DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2003-141 
 
 

 

 
 

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 September 29, 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  June  30,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly  appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The applicant asked the Board to correct her military record to make her entitled 
to a Zone A selective reenlistment bonus (SRB)1 with a multiple of 2.5 instead of the 2.0 
multiple she actually received.  She alleged that upon reenlisting on June 3, 2003, she 
was promised an SRB with a multiple of 2.5.    However, after reenlisting she was paid a 
Zone  A  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  she  known  that  the 
additional .5 multiple (authorized for certain competency codes) was not available until 
July  1,  2003,  she  would  have  delayed  her  reenlistment  until  that  date  to  obtain  the 
additional multiple.   
 
 
showing that she was promised a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 2.5.  
                                                 
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 
less than 6 of active duty service are in “Zone A.” Article 3.C., Coast Guard Personnel Manual. 
 

In support of her allegations, she submitted a copy of her reenlistment contract 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
On July 7, 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four years 
 
and  has  served  continuously  since  that  time.    On  October  16,  2002,  she  extended  her 
enlistment  for  five  months,  and  on  December  6,  2002,  she  extended  for  six  months, 
obligating service until June 6, 2003.   Her most recent reenlistment occurred on June 3, 
2003, for three years, wherein she was promised the Zone A SRB with a multiple of 2.5.   
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On February 2, 2004, the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) submitted an advisory 
opinion.  TJAG stated that when the applicant reenlisted on June 3, 2003, there was no 
authority  to  pay  a  Zone  A  multiple  of  2.5.    AlCOAST  182/03,  which  authorized  the 
additional  .5  multiple, did not become effective until July 1, 2003.  The applicant was 
advised  on  a  December  6,  2002  administrative  remarks  (page  7)  page  that  she  was 
entitled to a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 2.  However, TJAG admitted that on her 
reenlistment  contract  the  applicant  was  erroneously  promised  a  multiple  of  2.5.  (The 
military record also contains a page 7 dated May 30, 2003, advising the applicant that 
she was entitled to a multiple of 2.5.) TJAG stated that since the applicant's enlistment 
was  due  to  expire  on  June  6,  2003,  she  could  not  have  waited  until  July  1,  2003  to 
reenlist. 
 

TJAG  stated  that  in  an  effort  to  afford  the  applicant  a  result  that  most  closely 
represents the bargain she claimed, the Coast Guard recommended that the Board offer 
her two options:   
 

First,  Applicant  could  have  her  record  corrected  by  voiding  her 
reenlistment  contract  dated  3  June  2003  and  subsequently  extending  her 
period of service until the BCMR final decision.  Applicant could then be 
discharged  if  she  so  desires.    Under  this  option  the  applicant  would  be 
liable  to  the  Coast  Guard  for  her  unearned  SRB  payments.    The  second 
option would be to have the Board correct her record to show the actual 
SRB multiple of "2" to which she was entitled and the correct authority for 
that multiple.   

  

 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On  February  4,  2004,  a  copy  of  the  Coast  Guard's  views  was  mailed  to  the 
applicant for her response.  On March 11, 2004, she requested and was granted a 30-day 
extension to reply to the views of the Coast Guard, but she did not submit a reply. 
 

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  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, BM2s were eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 
two and was entitled to an additional .5 multiple for having certain 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 BM2s and above but did 
not authorize the additional .5 for having certain competency codes.  
 

 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 June 3, 2003, her then enlistment was due to 
expire on June 6, 2003.  Therefore, she was required either to extend her enlistment or to 
reenlist by the expiration date of her then current enlistment or she would have been 
discharged from the Coast Guard.  ALCOAST 329/02 was in effect on June 3, 2003, and 
it  only  authorized  a  multiple  of  2  for  BM2s,  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 she had known on June 3, 2003, that ALCOAST 
182/03  would  not  become  effective  until  July  1,  2003,  she  would  have  waited  and 
reenlisted on July 1, 2003.  To do so, the applicant would have been required to execute 
a short-term (one month) extension, which was not authorized under the circumstances 
of her case.   

 
4.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  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  June  3,  2003,  the 
applicant  would  not  have  been  permitted  to  execute  a  one-month  extension  of  her 
enlistment  because  she  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 
June 3, 2003.  She was, however, near the end of her then current enlistment, which was 
June 6, 2003, and she was required either to reenlist for a minimum of three years or 
extend her enlistment for a minimum of two years, or she would have been discharged 
from the Coast Guard.  

 
5.  The  applicant  received  the  SRB  multiple  that  was  authorized  for  her  rating 
under  ALCOAST  329/02  at  the  time  she  reenlisted.  She  has,  however,  presented 
evidence  showing  that  on  June  3,  2003,  she  was  improperly  promised  a  Zone  A  SRB 
with a multiple of 2.5.  When an applicant proves that she has received improper SRB 
counseling  and  the  record  cannot  be  corrected  without  offending  the  regulation,  the 
Board's policy is to return the applicant to the position she would have been in had she 
been properly counseled. 

 

6.    Therefore,  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  in  June  2003,  she 
would have been told that, under ALCOAST 329/02 she was eligible only for a multiple 
of 2, which is what she received. She would have been further advised that she could 
not extend for a one-month period 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.    The  applicant  was  paid  an  SRB  multiple  of  2  in  accordance  with  the 
ALOCAST in effect at the time she reenlisted.  She is by regulation entitled to no more.   
 
In cases where improper counseling has occurred, the Board has allowed a 
 
member  the  option  of  voiding  the  reenlistment  contract  containing  the  erroneous 
promise  and  being  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard.    The  Board  will  direct  that  the 
applicant be provided with this option.  The Board does not find any other relief to be 
warranted or necessary in this case.   
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to the limited relief discussed above. 

8. 

7. 

ORDER 

 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  her 
military  record  is  denied.      However,  at  her  option,  the  applicant  shall  be  given  the 
opportunity  of  having  the  June  3,  2003,  reenlistment  contract  voided  and  of  being 
discharged from the Coast Guard.  If the applicant chooses to be discharged, she shall 
make  such  decision  within  30  days  from  the  date  of  this  order,  and  her  record  shall 
show an extension of enlistment from June 6, 2003, until the date of her discharge.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Richard Walter 

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Suzanne L. Wilson