DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2004-055 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 January 12, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s completed application. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  September  23,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
The  applicant,  a  machinery  technician  second  class  (MK2),  asked  the  Board  to 
correct his military record to make him entitled to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) 
based on five years of newly obligated service rather than just two years.  
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  an  unsigned  statement  from 
 
his  current  command,  to  which  he  transferred  on  January  19,  2003.    The  statement 
indicates that the transfer orders he received in the fall of 2002 required him to obligate 
sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at the new unit before reporting to it on 
January 19, 2003.1  Before signing a contract to obligate the service, the applicant was 
counseled about SRBs by a yeoman second class (YN2) at his prior command and was 
told that there was no multiple for MK3s but that there was a multiple for MK2s.2  At 
                                                 
1 Article 4.B.6. of the Personnel Manual provides that members with less than six years of active duty will 
not be transferred to a new unit unless they have already obligated sufficient service to complete a full 
tour of duty upon reporting to the new unit. 
2 ALCOAST 329/02, issued on July 2, 2002, established SRB multiples for personnel in certain skill ratings 
who reenlisted or extended their enlistments between August 5, 2002, and June 30, 2003, for at least three 
years and up to six years.  Under ALCOAST 329/02, members who were MK2s were eligible for a Zone A 
SRB calculated with a multiple of two.  No SRB multiple was authorized for MK3s.  

the time, the applicant was an MK3 and was on an advancement list and expected to be 
advanced  to  MK2  in  a  few  months.    However,  he  had  to  obligate  the  service  before 
reporting  to  his  new  unit.    The YN2 told him that he could extend his enlistment for 
three years and five months before reporting to his new unit and then reenlist after he 
was advanced to MK2.  The YN2 allegedly never told him that the extension contract 
would count as previously obligated service and reduce his SRB.3  Therefore, the appli-
cant extended his enlistment before reporting to his new unit on January 19, 2003, and 
then reenlisted for six years on June 9, 2003, after he was advanced to MK2.  However, 
because he had signed the extension contract, he received an SRB based on only the 28 
months of service newly obligated under the reenlistment contract. 
 
 
The command’s statement further alleged that the YN2 could have called the MK 
detailer  at  CGPC  and  had  the  applicant’s  orders  changed  to  require  only  one year of 
obligated service.  The command alleged that if the YN2 had told the applicant that his 
extension contract would reduce his SRB, the applicant “would have gone back to the 
detailer to find out if there was any way he could receive a one year extension.” 
 

 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On  September  7,  1999,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  a  term  of 
four  years,  through  September  6,  2003.    In  the  fall  of  2002,  while  still  an  MK3,  the 
applicant received transfer orders to report to a new unit on January 19, 2003.  Because 
the  applicant  had  completed  fewer  than  six  years  of  active  duty,  the  orders  required 
him to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty at the new unit.4  Article 
4.A.5.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that a full tour of duty at the applicant’s new 
unit was four years.  Therefore, to accept the orders and avoid discharge, the applicant 
had to obligate service through at least January 18, 2007. 
 

On  November  2,  2002,  the  applicant  and  the  YN2  signed  an  Administrative 
Remarks  (page  7)  for  his  record  to  document  SRB  counseling.5    On  the  page  7,  he 
acknowledged  having  “read  and  fully  under[stood]  the  contents  and  explanation  of 
COMDTINST 7220.33 (series).[6]  I further acknowledge that I have been advised of the 
effects  on  my  SRB  computation/payment  if  I  enter  into  an  agreement  to  extend  my 
enlistment.”    At  the  time,  ALCOAST  329/02  was  in  effect,  and  it  authorized  an  SRB 
multiple for MK2s but not for MK3s. 
                                                 
3  There is no statement in record from the YN2 about what she told the applicant during his SRB counsel-
ing.  Under Articles 3.C.5.6. and 3.C.7. of the Personnel Manual, only the months of service that are newly 
obligated by an extension or reenlistment contract count in the calculation of SRB payments. 
4 Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6.  
5 Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual provides that “[a]ll personnel with 10 years or less active service 
who reenlist or extend for any period, however brief, shall be counseled on the SRB program.  They shall 
sign an Administrative Remarks, CG-3307 (page 7) service record entry outlining the effect that particular 
action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
6    In  October  2003,  the  contents  of  COMDTINST  7220.33  were  transferred  to  Article  3  of  the  Personnel 
Manual with only minor revisions that are not relevant to the issues in this case. 

 
On  December  4,  2002,  the  applicant  signed  a  41-month  extension  contract— 
obligating  service  from  September  7,  2003,  through  February  6,  2007—to  accept  his 
transfer  orders.    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 an opportunity to read the SRB Instruction; and (4) had all his questions about his 
SRB entitlement answered.7 
 
 
On January 19, 2003, the applicant reported to his new unit.  On June 1, 2003, the 
applicant  was  advanced  to  MK2.    On  June  13,  2003,  the  applicant  reenlisted  for  six 
years,  through  June  8,  2009,  to  receive  the  SRB.    Because  he  had  already  obligated 
service through February 6, 2007, under the extension contract, the applicant received 
an SRB under ALCOAST 329/02 based on 28 months of newly obligated service under 
the contract.8  The six-year reenlistment contract he signed states that he would receive 
an SRB based on 28 months of newly obligated service. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On  April  19,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 

 
 
recommended that the Board deny the applicant’s request. 
 
 
TJAG  stated  that,  contrary  to  the  command’s  statement,  the  record  does  not 
support the applicant’s allegations of error.  TJAG pointed out that the applicant signed 
a  page  7  acknowledging  SRB  counseling  and  “attesting that he read and fully under-
stood  the  contents  and  explanation  of  COMDTINST  7220.33  and  that  he  fully  under-
stood  the  effect  that  his  extension  had  on  his  SRB  entitlements.”    TJAG  stated  that  a 
“member of my staff spoke with [a CWO] of the Coast Guard Personnel Command … 
[who] stated that in accordance with [Article 4.B.6.a.1. of the Personnel Manual], service 
members E-4 and above, with fewer than six years of active duty will normally not be 
transferred  unless  they  reenlist  or  extend  to  have  enough  obligated  service  for  a  full 
tour on reporting to a new unit.”  TJAG alleged that there “is simply no evidence in the 
record to reflect that the Applicant was misinformed about his extension and the effect 
it would have on his SRB.  Instead, it appears that after advancing in rank to MK2 on 1 
                                                 
7  The extension contract, which would have gone into effect on September 7, 2003, was canceled when the 
applicant  reenlisted  for  a  longer  period  on  June  13,  2003.    According  to  the  Coast  Guard,  there  is  no 
remaining paper copy of the extension contract in the record.  However, the quoted language about SRB 
counseling appears on every extension form. 
8 Article 1.G.19.2.b. of the Personnel Manual provides that extension contracts may be canceled prior to 
their operative dates if the member reenlists for a longer period.  However, under Articles 3.C.5.6. and 
3.C.7.,  the  term  of  a  canceled  extension  will  continue  to  count  as  previously  obligated  service  and 
diminish the size of any SRB the member might receive for the longer reenlistment, unless the extension 
was  for  a  term  of  two  years  or  less  and  was  executed  to  fulfill  an  obligated  service  requirement  for 
transfer or training.  Only months of service that are newly obligated under a reenlistment or extension 
contract count in the calculation of an SRB.  

June 2003 and realizing that the SRB reflected in ALCOAST 329/02 was still in effect, 
the Applicant now claims he was miscounseled and requests that he be paid a Zone ‘A’ 
SRB as an E-5.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COAST GUARD’S VIEWS 

 
 
On April 23, 2004, the Chair sent the applicant a copy of TJAG’s advisory opinion 
and  invited  him  to  respond.    On  May  18,  2004,  the  Board  received  the  applicant’s 
response. 
 
The applicant stated that, although he signed the page 7 on November 2, 2002, he 
 
never  received  “Frequently  Asked  SRB  Questions  and  Answers”9  as  required  under 
Article 3.C.11. of the Personnel Manual.  He alleged that if he had seen this section he 
would have known that his 41-month extension would reduce his SRB. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in June 2003, after he learned that a six-year reenlist-
ment would only entitle him to an SRB based on 28 months of newly obligated service, 
his Executive Petty Officer contacted the YN2 at his prior unit and that the YN2 “admit-
ted  that  there  was  maybe  a  bit  of  ‘left  out’  information.”    However,  the  applicant 
alleged, the YN2 refused to admit this in an email because he “didn’t want any reper-
cussions.”  The applicant alleged that in November 2002, the YN2 had “reassured [him] 
many times before [he] signed [the] extension to obligate service for transfer that since 
the extension was for a PCS transfer that it would have absolutely no effect on [his] SRB 
as  long  as  [he]  re-enlisted  prior  to  the  extension  going  into  effect.”    He  alleged  that 
because  of  the  YN2’s  misinformation,  he  “suffered  a  BIG  loss  on  what  I  thought  was 
going to be an SRB based on 72 months of newly obligated service.” 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a statement from a YNC at 
 
his current command.  The YNC stated that in June 2003, the applicant told him that a 
YN2 at his prior unit had told him that he would be able cancel his extension and reen-
list  after  his  advancement  without  having  his  SRB  reduced  by  the  months  of  service 
obligated under the extension contract.  The YNC stated that if he had been involved 
with  the  case  earlier,  he  “would  have  contacted  the  MK  detailer  to  see  if  he  would 
waive the full tour obligation for this member and allow the member to only have to 
obligate  one  to  two  years  from  the  date  he  reported.”    The  YNC  alleged  that  he  had 
another member contact the detailer to see if he would have considered such a request 
and  the  detailer  said  that  “he  might  have  considered  it.”    The  YNC  stated  that  it  “is 
hard  to  say  if  the  MK  detailer  would  have  approved  a  shorter  period  of  obligation[.  
H]owever  I  have  seen  other  members  of  all  rates  request  this,  and  requests  like  this 
have been approved.” 
 

 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

                                                 
9    “Frequently  Asked  SRB  Questions  and  Answers”  was  a  part  of  COMDTINST  7220.33  and  is  now 
incorporated in Article 3.C.12. of the Personnel Manual. 

 
 
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 alleged that he was erroneously counseled that if he extend-
ed his enlistment for 41 months and was advanced while there was still an SRB multiple 
for  his  rating  and  before  the  operative  date  of  the  extension,  he  could  cancel  the 
extension  and  reenlist  for  six  years  and  receive  an  SRB  undiminished  by  previously 
obligated service.  However, in signing both the page 7 on November 2, 2002, and the 
extension  contract  on  December  4,  2002,  the  applicant acknowledged having received 
SRB counseling, reviewed COMDTINST 7220.33 (which includes the “Frequently Asked 
SRB Questions and Answers”), and understanding the effect of the extension on his SRB 
eligibility.    Although  the  applicant’s  current  command  may  believe  his  allegation  of 
miscounseling  and  supports  him,  the  Board  finds  that  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence in the record indicates that he received all of the counseling to which he was 
entitled.  While it is true that in October 2002, the provisions of COMDTINST 7220.33 
were transferred to Article 3.C. of the Personnel Manual, the revisions made to the SRB 
regulations  at  that  time  were  quite  minor and are not relevant to the matter at hand.  
Whether  the  applicant  was  provided  COMDTINST  7220.33  or  Article  3.C.  during  his 
SRB counseling does not effect the outcome of this case because both documents clearly 
state in at least three places that previously obligated service reduces an SRB (unless the 
prior contract that obligated the service was for two years or less).10 
  

3. 

When  the  applicant  received  transfer  orders  in  December  2002,  he  was 
required to obligate sufficient service to complete a full tour of duty (four years) at his 
new  station  before  he  could accept the orders.11  Therefore, at a minimum, he had to 
extend  his  enlistment  for  41  months.    The  applicant  and  a  YNC  at  his  current  unit 
argued  that,  if  he  had  known  that  a  41-month  extension  would  count  as  previously 
obligated  service  and  diminish  his  SRB,  he  would  have  asked  for  and  might  have 
received  a  waiver  of  the  requirement  under  Article  4.B.6.    However,  the  Personnel 
Command  has  confirmed  that  Article  4.B.6.  is  still  in  effect.    The  applicant  has  not 
proven that if had asked for a waiver of the requirement under Article 4.B.6., he would 
have been allowed to accept his transfer orders without obligating sufficient service to 
perform a full tour of duty at his next unit. 

 
4. 

Even  if  the  applicant  was  miscounseled  in  November  2002,  he  is  not 
entitled to relief.  When an applicant proves that he has received improper SRB counsel-
                                                 
10    Compare,  e.g.,  COMDTINST 7220.33, Encl. (1) paras. 1.c.(8) and 3.d.(6), and Encl. (5) Q & A #11 with 
Personnel Manual, Arts. 3.C.2.8., 3.C.5.6., and 3.C.12. Q & A #11. 
11 Personnel Manual, Article 4.B.6. 

ing, the Board’s policy is not to fulfill the erroneous promises made by the applicant’s 
yeoman, but to return the applicant to the position he would have been in had he been 
properly  counseled.    Proper  counseling  in  November  2002  would  have  informed  the 
applicant  (1)  that  he  had to extend his enlistment for at least 41 months to accept his 
transfer orders and stay in the Coast Guard and (2) that if he later became eligible for an 
SRB,  the  41-month  extension would count as previously obligated service and reduce 
his SRB accordingly.  This is exactly what has occurred. 

The  applicant’s  six-year  reenlistment  contract  dated  June  13,  2003, 
expressly states that he would receive an SRB based on 28 months of newly obligated 
service.  He signed it knowing that it would not entitle him to a larger SRB.  Therefore, 
there is no basis in the record for voiding this contract. 
 
 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied. 

 
5. 

6. 

 
 
 
 
 

military record is denied. 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

        

 
 Derek A. Capizzi 

 

 

 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 
 William R. Kraus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  application  of  MK2  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

ORDER