DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-108 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 June 30, 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 March 25, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  military  record  to  show  that  he 
reenlisted on June 2, 2003, the day after he was advanced to MK2/E-5, so that he would 
be  entitled  to  receive  a  Zone  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  calculated  with  a 
multiple of 2,1 as authorized under ALCOAST 329/02.2   
 

The applicant alleged that in November 2002, when he had just one month to go 
on  his  enlistment,  he  was  still  an  MK3/E-4  but  was  on  the  advancement  list  and 
expected  to  be  advanced  to  MK2/E-5  on June 1, 2003.  Because he knew that an SRB 

                                                 
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 may not 
receive more than one SRB per zone.  Personnel Manual, Article 3.C.4.a. 
2 ALCOAST 329/02, issued on July 3, 2002, established SRB multiples for personnel in certain skill ratings 
who reenlisted or extended their enlistments on or after August 5, 2002, for at least three years.  Under 
ALCOAST  329/02,  MK2s  were  eligible  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2.    No  SRB 
multiple was authorized for MK3s.  

was authorized for MK2s (but not for MK3s) under ALCOAST 329/02, he requested a 
six-month  extension  of  his  enlistment  so  that  he  would  be  able  to  reenlist  after  his 
advancement  to  MK2  and  receive  the  SRB.    However,  his  Personnel  Reporting  Unit 
(PERSRU)  informed  his  command  that  the  minimum  period  he  could  be  allowed  to 
extend his enlistment was one year.3 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  when  he  learned  that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to 
extend his enlistment for just six months, he asked if he would be able to reenlist for the 
SRB after his advancement if he signed a one-year extension contract and was advised 
that  he  would  be able to do so.  Therefore, he signed the one-year extension contract 
believing  that  he  would  be  allowed  to  reenlist  for  an  SRB  in  June  2003  after  his 
advancement.  He alleged that when he was given the contract to sign, his yeoman had 
highlighted  only  the  top  paragraph  of  the  contract,  not  the  paragraphs  concerning 
SRBs.  Therefore, he assumed that the other paragraphs did not pertain to him.   

 
In May 2003, the applicant alleged, he was told that he could not reenlist until he 
was within three months of the end of his enlistment as extended,4 which meant that he 
could not reenlist until after September 15, 2003.  By that time, ALCOAST 182/03 was in 
effect and the SRB multiple for MK2s in Zone A was just 1.5.5 

 
 
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  one-year  extension  contract  on  November  18,  2002.    He  also 
submitted statements signed by members of his command in support of his application.   
 
Statement by the Applicant’s Supervisor 
 

The supervisor stated that when he inquired about a short-term extension for the 
applicant,  the  PERSRU  told  him  that  the  shortest  possible  extension  that  would  be 
allowed was for one year and that it had to be approved by the Coast Guard Personnel 
Command (CGPC).  The PERSRU also told him that “the extension could stop at any 
time the member wished as long as the member reenlisted.” 

 

                                                 
3 Under Article 1.G.14.a.1. of the Personnel Manual, the minimum period of an extension of an enlistment 
is two years, unless the extension is required for the member to obligate sufficient service to attend school 
or  accept  transfer  orders.    However,  under  Article  1.G.14.a.4.,  the  Commander  of  the  Personnel 
Command  may  authorize  extensions  “[f]or  one  year  or  other  such  period  as  Commander  (CGPC-epm) 
may authorize in specific cases.” 
4 Under Articles 3.C.5.9. and 12.B.7.b.4. of the Personnel Manual, a member who wants to be discharged 
and reenlisted to receive an SRB may only do so upon the expiration of his enlistment or during the three 
months  prior  to  the  expiration  of  his  enlistment,  unless  he  must  obligate  additional  service  for  another 
purpose, such as attending school or transferring to another unit. 
5 On April 24, 2003, the Commandant issued ALCOAST 182/03, canceling ALCOAST 329/02 as of June 
30, 2003, and establishing new SRB multiples effective July 1, 2003, including a multiple of 1.5 for MK2s. 

Statement by the Applicant’s Commanding Officer 
 
 
The  commanding  officer  (CO)  stated  that  although  the  applicant  wanted  to 
extend his enlistment for only six months, the PERSRU advised him that he could not 
extend  his  enlistment  for  less  than  one  year  but  that  he  could  stop  the  extension  to 
reenlist for an SRB at any time. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On November 16, 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four years, through November 15, 2002.  On July 19, 2000, he was required to extend his 
enlistment  for  one  month,  through  December  15,  2002,  in  order  to  have  sufficient 
obligated service to attend MK “A” School and become a petty officer.   
 

On November 12, 2002, CGPC authorized the applicant to extend his enlistment 
for  one  year.    On  November  18,  2002,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment6  for  one 
year, from December 16, 2002, to December 15, 2003.  There is no page 7 in his record 
documenting  SRB  counseling  when  he  signed  the  contract.7    However,  the  extension 
contract itself contains two paragraphs regarding the applicant’s SRB eligibility (he was 
then  ineligible).    In  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; 
(3) had the opportunity to read the SRB regulations; and (4) had all his questions about 
his SRB entitlement answered. 

