of 1 for members in the TT rating. 

class to third class) if he changed ratings, but that he would be allowed to keep his SRB.  
Therefore, he asked to enroll in “A” School to join the TT rating. 

 
The applicant alleged that in June 2001, when he received his orders to attend TT 
“A” School, he was told that he would have to extend his enlistment for four months in 
order  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  attend  the  school.    He  alleged that the PERSRU 
again told him that “nothing would change [his] SRB eligibility and that this was why 
they put N/A in all of the blank spaces under the SRB section” of the extension con-
tract.  

 
The applicant alleged that on August 28, 2002, eight months after he had gradu-
ated from TT “A” School and four months after he received his third annual installment 
of  the  SRB,  the  Coast  Guard’s  Human  Resources  Services  and  Information  Center 
(HRSIC)  told  his  PERSRU  that  he  was  no  longer  entitled  to  his  SRB  because  of  his 
change  in  rating.    Since  then,  he  alleged,  HRSIC  has  been  withholding  $287.42  per 
month  from  his  pay  check  (“about  16.5%  of  [his]  base  pay”)  and  will  do  so  for  24 
months until it has recouped a total of $5,748.29 in alleged overpayments on his SRB. 

 
The applicant alleged that his PERSRU did not know and never told him that his 
SRB would be recouped.  He pointed to the fact that the PERSRU did not follow proce-
dures  to  recoup  his  SRB  until  HRSIC  required  it  as  proof  that  the  PERSRU  miscoun-
seled him about the effect his change of rating would have on his SRB.  He also alleged 
that his PERSRU never completed an Administrative Remarks entry (CG-3307) outlin-
ing the effect his change in rate would have on his SRB entitlement.  He alleged that if 
he  had  been  told  his  SRB  would  be  recouped,  he  would  not  have  changed  ratings 
because of the extreme financial hardship the recoupment of the SRB would cause.  The 
applicant stated that he “willingly took a pay cut from E-5 to E-4 [in order to change 
ratings] but [he] can’t afford to lose another $287.42 a month without going bankrupt.” 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  March  20,  1995,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years, 
through March 19, 1999.  He attended “A” School to become an ET3 and was advanced 
to ET2 on April 1, 1999. 
 
 
On April 27, 1999, the applicant reenlisted for five years, through April 26, 2004.  
His reenlistment contract notes that the reenlistment entitled him to a Zone A SRB cal-
culated with a multiple of 3 under ALDIST 290/98.  There is no CG-3307 documenting 
SRB counseling at the time of this reenlistment. 
 
 
On  March  20, 2001, the applicant’s sixth anniversary on active duty, he passed 
from Zone A to Zone B.  There is no CG-3307 documenting SRB counseling at the time 
of this anniversary. 
 

 
On  June  19,  2001,  the  applicant  extended  his  reenlistment  contract  for  four 
months,  through  August  26,  2004,  in  order  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  attend  TT 
“A” School.  There is no CG-3307 documenting SRB counseling at the time of this exten-
sion.  However, the extension contract that the applicant signed contains the following 
paragraphs: 

 

SRB ELIGIBILITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

 
I have been provided with a copy [of] “SRB Questions and Answers” based on Comman-
dant Instruction 7220.33 (series).  I have been informed that:  My current Selective Reen-
listment Bonus (SRB) multiple under zone  NA  is  NA  and is listed in ALCOAST      NA, 
which has been made available for review.  I further understand the eligibility require-
ments  for  Zone  A,  B,  and  C  SRB’s  and  that  the  maximum  SRB  paid  to  my current pay 
grade is $  NA   .  My SRB will be computed based on  NA   months newly obligated serv-
ice. 

EFFECT OF EXTENSION/REEXTENSION ON SRB ENTITLEMENT 

 

 
I  fully  understand  the  effect  my  extension/reextension  will  have  upon  my  current  and 
future  SRB  eligibility.    I  understand  that  continued  entitlement  to  unpaid  installments 
may be terminated and a prorated portion of advance bonus payments recouped if I am 
considered not to be technically qualified or unable to perform the duties of the rating for 
which  the  bonus  was  paid,  in accordance with COMDTINST 7220.33 (series).  I further 
acknowledge that I have been given the chance to review COMDTINST 7220.33 (series) 
concerning my eligibility for SRB and have had all my questions answered. 
 
On December 13, 2001, the applicant graduated from TT “A” School and became 

 
a TT3 (pay grade E-4) instead of an ET2 (pay grade E-5). 
 
 
On August 28, 2002, HRSIC informed the applicant’s PERSRU that he had been 
overpaid $5,748.29 and that the money would be recouped in installments beginning on 
November 1, 2002. 
 
