DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-104 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ANDREWS, Deputy Chair: 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 
and section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  It was docketed on June 23, 2003, 
upon receipt of the completed application. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 18, 2004, is signed by the three duly appoint-

RELIEF REQUESTED 

 
 
The  applicant,  currently  a  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his 
record  to  show  that  on  March  24,  2000,  when  he  was  still  a  xxxxxxxxx  xxxxxx  xxxxx 
xxxxxx,  he  extended  his  then  current  enlistment  for  36  months  instead  of  30  months.  
The  correction  would  entitle  him  to  receive  a  Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus 
(SRB)1 pursuant to ALCOAST 184/99. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant stated that in March 2000, after he applied for a change in rating 
from XX to XX, he received transfer orders and was told that he had to obligate suffi-
cient  service  to  transfer  to  another  unit  to  accept  the  orders.    He  alleged  that  he  was 
advised by his command that, because he was changing ratings, he was ineligible for 
                                                 
1  SRBs  vary  according  to  the  length  of  each  member’s  active  duty  service,  the  length  of  the  period  of 
reenlistment or extension of enlistment, and the need of the Coast Guard for personnel with the member’s 
particular  skills.    Coast  Guard  members  who  have  served  up  to  6  on  active  duty  are  in  “Zone  A.”  
Members may only receive one SRB per zone.  Under paragraph 3.b.(5) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 
7220.33, SRBs are payable only to members who extend their enlistments or reenlist for at least three years 
(36 months).   

the Zone A SRB that was authorized for members in the XX rating at the time under 
ALCOAST 184/99.2  Therefore, he extended his enlistment for only 30 months, which 
was  the  minimum  amount  of  additional  service  that  he  had  to  obligate  in  order  to 
accept his transfer orders and avoid discharge.3   

 
The applicant alleged that he should have been advised and allowed to extend 
his  service  for  36  months  to  receive  the  SRB.    He pointed out that after his 30-month 
extension  became  operative,  he  served  as  an  FS2  for  five  months  before  his  rating 
change  went  into  effect.    He  alleged  that  he  should  have  been  allowed  to  sign  a  36-
month extension contract and earn the SRB for at least those five months. 

 
As  evidence  of  the  alleged  miscounseling,  the  applicant  pointed  out  that  the 
extension contract he signed bears entries of “NA,” or not applicable, regarding his eli-
gibility for an SRB. 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On February 4, 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
 
years, through February 3, 2001.  Following basic training, he attended XX “A” School 
to train for the XX rating until July 22, 1997, when he was transferred to a cutter.  On 
January 18, 1998, he was advanced to XX3. 
 
 
In  March  2000,  after  applying  to  attend  XX  “A”  School,  the  applicant  received 
orders  to  transfer  to  a  shore  unit  in  July  2000.    Because  he  had  less  than  six  years  of 
service  at  the  time,  he  was  required  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  complete  a  full 
three-year tour of duty at the new unit before accepting the orders.4  On March 7, 2000, 
he signed an administrative entry (“page 7”)5 for his record, stating the following: 
 

I  have  been  advised  that  my  current  Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) multiple is 3 
and is listed in ALCOAST 184/99, which has been made available to me. 
 

                                                 
2  ALCOAST  184/99  authorized  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  3  for  members  in  the  XX 
rating who reenlisted or extended their enlistments between January 1 and June 30, 2000, but no SRB was 
authorized for members in the XX rating.  The only SRB authorized for members in the XX rating in the 
past  ten  years  was  authorized  from  October  2,  1001,  to  January  31,  2002,  under  ALCOAST  127/01.  
However, under no provision of the Personnel Manual was the applicant authorized to reenlist or extend 
his enlistment during this period. 
3 Paragraph 3.a.d.(5) of Enclosure (1) to COMDTINST 7220.33 states that members who must extend their 
enlistments to accept transfer orders “may extend for a period greater than the minimum required for the 
purpose of gaining entitlement to an SRB.” 
4 Article 4.B.6. of the Personnel Manual requires petty officers with less than 6 years of active service to 
obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty prior to accepting transfer orders to a new unit.  
Under Article 4.A.5., the tour length for an XX at the applicant’s new unit was 3 years. 
5 Section 2 of COMDTINST 7220.33 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.”   

