DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-124 
 
 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
ULMER, 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 August 4, 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 April 15, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to make him entitled 
to a Zone B selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2.5 instead of the 2.0 
multiple he actually received.  He alleged that upon reenlisting on May 21, 2003, he was 
advised  that  he  would  receive  a  multiple  of  2.5.        However,  after  reenlisting  he  was 
paid a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 2 because the higher 2.5 multiple did not become 
effective until July 1, 2003.  The applicant alleged that had he known that the additional 
.5  multiple  (authorized  for  certain  competency  codes)  was  not  available  until  July  1, 
2003, he would have extended his enlistment until that date and then reenlisted.   
 
 
In  support  of  his  allegations,  he  submitted  a  copy  of  his  reenlistment  contract 
showing that he was promised a Zone B SRB with a multiple 2.5.  He also submitted a 
                                                 
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  6  but  no  more  than  10  years  of  active  duty  service  are  in  “Zone  B.”  Article  3.C.,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel Manual. 
 

copy of an administrative remarks (page 7) page advising him that he was eligible to 
reenlist  for  six  years  and  to  receive  an  SRB  multiple  of  2.5  under  ALCOAST  329/02.  
The  page  7  further  stated  that  the  ALCOAST  329/02  had  been  made  available  to  the 
applicant.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  July  19,  1993,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of  four 
years and has serve continually since that time.  On May 26, 1999, he reenlisted for four 
years  that  obligated  service  through  May  25,  2003.    His  most  recent  reenlistment 
occurred on May 21, 2003 for six years, wherein he was promised the Zone B SRB with a 
multiple of 2.5.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 
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:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article  1.G.14.a.4.  provides  that  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
 
Command  (CGPC)  may  authorize  an  extension  for  one  year  or  other  such  period  in 
specific cases. 
 

"a.  Attend a resident school. 
"b.  Participate in the Coast Guard Tuition Program. 
"c.  INCONUS and OUTCONUS assignments; . . . 
"d.  Advance to E-7, E-8, or E-9; . . . 
"e.  Meet an approved retirement date." 

Article 3.C.3 (Written Agreements) states that "all personnel with 10 years or less 
active service who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be counseled 
on the SRB program." 
 
 
 

Article 3.C.6. (Change in Multiple) states the following: 

All Agreements to Extend Enlistments signed before the effective date of 
the change will be at the old multiple level.  All agreements made on or 
after the effective date of the change will be at the new level.  Members 
desiring to extend their enlistments or reenlist early to take advantage of a 
higher bonus multiple may do so within the provisions of this chapter and 
or Articles 1.G.14 and 12.B.7 [of this instruction].   

Pertinent ALCOASTS 
 

ALCOAST 182/03 was issued on April 24, 2003, and became effective on July 1, 
2003.  It established SRB multiples for personnel in certain skill ratings who reenlisted 
or  extended  their  enlistments  for  at  least  three  years  and  up  to  six  years.    Under 
ALCOAST 182/03, members who were MK1s were eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated 
with a multiple of two and was entitle to an additional .5 multiple for having certain 
boat engineering competency codes.   

 
ALCOAST 329/02 was issued on July 3, 2002 and was effective from August 5, 
2002 through June 30, 2003.  It established a multiple of 2 for MK2s and above but did 
not authorize the additional .5 for having certain competency codes.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On  February  28,  2003,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
recommended  that  the  Board  grant  the  following  relief:  (1)  void  the  May  21,  2003 
reenlistment contract, (2) order a two-month extension to cover the period from May 26, 
2003 through July 1, 2003, and finally (3) reenlist the applicant on July 2, 2003, which 
would make him eligible for the 2.5 SRB multiple.   
 
 
TJAG  stated  that  the  record  supports  the  applicant’s  allegation  of  erroneous 
counseling and the erroneous promise of a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 2.5.  He noted 
that the applicant acted promptly to attempt to correct the alleged error. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

On  November  13,  2003,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  Coast  Guard  advisory 

 
 
opinion, stating that he agreed with the recommendation for relief. 
 

 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  reenlisted  on  May  21,  2003,  his  then  four-year 
reenlistment was due to expire on May 25, 2003.  Therefore, he was required to either 
extend his enlistment or reenlist by the expiration date of his then current enlistment or 
he would have been discharged from the Coast Guard.  ALCOAST 329/02 was in effect 
on  May  21,  2003,  and  it  only  authorized  a  multiple  of  2  for  MK1s,  like  the applicant.  

