DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-026 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 
 

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 November 17, 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 August 19, 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  A  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)1  with  a  multiple  of  2.5  instead  of  the 
multiple of 2 that he received.  He alleged that upon reenlisting for six years on June 30, 
2003,  he  was  advised  that  under  ALCOAST  182/03,  he  would  receive  an  SRB  with  a 
multiple  of  2  plus  an  additional  .5  for  having  certain  engineering  specialty  codes.    
However,  after  reenlisting  he  was  paid  a  Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  2  under 
ALCOAST 329/02, which was in effect on the date he reenlisted.  The applicant stated 
that the promise of a 2.5 SRB multiple was a factor in his decision to reenlist.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
                                                 
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.” Article 3.C., Coast 
Guard Personnel Manual. 
 

 
On September 27, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of 
four years.  His original four-year obligation was due to expire on September 26, 2003.  
However, on June 30, 2003, he reenlisted for six years through June 29, 2009, whereupon 
he was promised a Zone A SRB, with a multiple of 2.5.   
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual 
 

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 was effective from July 1, 
2003, through July 30, 2004.  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, MK2s were eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated 
with  a  multiple  of  1.5  plus  an  additional  .5  multiple  for  having  certain  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.  

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
 
On  February  2,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  stating  that  the  applicant  was  incorrectly  promised  a 
Zone A SRB with a multiple of 2.5 under ALCOAST 182/03 when he reenlisted on June 
30, 2003.  TJAG stated that ALCOAST 329/02 (not ALCOAST 182/03) was in effect on 
the date of the applicant's reenlistment and it authorized only a multiple of 2 for MK2s.  
He further stated that AlCOAST 182/03, which became effective on July 1, 2003 (after 
the  applicant's  reenlistment),  authorized  only  a  multiple  of  1.5  for  MK2s  plus  an 
additional  .5  for  having  the  required  engineering  competency  codes.    Therefore,  he 

argued  that  the  applicant  would  have  received  only  a  multiple  of  2  whether  he  had 
reenlisted on June 30, 2003 or July 1, 2003.  
 

TJAG stated that the applicant is not entitled to the 2.5 multiple.  However, he 
recommended that the applicant be granted alternative relief, consisting of the options 
set out below:   
 

First,  Applicant  could  have  his  record  corrected  by  voiding  his 
reenlistment contract dated 30 June 2003 and subsequently extending his 
period of service until the BCMR final decision.  Applicant could then be 
discharged  if  he  so  desires.    Under  this  option  the  applicant  would  be 
liable  to  the  Coast  Guard  for  his  unearned  SRB  payments.    The  second 
option would be to have the Board correct his record to show the actual 
SRB multiple of "2" to which he was entitled and the correct authority for 
that multiple.   

  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 

 
 
On  March  5,  2004,  the  Board  received  the  applicant's  reply  to  the  views  of  the 
Coast Guard.  He expressed disappointment that the Coast Guard refused to live up to 
the  terms  of  the  reenlistment  contract.    He  again  noted  the  Coast  Guard's  error  in 
providing  him  with  erroneous  counseling  and  he  requested  to  be  paid  the  2.5  SRB 
multiple.   
 
 
On May 26, 2004, the applicant called the BCMR and asked the Board to correct 
his record to show that he reenlisted for three years on June 30, 2003 rather than having 
reenlisted for six years.  Although the Chair asked the applicant to put this request in 
writing, the Board has received nothing in writing.    
 

 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.      The  applicant  was  paid  an  SRB  multiple  of  2  for  his  June  30,  2003, 
reenlistment under ALCOAST 329/02, which was in effect at that time.  However, when 
he reenlisted, he was incorrectly advised by Coast Guard personnel that he was entitled 
to  an  SRB  multiple  of  2.5  under  ALCOAST  182/03.      Even  though  the  applicant  was 
incorrectly promised the higher multiple, under the regulation he is entitled only to the 
multiple in effect at the time of reenlistment.  See Article 3.C.6. of the Personnel Manual.   

 
3.  In addition, the evidence showed that the applicant would have received only 
a  multiple  of  2  under  either  ALCOAST  329/02  or  182/03.    ALCOAST  329/02 
authorized a multiple of 2 and ALCOAST 182/03 authorized a multiple of 1.5 plus an 
additional .5 for having certain engineering codes.  Therefore, only an SRB multiple of 2 
was authorized for the applicant.  
 

4.    However,  the  applicant  has  presented  evidence  showing  that  he  was 
improperly promised a Zone A 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 offend the 
regulation  by  granting  relief  based  on  the  erroneous  promise,  but  to  return  the 
applicant to the position he would have been in had he been properly counseled. 
 

6.  Therefore, if the applicant had been properly counseled, he would have been 
told that under ALCOAST 329/02 he was eligible only for a multiple of 2.  He would 
have been further advised that ALCOAST 182/03 did not become effective until July 1, 
2003,  and  it  only  authorized  a  multiple  of  1.5  plus  an  additional  .5  for  certain 
competency codes, totaling a multiple of 2.   The applicant has stated that he relied on 
the incorrect counseling in making his decision to reenlist for six years on June 30, 2003. 
Since  the  applicant  has  proved  that  he  was  misadvised  and  has  requested,  in  light 
thereof, that his six-year contract be shortened to three years, the Board will direct this 
relief.  The  Board  is  persuaded  that  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled  he 
probably  would  have  reenlisted only for three years, which he was authorized to do. 
The Board finds that modifying the applicant's six-year reenlistment to three years is a 
more equitable resolution under the circumstances of this case than the alternative relief 
recommended by the Coast Guard, particularly since the applicant has not requested to 
be discharged.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to limited relief. 

7. 

 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Terry E. Bathen 

 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXX,  XXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military record is granted.  His June 30, 2003, reenlistment contract shall be corrected to 
show that he reenlisted for three years, rather than six years, for which he received a 
Zone  A  SRB  under  ALCOAST  329/02.    The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  any 
sum due as a result of this correction.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Molly McConville Weber    

 
 Dorothy J. Ulmer