DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-066 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

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 13, 2004, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he was entitled 
to a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) calculated with a multiple of 1.5, instead of the 
multiple of 1 which he received for signing a four-year extension contract on April 25, 
2003.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On June 29, 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a period of four 
years.  While apparently considering an extension or reenlistment, the applicant signed 
a page 7 (CG-3307) on April 23, 2003, in which he acknowledged being advised that his 
SRB multiple was 1 in accordance with ALCOAST 329/02.  The page 7 noted, in part, 
that  “I  [applicant]  have  been  advised  that  my  current  Selective  Reenlistment  Bonus 
(SRB)  multiple  is  ONE  [emphasis  in  the  original]  and  is  listed  in  ALCOAST  329/02, 
which has been made available to me.”  The page 7 is signed and dated by the applicant 
and his counselor. 
 

On  April  25,  2003,  the  applicant  signed  an  extension  contract  extending  his 
enlistment  for  four  years,  through  June  28,  2007.    The  extension  contract  includes  a 
section  titled  SRB  ELIGIBILITY  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  and  states,  in  pertinent  part, 
that “[m]y current Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) multiple under Zone A is 1.5 and 
is  listed  in  ALCOAST  182/03.”    The  extension  contract  is  signed  and  dated  by  the 
applicant and the Officer in Charge. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  April  21,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted  an  advisory  opinion  recommending  that  the  Board  grant  the  applicant 
alternative  relief.    He  stated  that  although  the  applicant  was  erroneously  promised  a 
multiple of 1.5 on his reenlistment contract, he was only eligible for a multiple of 1.    
 

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  extension 
contract  dated  April  25,  2003  and  extending  his  period of  service  only  until  he 
was 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 182/03.  

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On April 26, 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 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 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 plus an additional multiple of 0.5 for having certain surfman qualification codes.   
 
 
ALCOAST 182/03 was issued by the Commandant on April 24, 2003, and was in 
effect from July 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.  Under ALCOAST 182/03, BM3s were 
eligible  for  a  Zone  A  SRB  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  1  and  were  entitled  to  an 
additional 0.5 multiple for having certain surfman qualification 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: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

1. 

2. 

The applicant’s extension contract  dated April 25, 2003, indicates that he 

was  erroneously  promised  a  Zone  A  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1.5  under  ALCOAST 
182/03.  However, this ALCOAST was not in effect on the day the applicant signed the 
extension contract.  ALCOAST 329/02, which was in effect, announced a multiple of 1 
for  BM3s  plus  an  additional  0.5  for  having  certain  surfman  qualification  codes.    The 
applicant did not have any of the authorized surfman qualification codes, and therefore 
he  was  only  entitled  to  an  SRB  with  a  multiple  of  1.    He  was  not  entitled  to  the 
additional  0.5  multiple.    Article  3.C.6 of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Manual  states,  in 
part,  that  “agreements  to  Extend  Enlistments  signed  before  the  effective  date  of  the 
change will be at the old multiple level.”   
 
The applicant was erroneously counseled regarding his entitlement to an 
  
SRB multiple of 1.5.  However, when an applicant proves, as applicant does here, that 
he has received improper counseling, the Board’s policy not to 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.    Therefore,  if  the  applicant  had  been 
properly  counseled,  he  would  have  been  told  that,  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST 
329/02, he was eligible only for a multiple of 1 because he did not possess the surfman 
qualification codes necessary to obtain the additional 0.5 multiple.  

3. 

  

4. 

 
Although it was necessary for the applicant to extend or reenlist by June 
28,  2003,  to  avoid  discharge,  it  is  unclear  from  the  applicant’s  statement  whether  he 
would have extended for the four years had he been cognizant of the fact he was only 
entitled to an SRB multiple of 1.  Therefore, the Board agrees with TJAG that since the 
Coast Guard provided applicant with an erroneous promise, he should have the option 
of voiding his four-year extension contract.  The Board’s policy is to make this option 
available  to  applicants  where  improper  counseling  or  promises  have  occurred.    The 
Board does not find any other relief to be warranted or necessary in this case. 
 
 
5. 
above.   
 
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  the  findings 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

  

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military record 
is granted, as follows:  The applicant shall be given the option of having the April 25, 
2003, extension contract voided and of being discharged from the Coast Guard.  If the 
applicant  chooses  to  be  discharged,  his  record  shall  show  an  extension  of  enlistment 
from April 25, 2003, until the date of his discharge.   
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 Nancy L. Friedman 

 

 

 
 Kathryn Sinniger