According to Article 3.6.C. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was not eligible for 
the  additional  .5  SRB  multiple  because  ALCOAST  182/03,  which  authorized  the 
additional multiple, did not become effective until July 1, 2003.  

 
3.  The applicant claimed that if he had known on May 21, 2003, that ALCOAST 
182/03  would  not  become  effective  until  July  1,  2003,  he  would  have  extended  his 
enlistment  in  May  2003  for  two  months  and  reenlisted  after  July  1,  2003.      TJAG 
admitted  that  the  Coast  Guard  improperly counseled the applicant by informing him 
that he was entitled to a multiple of 2.5 and recommended that the Board remedy the 
error, as the applicant had suggested, by correcting his record to show that he executed 
a two month extension on May 26, 2003 and by further correcting the record to show 
that  he  reenlisted  on  July 2, 2003, thereby becoming eligible for the additional .5 SRB 
multiple. 

 
 4.    For  the  reasons  discussed  herein,  the  Board  is  unable  to  grant  the 
recommended  relief.    Chapter  3.C.6  (Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus)  of  the  Personnel 
Manual states that "members desiring to extend their enlistments . . . to take advantage 
of a higher bonus multiple may do so within the provisions . . . of Article 1.G.14. [of the 
Personnel Manual]."  On May 21, 2003, the applicant would not have been permitted to 
execute  a  two-month  extension  of  his  enlistment  because  he  did  not  meet  the 
requirements of Article 1.G.14.a.2. of the Personnel Manual.  This provision authorizes 
extensions  of  enlistment  for  a  period  of  months  only  for  the  purpose  of  attending 
school, participating in Coast Guard Tuition Assistance Program, transferring to a new 
assignment, advancing to E7, E-8, or E-9, or meeting an approved retirement date.   The 
applicant was in none of these situations on May 21, 2003.  He was, however, near the 
end  of  his  then  current  enlistment,  which  was  May  25,  2003,  and  he  was  required  to 
either  reenlist  or  extend  his  enlistment  or  he  would  have  been  discharged  from  the 
Coast Guard.  Since he did not meet any of the requirements for a short-term extension, 
any such extension executed in May 2003 for less that two years2 would have required 
the approval of CGPC, under Article 1.G.14.a.4. of the Personnel Manual.   

 
5.  The  applicant  received  the  SRB  multiple  that  was  authorized  for  his  rating 
under  ALCOAST  329/02  at  the  time  he  reenlisted.    Moreover,  he  was  not  eligible  to 
extend  his  enlistment  for  a  two-month  period  in  May  2003  to  take  advantage  of  the 
higher SRB multiple that became effective on July 1, 2003.  He has, however, presented 
evidence  showing  that  on  May  21,  2003,  he  was  improperly counseled that he would 
receive  a  Zone  B  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2.5.    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. 
 

                                                 
2   Article 1.G.14.a. of the Personnel Manual allows career personnel to extend their enlistments for not 
less than two nor more than six years, at their request. 

7. 

8. 

6.    Therefore,  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  in  May  2003,  he 
would have been told that, under ALCOAST 329/02 he was eligible only for a multiple 
of 2, which is what he received. He would have been further advised that he could not 
extend for a period of months to take advantage of the higher SRB multiple that became 
effective on July 1, 2003, because such short-term extensions solely for the purpose of 
obtaining a higher SRB multiple are not permitted under the Personnel Manual. There 
is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  CGPC,  under  the  authority  granted  to  him  under 
Article  1.G.14.a.4  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  would  have  approved  a  short-term 
extension solely for the purpose of allowing the applicant to qualify for a future higher 
SRB  multiple.  The  applicant  was  paid  an  SRB  multiple  of  2  in  accordance  with  the 
ALCOAST in effect at the time he reenlisted. He is by regulation entitled to no more.   
 
 
In  some  cases  where  improper  counseling  has  occurred,  the  Board  has 
allowed  a  member  the  option  of  voiding  a  reenlistment  contract  containing  an 
erroneous  promise  and  to  be  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard,  if  he  so  chose.     
However, in this case, where the applicant received a Zone B multiple of 2, where he 
has over 10 years of service, and where he has not expressed a desire to be discharged if 
he does not receive payment of the additional .5 SRB multiple, the Board will not direct 
such optional relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 

 

 

 

 Thomas F. Muther, Jr. 

 

 
 
 

 

ORDER 

 

military record is denied.  
 
 
 
                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

        

 

 

 
 
 Adrian Sevier 

 

 
 Thomas H. Van Horn