 
On September 13, 2002, the applicant submitted to HRSIC a CG-5489, “Waiver/ 
Remission Application,” requesting the remission of his indebtedness.  The application 
form  shows  that  on  October  10,  2002,  his  executive  officer  endorsed  the  application, 
recommending  remission  of  the  debt.    He  also  stated  that  HRSIC  should  consider 
recouping only the difference between the SRB the applicant was eligible for as an ET2 
(calculated with a multiple of 3) and the SRB for a TT3 (calculated with a multiple of 1).  
The application form also contains the following explanation of the debt: 
 

[The applicant] reenlisted as ET2 on 27 April 1999 for 5 years and was entitled to a zone 
“A” SRB in the net amount of $18,176.40. …  Under CGPC [Coast Guard Personnel Com-
mand]  authority  to  change  ratings  (from  ET  to  TT),  [the  applicant]  graduated  from  TT 
“A” School and changed ratings/rate from ET2 to TT3 effective 13 December 2001.  This 
resulted in a $5,748.29 SRB overpayment for previously paid SRB in the former rating/ 
rate (ET2) for unserved time as ET from 13 December 2001 to 26 April 2004. 
 
[In  accordance  with  COMDTINST  7220.33],  a  member  who  changes  ratings  within  the 
period  of  reenlistment  to  which  the  SRB  was  paid,  must  repay  the  pro-rated  SRB  for 
unserved time in the former rating. 

 
 
On  November  2,  2002,  the  applicant’s  PERSRU  recommended  remission  of  the 
$5,748.29  debt  in  full,  finding  that  “it  is  reasonable  to assume [the applicant] was not 

properly counseled.”  The PERSRU noted that the applicant’s record contains no CG-
3307 documenting SRB counseling upon his enlistment in April 1999 or at the time his 
change in rating was approved by CGPC.  The PERSRU stated that his “conclusion is 
reinforced by the fact the servicing PERSRU didn’t execute the required SDAII transac-
tion to suspend (upon [the applicant’s] graduation from TT “A” School) SRB payments/ 
installments.  This never happened and the active SRB segment was discovered inter-
nally by HRSIC in August 2002 (approximately 8 months after [the applicant] graduat-
ed from TT “A” School).” 
 
 
On December 6, 2002, the Chief of the Compensation Division at HRSIC disap-
proved the applicant’s request for remission of his debt of $5,748.29.  Recoupment of the 
overpayment of the SRB began in January 2003. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 1, 2003, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the 

 
 
Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 
 
The Chief Counsel argued that the applicant has not proved that he was incor-
rectly counseled.  He pointed out that the Board begins each case assuming that Coast 
Guard officials have acted correctly, lawfully, and in good faith, and that the applicant 
bears the burden of proving error or injustice.  The Chief Counsel further pointed out 
that the regulations do not allow the applicant to retain an SRB for a rating in which he 
no longer serves.  He stated that the “erroneous verbal counseling concerning his con-
tinuing SRB entitlement the Applicant allegedly received when he made the decision to 
change  rate  is  regrettable,  but  the  SRB  policy  clearly  requires  the  recouping  of  any 
unearned SRB payments for his former rate.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 14, 2003, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Chief Counsel’s 
advisory opinion and invited him to respond within 30 days.  On November 18, 2003, 
the applicant responded by denying that he had ever been counseled about the effect of 
a rating change on his SRB. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Paragraph 2 of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 7220.33, which contains 
the SRB regulations, states 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  [CG-3307]  service  record  entry,  enclosure  (3), 
outlining  the  effect  that  particular  action  has  on  their  SRB  entitlement.”    On  the  CG-
3307, which is Enclosure (3) to the instruction, the member also acknowledges having 
received and reviewed a copy of the instruction.  

 
 
Paragraph  4.c.  of  Enclosure  (1)  provides  that  “[m]embers  will  be  ineligible  for 
continued SRB payment when they are no longer qualified in or serving in the rating for 
which the SRB was authorized.  Additionally, all unearned SRB shall be recouped. 
 
 
Paragraph 3.d.(7) of Enclosure (1) to the instruction provides that members who 
are  changing  rate  shall  be  counseled  and  shall  sign  a  CG-3307  “stating  that  they  are 
aware that they shall not receive any bonus entitlement for the new rate until they have 
reenlisted/extended and have attained the new rate.  When the new rate is attained, all 
unearned SRB for the previously held rate will be recouped.  Members authorized an 
SRB for their present rate will continue to receive annual installments until they attain 
their new rate.” 
 
 
Enclosure (3) to the instruction states that during the three months prior to their 
6th,  10th,  and  14th  anniversary  dates,  members  must  be  counseled  about  SRBs.    The 
counseling must be memorialized on a form CG-3307 signed by the member. 
 
ALDIST 290/98, issued on November 25, 1998, authorized a Zone A SRB with a 
 
multiple of 3 for members with the ET3 rating who reenlisted between November 25, 
1998, and June 14, 1999.  The multiple for members in the TT rating was 1.   
 
 
Article  5.C.30.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  authorizes  commands  to  “[c]hange  the 
rating of each graduate in pay grade E-4 or E-5  who is attending a basic petty officer 
course [“A” School] to pay grade E-4 in the appropriate rating.” 
 

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. 