 
On October 1, 2003, the applicant reenlisted for six years to receive a Zone A SRB 

calculated with a multiple of 1.5 in accordance with ALCOAST 182/03. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 7, 2003, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard submitted 

 
 
a recommendation that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 

The  Judge  Advocate  General  argued  that  the  record  “does  not  support  Appli-
cant’s  allegation  of  error.”    He  pointed  out  that  in signing the extension contract, the 
applicant acknowledged having received SRB counseling.  He also pointed out that the 
applicant was not entitled to sign a six-month extension because CGPC authorized only 
a one-year extension.  The Judge Advocate General also alleged that the applicant could 
have reenlisted in November 2002, instead of extending, and received an SRB calculated 
with a multiple of 1 under ALCOAST 329/02.8  Finally, he pointed out that the appli-
cant was eligible to reenlist for an SRB with a multiple of 1.5 upon the expiration of his 
one-year extension. 
 

                                                 
6 On the photocopy of this contract received by the Board, there is no evidence of highlighting. 
7  Article  3.C.3.  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  that  all  members  who  reenlist  or  extend  their  enlist-
ments for any reason shall be counseled on the SRB program and shall sign a page 7 “outlining the effect 
that particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
8  Upon  inquiry  by  the  BCMR  staff,  a  representative  of  the  Judge  Advocate  General’s  office  stated  the 
advisory opinion was mistaken because under ALCOAST 329/02 the applicant was not entitled to an SRB 
in November 2002 because he was an MK3, and no SRB multiple was in effect for MK3s at the time. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On  November  10,  2003,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  Judge 
Advocate  General’s  advisory  opinion  and  invited  him  to  respond.    On  December  4, 
2003, the applicant responded.  He stated that prior to signing the extension contract, he 
“discussed  at  length  the  SRB  requirements  and  various  options”  with  a  yeoman  and 
chief warrant officer at his command, who were “the resident experts” on SRBs.  The 
yeoman told him that if he extended his enlistment for one year, he could reenlist at any 
time.  The applicant alleged that he did not receive a copy of the SRB regulations until 
May 2003. 
 

 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. 

Although the applicant signed his extension contract acknowledging SRB 
counseling and admits to having received some SRB counseling, the absence of a page 7 
in his record suggests that that counseling was not as complete as it should have been.  
Moreover,  the  applicant’s  supervisor  and  CO  have  signed  statements  supporting  his 
allegation that in November 2002 he was erroneously advised that, if he extended his 
enlistment for one year, he would be allowed to reenlist at any time after his advance-
ment.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of 
the  evidence  that  he  was  miscounseled  in  November  2002  that,  if  he  extended  his 
enlistment  for  one  year  from  December  16,  2002,  to  December  15,  2003,  he  could  be 
discharged  and  reenlisted  at  any  time  for  an  SRB  if  he became eligible for one under 
ALCOAST 329/02 by advancement to MK2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  if  he  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would 
have extended his enlistment for only six months.  However, the record indicates that 
the applicant’s request to extend his enlistment for six months was refused and that he 
was authorized to extend for a minimum of one year.  The applicant has not submitted 
any  evidence  to  prove  that  in  November  2002  he  could have or would have received 
permission from CGPC to extend his enlistment for less than a one-year period. 

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.  If the applicant had been properly counseled in November 
2002, he would have been told that (1) to stay on active duty, the minimum amount of 

service he had to obligate was one additional year and (2) he would not be allowed to 
reenlist until after September 15, 2003, during the last three months of his extension. 
 

5. 

With accurate advice in November 2002, the applicant would have had the 
choice of ending his Coast Guard career by allowing his enlistment to expire or obligat-
ing additional service by signing at least a one-year extension contract.  The applicant 
has  not  stated  that  he  would  have  quit  the  Coast  Guard  if  he  had  received  accurate 
advice.  Moreover, even with the miscounseling he received, he knew when he signed 
the extension contract that he was not guaranteed an SRB with a multiple of 2 in June 
2003 because a new ALCOAST canceling ALCOAST 329/02 and establishing different 
multiples could have been issued by the Commandant at any time.  Yet even with this 
uncertainty, the applicant extended his enlistment for one year.  Therefore, the Board 
finds  that  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  in  November  2002,  he  still 
would  have  signed  the  one-year  extension  contract.    Once  that  extension  contract 
became  operative  on  December  16,  2002,  the  applicant  was  not  authorized  to  reenlist 
until after September 15, 2003. 

On October 1, 2003, the applicant reenlisted for six years to receive an SRB 
calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1.5  under  ALCOAST  182/03.    The  applicant’s  record 
therefore  already  reflects  the  most  likely  and  favorable  outcome  that  he  could  have 
arranged if he had received absolutely accurate counseling in November 2002. 

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

        

 
 Philip B. Busch  

 

 

 

 
 
             Marc J. Weinberger 

 

 

 

 
             George A. Weller 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

record is denied.