DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 
 
Application for Correction of  
Coast Guard Record of: 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
    

 
 
 
BCMR Docket  
No.  2004-014 

FINAL DECISION 

 
 
The applicant alleged that when he reenlisted on December 1, 1980, the Coast Guard 
improperly  deducted  11  months  from  his  Zone  B  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB) 
payment,  claiming  that  the  11  months  constituted  prior  obligated  service.    He  asked  the 
Board to correct his record so that he is entitled to payment for the 11-month period.   
 

The  applicant  first  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  on  August  30,  1971.    He  served  on 
active duty until his retirement on October 1, 1997.  He reenlisted for six years on August 5, 
1975, with an expiration date of August 4, 1981.  During the 1975 enlistment he was selected 
for  chief  petty  officer  (pay  grade  E-7).    In  order  to  be  advanced  to  chief  petty  officer,  the 
applicant was required to obligate service for at least two years.  Falling short of this mark 
under his then current enlistment, on June 26, 1980, the applicant extended his enlistment for 
11 months through July 5, 1982.  However, on December 1, 1980, and prior to the operative 
date of the extension, the applicant reenlisted for six years and received a Zone B SRB less the 
11 months of obligated service under the contract extension.   
 
The applicant stated that his SRB entitlement was reduced by 11 months because the 
 
SRB  regulation  (COMDTINST  7220.13E,  dated  May  4,  1979)  in  effect  at  the  time  provided: 
"When a member cancels an agreement before ten years and reenlists for the purpose of SRB 
Bonus Zone B, only the new additional obligated service above and beyond any obligations 
already  entered  into  will  be  used  for  computation  purposes."    In  contrast,  he  argued  the 
current  SRB  regulation  at  Chapter  3  of  the  Personnel  Manual  provides  an  exception  for 
extensions of two years or less that were executed for the purpose of school, transfer, training 
or  advancement.    The  current  provision  states  that  extensions  of  two  years  or  less  may  be 
canceled  prior  to  their  operative  date  for  the  purpose  of  immediate  reenlistment  or  longer 
extension without any loss of SRB entitlement.  The current provision first became effective 
under COMDTINST 7220.13F on May 19, 1982, (subsequent to the applicant's reenlistment).  
The Personnel Manual was amended to include the SRB regulation on October 21, 2002.   The 
applicant  argued  that  he  should  benefit  from  the  current  regulation  because  it  was  the 
Commandant's intent to utilize the SRB incentive to retain quality performers, like himself. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board 
deny relief.  He stated that the application is untimely because the applicant failed to file his 
application within three years of his October 1, 1997, retirement from the Coast Guard.  (The 

Board received the application on October 6, 2003.)  He noted that the Board may waive the 
statute of limitations if it is in the interest of justice to do so. See 33 CFR § 52.22. The interest 
of justice is determined by the reasons for the delay, length of the delay, and the likelihood of 
success  on  the  merits.  TJAG  argued  that  although  the  applicant  claimed  that  he  did  not 
discover the alleged error until August 2003, he should have discovered it when he reenlisted 
in 1980 or shortly thereafter.  TJAG further argued that the applicant is not likely to prevail 
on  the  merits  of  his  claim  because  the  current  provision  of  the  Manual,  on  which  the 
applicant  relies,  was  not  in  effect  when  the  applicant  reenlisted  on  December  1,  1980.  
According to TJAG, the SRB regulation that initially permitted extensions of two years or less 
to be canceled without SRB penalty became effective on May 19, 1982.  

 
TJAG  further  stated  that  the  Coast  Guard's  decision  to  change  its  policy  two  years 
after  the  applicant's  1980  reenlistment  does  not  constitute  an  injustice.    In  this  case  the 
applicant  made  a  bargain  with  the  Coast  Guard  that  provided  him  with  a  bonus  for  his 
reenlistment.  He  stated  that  the  applicant  should  not  receive  a  windfall  because  the  Coast 
Guard  decided  to  offer  a  better  bonus  to  meet  its  need  to  retain  members  subsequent  to 
Applicant's reenlistment. 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

The applicant argued that the Commandant changed the policy in 1982 to correct an 
injustice suffered by those who were penalized under the old regulation.  He stated that he 
was never informed of this change to the regulation and therefore never submitted a request 
to the BCMR.  He stated that since it was never the intention of the Commandant to penalize 
outstanding  members  of  the  Coast  Guard,  the  Commandant  changed  the  policy  removing 
the SRB penalty in 1982.   

 
The applicant stated that during his career, he saved the Coast Guard well over a half 
million dollars through his diligence and ingenuity.  He stated that the amount of money he 
is  asking  for  is  nothing  compared  to  the  amount  of  money  he  has  saved  the  Coast  Guard 
throughout  his  career.    He  noted  that  while  on  active  duty,  his  excellent  service  as  a  chief 
warrant officer (CWO) served as a role model for others.  
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

 

The applicant's application is not timely, having exceeded the statute of limitations by 
approximately three years.  The statute of limitations in this case began on October 1, 1997, 
the date of the applicant's retirement from the Coast Guard. The Board may still consider the 
application  on  the  merits,  however,  if  it  finds  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  do  so.    The 
interest of justice is determined by taking into consideration the reasons for and the length of 
the delay and the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim. See Dickson v. Secretary of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.D.C. 1995). 

 
The  applicant  stated  that  he  did  not  file  his  application  sooner  because  he  did  not 
become aware of the alleged error until August 2003.  However, he could have discovered 
the  alleged  error  sooner  had  he  acted  more  diligently,  particularly  since  the  provision  on 
which  he  relies  for  relief  first  became  effective  in  1982.    The  applicant's  reason  for  the 
untimely filing of his application is not persuasive.   

With respect to the merits, the Board finds that it is not likely that the applicant will 
prevail on his claim because the SRB provision in effect when he reenlisted did not permit for 
penalty-free  cancellation  of  short-term  extensions  to  reenlistment  for  a  longer  period  to 
obtain  an  SRB.    The  current  provision,  which  became  effective  in  1982,  authorizes  the 
cancellation  of  extensions  of  two  years  or  less  without  SRB  penalty to reenlist for a longer 
period to obtain an SRB.  However, the current regulation does not contain any provision for 
retroactivity.  

 
The applicant has failed to establish an error in his record. Nor has he established an 

injustice.  He received the SRB payment authorized at the time he reenlisted. 

 
Accordingly, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this 

case.  The application should be denied for untimeliness.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

 

.   

 

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXX,  XXXXXXXXXXXX,  for  correction  of  his  military 

 

 

 
record is denied. 
 
 
 
August 19, 2004 
Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Terry E. Bathen  

 

 

 
  Dorothy J. Ulmer 

 

 

 

 

 
  Molly McConville Weber