 Under  paragraphs  2  and  3.d.(7)  of  Enclosure  (1)  and  Enclosure  (3)  to 
COMDTINST  7220.33,  the  Coast  Guard  had a duty (a) to counsel the applicant about 
SRB  regulations  when  he  reenlisted  in  April  1999;  prior  to  his  sixth  anniversary  on 
March 20, 2001; when he decided to change ratings; and when he extended his enlist-
ment in June 2001 to obligate sufficient service to attend TT “A” School to change rat-
ings and (b) to document each of these counseling sessions on a CG-3307 entered in his 
record.    No  such  CG-3307s  documenting  SRB  counseling  appear  in  his  record.    The 
counseling  the  applicant  should  have  received  on  each  of  these four occasions would 
have  informed  him  that  changing  his  rating  would  end  the  SRB  payments  he  was 
receiving for having reenlisted as an ET2 in April 1999.  

The  applicant’s  command  and  PERSRU  failed  to  document  proper  SRB 
counseling  on  four  occasions  when  it  was  required  and  failed  to  complete  the paper-
work to end his SRB entitlement when he switched ratings in December 2001.  There-
fore,  although  one  paragraph  of  the  extension  contract the applicant signed acknowl-
edges SRB counseling at that time, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence 
in the record indicates that the applicant was not informed that he would lose his SRB 
entitlement if he changed ratings.  The Coast Guard erred when it failed in its duty to 
advise the applicant about the SRB regulations and the financial impact of the proposed 
change in rating. 

The record further indicates that the Coast Guard erred in implementing 
its  regulations  by  waiting  eight  months  to  end  the  applicant’s  SRB  payments  and  to 
inform him of the end of his entitlement to them.  In the interim, the applicant appar-
ently received $5,748.29 in SRB overpayments, which the Coast Guard is now recouping 
from his basic pay.  If the Coast Guard had processed his change in rating timely, the 
applicant would not have been led into this debt. 

The  government  is  not  estopped  from  repudiating  the  bad  advice  of  its 
employees.  Utah Power & Light v. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917); Montilla v. United 
States, 457 F.2d 978 (Ct. Cl. 1972); Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. 
denied sub nom. Goldberg v. Califano, 431 U.S. 937 (1977).  However, Coast Guard mem-
bers are entitled to proper SRB counseling under COMDTINST 7220.33, and the Board 
is authorized to correct injustices in their records.  10 U.S.C. § 1552(a).  In the decision of 
the delegate of the Secretary in BCMR Docket No. 2002-040, the delegate held that the 
BCMR has the authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the Coast Guard has 
committed an error or injustice when a member reasonably relies upon misinformation 
by a Coast Guard employee to his or her detriment.  The delegate of the Secretary also 
specifically held that it was reasonable for members to rely on the advice given by yeo-
men, such as those who worked at the applicant’s PERSRU, because a “yeoman’s spe-
cific job duties include having the knowledge and skills to advise members on routine 
personnel matters.” Decision of the Deputy General Counsel Acting Under Delegated 
Authority, BCMR Docket No. 2002-040, pp. 1-2 (citing Lester J. Reschley— Transportation 
of  Household  Goods  Incident  to  Transfer—Subsequent  Voluntary  Transfer  (1993)  72  Comp. 
Gen. 111). 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
3. 

 
6. 

Usually when the Board finds that a counseling error by the Coast Guard 
has caused an applicant to be denied an SRB, the Board corrects the applicant’s record 
so as to put him or her in the position he or she would have been in had proper and 
timely SRB counseling been provided in accordance with COMDTINST 7220.33.  In this 
case, had the applicant received proper counseling by the yeomen at his PERSRU and 
been  informed  of  the  full  economic  impact  of  a  rating  change,  he  might  not  have 
changed his rating.  However, the applicant has not asked the Board to reverse his rat-
ing change, and at this point, reversing it to preserve his entitlement to the full SRB he 

was promised in April 1999 would be impractical for both the applicant and the Coast 
Guard since he has been serving as a TT and has not worked as an ET for the past two 
years. 

The record indicates that, contrary to the recommendations of the appli-
cant’s command and PERSRU, the Chief of the Compensation Division at HRSIC disap-
proved the applicant’s request for remission of his debt without explanation.  In light of 
the  multiple  administrative  errors  committed  by  the  Coast  Guard’s  yeomen,  which 
induced the applicant to lose entitlement to his SRB and led him into debt, all without 
warning, the Board finds that the decision of the Chief of the Compensation Division at 
HRSIC not to remit the applicant’s debt of $5,748.29 in SRB overpayments constitutes a 
significant injustice in the applicant’s record. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

Accordingly, relief should be granted by remitting the applicant’s debt of 

$5,748.29 in SRB overpayments. 

 
 

The  application  of  TT3  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

military record is granted as follows: 

ORDER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
His record shall be corrected to show that on December 6, 2002, his request for 

remission of his debt of $5,748.29 due to SRB overpayments was approved. 

 
The Coast Guard shall pay him any sum he is due as a result of this correction.  
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Patricia V. Kingcade 

 

 

 
 James G. Parks 

 

 

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer