DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-065 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
XXX XX XXXX XX 
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR: Hale, D. 
 
 
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 February 5, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.  
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated October 28, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his military record to show that he was 
entitled  to  a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  2  for 
signing a six-year reenlistment contract on April 29, 2003. 1   

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  in  April  2003,  when  he  had  less  than  30  days 
remaining on his enlistment, he was still a BM3 (boatswain’s mate, third class) but was 
on the advancement list and expected to be advanced to BM2 on May 1, 2003.  Because 
                                                 
1 SRBs allow the Coast Guard to offer a reenlistment incentive to members who possess highly desired 
skills  at  certain  points  during  their  career.    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  authorized  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.” Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone.  Personnel 
Manual, Article 3.C. and 3.C.4.a. 
 

he  knew  that  an  SRB  with  a  higher  multiple  was  authorized  for  BM2s  (but  not  for 
BM3s) under ALCOAST 329/02, he requested a 30-day extension of his enlistment so he 
could reenlist after his advancement to BM2 to receive the SRB.    The applicant noted 
that he had already been allowed to extend his enlistment for two months in February 
2003, and if he had been properly counseled regarding the possibility of advancement 
to BM2 and the subsequent SRB, he would have requested a 6-month extension of his 
enlistment to advance to BM2 and receive the higher SRB. 

 
In support of his claim that he was entitled to an SRB multiple of 2 as a BM2, the 
applicant  provided  copies  of  e-mail  messages  from  various  administrative  personnel. 
These messages, sent to the Personnel Command on May 1, 2003, urged approval of  the 
applicant’s  request  for  a  30-day  extension  so  that  he  could  be  advanced  to  BM2  and 
maximize his SRB.  However, the Personnel Command denied the applicant’s request 
for an extension pursuant to COMDINST 7220.33.2  

 
The  applicant  also  alleged  that  if  evidence  of  his  successful  completion  of  the 
Navigation Rules examination (NAVRULS) had been placed in his military record prior 
to  his  reenlistment,  then  he  would  have  been  eligible  for  an  SRB  multiple  of  2  under 
ALCOAST 182/03. 3 
 

In  support  of  his  allegation  that  he  was  entitled  to  an  SRB  by  virtue  of  his 
NAVRULS  qualification,  the  applicant  submitted  several  documents.    The  first 
document  is  an  electronic  message  from  Coast  Guard  Station  Ft.  Lauderdale  dated 
December  5,  2000,  which  suggests  that  the  applicant  completed  the  NAVRULS 
examination on October 10, 2000.  In addition, the applicant submitted a letter from the 
First Lieutenant of the cutter on which he served in 2000 to the Commanding Officer, 
USCG  Station  Ft.  Lauderdale.    In  this  letter,  the  First  Lieutenant  asserts  that  the 
applicant  successfully  completed  the  NAVRULS  examination  between  June  2000  and 
January 2001, while he and the applicant were serving on the cutter.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

 
 
On August 31, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a period of two 
years,  through  August  30,  2001.    On  January  18,  2001,  he  extended  his  enlistment  for 
                                                 
2 COMDINST 7220.33 was superceded by the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, Chapter 3.C. in October 
2002. 
 
3 ALCOAST 182/03 was not in effect on the applicant’s reenlistment date.  However, ALCOAST 329/02, 
issued on July 3, 2002, was in effect, and established SRB multiples for personnel in certain skill ratings 
who reenlisted or extended their enlistments on or after August 5, 2002, for at least three years.  Under 
ALCOAST 329/02, BM2s were eligible for a Zone A SRB calculated with a multiple of 2.  BM3s with the 
proper NAVRULS qualification were eligible for a Zone A SRB with a multiple of 1.  BM3s with certain 
surfman qualification codes were entitled to a multiple of 1.5. 
 

eighteen  months,  through  February  28,  2003,  to  obligate  sufficient  service  to  accept 
transfer  orders.    On  February  19,  2003,  the  applicant  was  allowed  to  extend  his 
enlistment for two months, through April 28, 2003.  He requested a one or two month 
extension because he intended to leave the Coast Guard and was job hunting. 
 

On April 20, 2003, the applicant submitted a request to extend his enlistment an 
additional 30 days.  The applicant requested this extension because he was waiting to be 
advanced to BM2 and if he advanced to BM2 prior to reenlisting, he would be entitled 
to an SRB multiple of 2 under ALCOAST 329/02.  If the applicant reenlisted before his 
advancement to BM2, he would only receive an SRB multiple of 1 as a BM3 without any 
surfman qualification codes. 
 

