DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2004-079 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   

 

 
 

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 March 16, 2004, upon the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction.  
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  November  12,  2004,  is  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 

The applicant asked the Board to correct his record to show that he is entitled to 
a  selective  reenlistment  bonus  (SRB)  calculated  with  a  multiple  of  3.5,  instead  of  the 
multiple of 2.5 that he received for signing a six-year reenlistment contract on March 21, 
2004.   

 
The applicant alleged that when he signed a six-year extension contract on April 
2, 2003, to obligate service, he was counseled by a yeoman at his former command that 
he would receive an SRB with a multiple of 3.5.1  In support of his request, the applicant 

                                                 
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”, while those who have more than 6 but less than 10 years of active 

submitted  a  signed  memorandum  from  his  current  command,  which  states  that  the 
applicant was required to sign an extension to obligate sufficient service for transfer to 
an overseas assignment.2  Before signing the six-year extension contract to obligate the 
required  service,  the  applicant  was  counseled  regarding  SRBs  and  told  that  he  was 
eligible for an SRB with a multiple of 3.5 pursuant to ALCOAST 329/02. 

 
Shortly after arriving at his new assignment in May 2003, the applicant alleged, 
he was informed by a yeoman at his current command that he (the applicant) had been 
improperly counseled and that his April 2, 2003, extension contract was voidable and 
the  SRB  he  was  promised  was  void  because  the  operative  date  of  the  extension  was 
beyond  his  ten-year  anniversary  date.3    The  applicant  then  alleged  that  he  “had  no 
choice”  but  to  cancel  the  extension  and  immediately  execute  a  new  six-year 
reenlistment contract to obtain an SRB. 
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On March 22, 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard for a term of four 
years,  through  March  21,  1998.    On  March  12,  1998,  the  applicant  extended  his 
enlistment  for  one  month,  through  April  21,  1998.    On  April  1,  1998,  the  applicant 
reenlisted for six years, through March 31, 2004.  On April 2, 2003, the applicant signed 
a  six-year  extension  contract  to  obligate  service  for  an  overseas  assignment.    The 
extension would have become operative at the end of his enlistment on April 1, 2004.  
When  he  executed  the  extension  contract,  the  applicant  was  counseled  that  he  was 
eligible to receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 3.5 in accordance with ALCOAST 
329/02. 
 
 
On March 21, 2004, one day prior to his ten-year service anniversary date, and 
prior  to  the  effective  date  of  the  April  2,  2003,  extension,  the  applicant  cancelled  the 
extension  and  reenlisted  for  six  years  as  a  BM1  (boatswain’s  mate,  first  class)  and 
became eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 2.5 in accordance with ALCOAST 
182/03.  
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

                                                                                                                                                             
duty service are in “Zone B”.   Members may not receive more than one SRB per zone. Personnel Manual, 
Article 3.C. and 3.C.4.a.  
2 Article 4.B.6.b.1. of the Personnel Manual provides that all personnel ordered to OUTCONUS [outside 
continental United States] duty stations shall obligate [service] to complete the full tour.  
3 Pursuant to Article 3.C.4.b.3. of the Personnel Manual, to receive a Zone B SRB, the member must have 
completed  at  least  6  but  no  more  than  10  years  of  active  service  on  the  date  of  reenlistment  or  the 
operative date of the extension.  On the operative date of the applicant’s extension, he would have more 
than 10 years of service and would be ineligible for a Zone B SRB. 

 
On  April  26,  2004,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  (TJAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard 
submitted an advisory opinion recommending the Board deny the requested relief but 
grant  the  applicant  alternative  relief.  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  correct  the  applicant’s  record  by  changing  the  six-year 
extension contract dated April 2, 2003, to a six-year reenlistment.  This will entitle the 
applicant to an SRB with a multiple of 3.5. 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  May  3,  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 

Article  4.B.6.b.1.  states  that  all  personnel  ordered  to  duty  stations  outside  the 

 
Coast Guard Personnel Manual  
 
 
continental United States shall obligate service to complete the full tour. 
 
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  3.5  for 
QM1s. (The applicant was a QM1 before that rating was abolished). 
 
 
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, BM1s were 
eligible for a Zone B SRB calculated with a multiple of 2, with an additional 0.5 multiple 
added for certain coxswain 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: 
 
 
§ 1552.  The application was timely. 
 
 
On  April  2,  2003,  the  applicant  signed  a  six-year  extension  contract  to 
obligate sufficient service to accept an overseas assignment and was counseled that he 

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

1. 

2.  

3. 

would receive a Zone B SRB with a multiple of 3.5 under ALCOAST 329/02.  However, 
the  effective  date of  the  extension  was  April  1,  2004,  —  ten  days  after  the  applicant’s 
ten-year anniversary date of March 22, 2004.  If the extension contract had taken effect, 
the applicant would have been ineligible for an SRB because he would have had more 
than ten years of service on the operative date of the extension, and members with more 
than ten years of service are ineligible for Zone B SRBs. 
 
  
Under Article 3.C.3. of the Personnel Manual, the applicant was entitled to 
proper counseling concerning his eligibility for an SRB under ALCOAST 329/02.  He 
has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  not  properly  counseled 
regarding his eligibility for an SRB and the impact his ten-year anniversary date would 
have on his eligibility.  However, when an applicant proves, as applicant does here, 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  Board  finds  that  if  the 
applicant had been properly counseled, he would have executed a six-year reenlistment 
contract  instead  of  an  extension  contract  on  April  2,  2003,  and  he  would  not  have 
reenlisted on March 21, 2004.  
 
4. 
above.   
 
 

Accordingly,  relief  should  be  granted  in  accordance  with  the  findings 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

  

ORDER 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 
military  record  is  granted,  as  follows:    The  Coast  Guard  shall  void  the  April  2,  2003, 
extension  contract  and  replace  it  with  a  six-year  reenlistment  contract.    The  six-year 
reenlistment contract that he signed on March 21, 2004, shall also be null and void.  The 
Coast  Guard  shall  pay  the  applicant  any  amount  due  in  accordance  with  ALCOAST 
329/02. 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 Philip B. Busch 

 

 

 

 
 Harold C. Davis, M.D. 

 

 

 

 
 George A. Weller