I  do  not  desire  to  reenlist/extend  my  enlistment  for  36  months  which  would  make  me 
eligible for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). 
 
I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the contents and explanation 
of COMDTINST 7220.33. 

 
 
On March 24, 2000, the applicant signed a 30-month extension contract, thereby 
extending  his  enlistment  from  February  4,  2001,  through  August  3,  2003,  so  that  he 
would have sufficient service to complete a three-year tour of duty upon transferring to 
his  new  unit  in  July  2000.    The  extension  contract  he  signed  includes  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 ALDIST  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 
service. 
 

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 con-
sidered  not  to  be  technically  qualified  or  unable  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  rating  for 
which  the  bonus  was  paid,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  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 April 1, 2000, while still serving on the cutter, the applicant was advanced to 

XX2.  On July 21, 2000, he transferred to his new unit ashore.  

 
On February 4, 2001, the applicant’s 30-month extension contract became opera-
tive.  On April 14, 2001, he began attending XX “A” School to qualify for the change in 
rating.  On July 13, 2001, the applicant graduated from “A” School and became a XX3.  
Thereafter, he was assigned to a xxxxxxxxxxxx, and on June 1, 2003, he was advanced to 
XX2.    Upon  the  termination  of  his  extension,  the  applicant  voluntarily  extended  his 
enlistment for another two years, through August 3, 2005. 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  October  30,  2003,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  recom-

 
 
mended that the Board deny the applicant’s request.   
 

 
The Judge Advocate General argued that the page 7 that the applicant signed on 
March 7, 2000, indicates that he was accurately counseled about his SRB eligibility and 
that  he  “consciously  chose  not  to  reenlist/extend  enlistment  for  the  36  months  mini-
mum that would have made him eligible for an SRB.”   
 
 
The Judge Advocate General argued that the applicant’s “argument that his [ex-
tension contract] ‘clearly’ shows that he was incorrectly counseled because it lists [NA] 
as the SRB for which he was eligible is misplaced.  Applicant chose to extend for less 
than  36  months,  the  minimum  required  to  be  eligible  for  an  SRB.  …    Therefore,  the 
[extension  contract]  in  question  was  filled  out  correctly  and  in  accordance  with  the 
instructions for completing the form.” 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On  November  3,  2003,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Judge 
Advocate General’s recommendation and invited him to respond within 30 days.  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: 
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10 U.S.C. 

§ 1552.  The application was timely. 

1. 

 
2. 

 
3. 

The applicant alleged that he was not properly counseled about his eligi-
bility for an SRB prior to accepting his PCS orders in March 2000.  He alleged that he 
was told that because he had applied for XX “A” School, he was not allowed to extend 
his  enlistment  for  36  months  to  receive  an  SRB  under  ALCOAST  184/99.    Under 
COMDTINST 7220.33, members are entitled to accurate SRB counseling whenever they 
reenlist  or  extend  an  enlistment.    If  the  applicant  had  extended  his  enlistment  for  36 
months  in  March  2000,  he  would  ultimately  have  received  a  pro-rated  portion  of  the 
SRB authorized for members in the XX rating for the number of months he served on 
the extension contract as an XX.   

The applicant’s record, however, contains a page 7 documenting accurate 
counseling about his eligibility for the SRB.  The page 7 expressly states that the appli-
cant was told he could extend his contract for 36 months to get the SRB but voluntarily 
declined to do so.  The page 7 was signed by the applicant before he signed the exten-
sion  contract.    The  Board  notes  that,  at  the  time,  the  applicant  was  apparently  dis-
satisfied with his career in the XX rating and had requested a change in rating.  
 

4. 

 
The applicant pointed out that the paragraphs concerning SRB eligibility 
in his extension contract are completed with “NA,” or not applicable, in the blanks.  In 
light of the accuracy of the counseling documented on the page 7, however, and the fact 
that the applicant was not extending his enlistment for sufficient time to be eligible for 
an SRB, the Board is not persuaded that the NAs on the extension contract support the 
applicant’s allegation that he was miscounseled.  The applicant has not submitted any 
evidence from his prior command to support his allegation that he was not allowed to 
extend his contract for more than 30 months.  
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

5. 

 

  

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

military record is denied.