On May 1, 2003, after the expiration of the applicant’s enlistment, his April 20, 
2003,  request  for  a  30-day  extension  was  denied.    The  Coast  Guard  noted  that  short-
term extensions for the specific purpose of maximizing an SRB benefit are not allowed.   
Thereafter, the applicant signed a six-year reenlistment contract backdated to April 29, 
2003.  The contract states that he would receive an SRB with a multiple of 1.5.  Also, on 
May 1, 2003, the applicant was advanced to BM2. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  19,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion in which he recommended denying the requested relief 
and granting alternative relief.  He stated that the applicant was not entitled to a Zone A 
SRB multiple of 2 and was erroneously promised a multiple of 1.5 on his reenlistment 
contract.  TJAG stated that the applicant was only eligible for an SRB with a multiple of 
1  because  he  reenlisted  as  a  BM3  and  had  successfully  completed  the  NAVRULS 
examination. 
 

TJAG  stated  that  in  an  effort  to  afford  the  applicant  a  result  that  most  closely 
represents the bargain he claims, the Coast Guard recommends that the Board offer him 
two options: 
 

First, the applicant could have his record corrected by voiding the reenlistment 
contract dated April 29, 2003, and extending his period of service only until he 
can be expeditiously discharged.  

 

 

The second option would be to have the Board correct his extension contract to 
show the actual SRB multiple of 1 to which he was entitled in accordance with 
ALCOAST 329/02.  

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

On April 23, 2004, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 

 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual  
 
 
Article  1.G.15.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  (Periods  of  Extensions  of 
Enlistment) states, in pertinent part, that by voluntary written agreement subject to the 
commanding officer’s approval, career personnel may extend or reextend their term of 
enlistment “for any number of full years not less than two nor greater than six, when 
requested by the member”; “for any number of full years and/or full months up to six 
years  to  ensure  sufficient  obligated  service  for these  purposes…”; “or  for one  year  or 
other such period as Commander (CGPC-epm) may authorize in specific cases.” 
 
 
Article 3.C.3. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual (Written Agreements) states 
that “[a]ll personnel with 10 years or less of 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 3301 (page 7), service record entry outlining the effect that 
particular action has on their SRB entitlement.” 
 
Pertinent ALCOAST 
 
ALCOAST 329/02 was issued by the Commandant on July 3, 2002, and was in 
 
effect from August 5, 2002, through June 30, 2003.  It authorized SRBs for members who 
reenlisted  or  extended  their  current  enlistments  and  established  a  multiple  of  1  for 
BM3s  who  successfully  completed  the  NAVRULS  examination.    It  also  provided  an 
additional  multiple  of  0.5  for  BMs  who  possessed  certain  qualifying  surfman 
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 submission, 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 if he had been properly counseled in February 
2003,  he  would  have  extended  his  enlistment  for  six  months.    However,  the  record 
indicates  that  in  February  2003,  the  applicant  was  intending  to  leave  active  duty  and 
sought a one or two-month extension only to keep him employed during his job hunt.  

Moreover, in February 2003, the applicant did not know that he would be advanced to 
BM2  within  six  months.    The  Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant  was 
miscounseled  in  February  2003.    The  Board  notes  that  in  signing  his  two-month 
extension  contract,  the  applicant  acknowledged  having  been  counseled  regarding  his 
eligibility for an SRB under ALCOAST 329/02. 
 

3. 

5. 

4. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  April  20,  2003,  request  for  a  one-month 
extension  should  have  been  granted  so  that  he  could  get  a  higher  SRB  multiple  as  a 
BM2.  Under Article 1.G.15.a. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, the minimum term 
of a voluntary extension is two years, unless otherwise authorized by the Coast Guard 
Personnel Command (CGPC).  The record indicates that CGPC denied the applicant’s 
request  for  a  one-month  extension.    Although  the  SRB  regulations  do  not  expressly 
address  this  situation,  the  Board  notes  that  Article  3.C.5.5.  prohibits  members  from 
reenlisting  more  than  3  months  before  the  end  of  their  enlistment  “for  SRB  purposes 
alone.”  This provision reflects CGPC’s long-standing policy against the manipulation 
of  enlistment  and  extension  contracts  to  artificially  establish  eligibility  for  an  SRB  or 
higher  SRB  multiple.    The  applicant  has  not  proved  that  the  Coast  Guard  erred  or 
committed  an  injustice  by  refusing  to  approve  his  request  for  a  one-month  extension 
contract. 
 
 
The  applicant  has  proved,  however,  that  the  Coast  Guard  responded  to 
his  request  for  a  one-month  extension  after  his  reenlistment  had  already  expired  and 
that  he  was  miscounseled  about  his  SRB  eligibility.    His  enlistment  contract  clearly 
shows that he was promised a multiple of 1.5 even though he apparently did not have 
the  surfman  qualification  codes  required  under  ALCOAST  329/02.    Moreover,  the 
Coast  Guard  failed  to  document  SRB  counseling  on  a  page  7  when  he  reenlisted  on 
April  29,  2003,  as  required  by  Article  3.C.11.  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual.4  
When an applicant proves that he has received improper counseling, the Board’s policy 
is  to  not  offend  the  regulation  by  fulfilling  the  erroneous  promises,  but  to  return  the 
applicant to the position he would have been in had he been properly counseled.   
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  he  was  denied  any  SRB  because  the  Coast 
Guard  did  not  properly  document  his  completion  of  the  NAVRULS  examination  on 
October  10,  2000.    The  Coast  Guard  has  confirmed  that  his  completion  of  the 
examination was not entered in the record until July 21, 2003, but has admitted in the 
advisory opinion that the applicant completed the examination earlier.  The Board finds 
that the applicant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he successfully 
passed his NAVRULS examination on October 10, 2000.  
 

                                                 
4 Article 3.C.11. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual requires that one of five administrative remarks 
(page 7s) regarding SRB eligibility be prepared whenever a Coast Guard member reenlists or extends an 
enlistment.   

6. 

 
Therefore,  if  the  applicant  had  been  properly  counseled,  he  would  have 
been told that, in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02, he was only eligible for a Zone A 
SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1  because  he  did  not  possess  the  surfman  qualification  codes 
necessary to obtain the additional 0.5 multiple.  
 

7. 

If the applicant had been told on April 29, 2003, that his request for a one-

month extension was denied, he would have had the following options: 
 

a.  Reenlist for 3, 4, 5, or 6 years for an SRB with a multiple of 1 under 

ALCOAST 329/02; 

 

 
8. 
above.   
 

b.  Extend his enlistment voluntarily for two years, pursuant to Article 

1.G.15.a.1. of the Personnel Manual; or 
 

c.  Be discharged from the Coast Guard. 

 
 
Therefore,  the  applicant  should  be  properly  counseled  about  each  of  these 
options,  and  he  should  be  permitted,  at  his  discretion,  to  (1)  change  the  term  of  his 
enlistment contract to 3, 4, or 5 years; (2) void the enlistment contract and extend his 
prior  enlistment  for  2  years;  or  (3)  be  expeditiously  discharged,  in  which  case  the 
enlistment contract shall be void and an extension contract shall be created to cover his 
service from April 29, 2003, until his date of discharge from the Coast Guard. 
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  the  findings 

ORDER 

 

(1) 

(3) 

(2) 

The  term  of  his  April  29,  2003,  reenlistment  contract  may  be  corrected 

The April 29, 2003, reenlistment contract may be voided and replaced with 

The date of his  completion of the NAVRULS examination shall  be corrected to 

The  application  of  BM2  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

 
military record is granted, in part, as follows:  
 
 
October 10, 2000. 
 
 
Following counseling about these options and their effect on his SRB eligibility, 
the applicant shall be given the opportunity to have the Coast Guard correct his record 
in one of the following ways: 
 
 
from 6 years to 3, 4, or 5 years, at his discretion. 
 
 
a two-year extension contract. 
 
 
The  applicant  may  be  expeditiously  discharged  and  the  April  29,  2003, 
reenlistment contract may be voided and replaced with an extension contract covering 
his service from April 29, 2003, until the date of his discharge. 
 
 
329/02 as a result of any correction made to his record pursuant to this Order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                         Dorothy J. Ulmer 
                                                            

The  Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  any  amount  due  under  ALCOAST 

 

 
 Adrian Sevier  

 

 

 
 Quang D. Nguyen